Ron Paul and Jessie Ventura?

[jmervyn]

2nd Amendment: I don't 100% fathom the difference, but if making it a collective right means they can take away people's guns (or block them from buying them), then I'm for individual rights.

The 'collective right' argument means Nasty Guard, police, security forces are the only ones who qualify under the term "militia" (claiming so also requires a bass-ackward reading to support).

Citizens United: Allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on ads for campaigns is no better than allowing unions to strong arm people into voting democratic.

This demonstrates confusion. A company cannot act as a 'bundler' for their employees, but a Union can donate any amount without even letting their members know? Too much Kool-aid there, Steve.

I'd like to find a way to get money out of politics. we might get better politicians.

For starters, how about we hold the mo-fo's under the same legal standards everyone else has to comply with - most particularly insider trading? Of course, they passed a bill claiming they did, after yanking out any remaining teeth and giving a free lobotomy.

Abortion: Abortion is terrible, but it shouldn't be illegal. When the morality of something is this murky, we should err on the side of freedom by letting the individual closest to the issue make the correct determination.

Kool-Aid potential again, here. The matter should be up to the states, so any time you hear about making women suffer &c. it's because the Democrats don't want to lose that yummy infanticide funding stream.

Boy Scouts: they are a private organization, and while it's pretty crappy to say hey kid, we're kicking you out because you're ***, again, they should be able to do whatever they want in a private organization. Would you still feel the same if someone was throwing out a kid because he was black? See i think even you realize that's crappy.

Point being, the reason the BSA is on the shyte list is because they didn't want proud queer Scoutmasters evangelizing to the kiddies. Nobody likes to discuss the links between queer behavior and pedophilia because it's not Politically Correct, but that won't stop the ACLU from claiming discussion of it is equivalent to racism... somehow. The BSA used to have far more overt support from Gov't agencies since it's a National organization, but ever since the communist ACLU types took this up the Gov't has had to throttle almost all support.

I remember such seemingly gross case of Gov't waste - an Army Kiowa chopper delivered our load of paper plates so that the pilot could clock some flight hours. Also, the 11th Armored Combat Regiment sent their field kitchen unit on training as our mess hall. Yet we don't bat an eye when the taxpayer pays for such efforts in totality and they're applied to other nations...

1. Where did I claim Ron Paul was morally superior because of who supports him? He's morally superior because of his positions and track record.

It was inherent in your argument, where Ron Paul is the primary recipient of military donators.

2. And even if I had, how would the endorsement of a prostitute refute that anyway?

It shows your argument as a logical fallacy, along the 'appeal to authority' line. "If the noble U.S. military supports him, he must be greeeaaat!" line.

so I don't see how a prostitute would be a worse endorsement than what we already know.

Right, it displays the same fallacious argument, which is why I brought it up. However, Paul has endorsed and embraced them, which is the reason it's dismissible. Now, if he supports and embraces the prostitutes...

So, you actually struck out there, Mr. Baseball.

[Stevinator]

The 'collective right' argument means Nasty Guard, police, security forces are the only ones who qualify under the term "militia" (claiming so also requires a bass-ackward reading to support).

i couldn't finish that one, it's a long link, but from the part i read, I would be in support of of individual rights to gun ownership. Also, i think we get too caught up in the exact words of the consistution. clearly, they meant that people should be able to own guns. they also thought we should all be in militias. That made a lot of sense at the time. militias might not be necessary or useful anymore, but that doesnt mean we should take away the guns.

This demonstrates confusion. A company cannot act as a 'bundler' for their employees, but a Union can donate any amount without even letting their members know? Too much Kool-aid there, Steve.

That's not Kool-aid. I didn't like the idea that companies can spend nearly unlimited amounts to support a candidate for the very same reason i don't like that unions can do the same. The teachers union always backs Democrats, but teachers in general are fairly conservative. I'm not putting a stat on that, because my evidence is anecdotal, but that is my experience. My argument is that both corporations and unions should not be able to claim to represent their employees or members and then get free reign to spend as much as they can afford. the civic duty falls to the individual. As corporations build more and more power, and become more and more international (my friend owns a toy and games company that probably does <500k in revenue--and he imports from china), the interests of corporations do not necessarily align with those of citizens. People, specifically citizens are the ones who should be putting up money for their candidates.

The supreme court can't fix that problem, they put a band-aid on it by allowing corporations to do what the unions already did. that doesn't mean they fixed it, or that the decision was right.

For starters, how about we hold the mo-fo's under the same legal standards everyone else has to comply with - most particularly insider trading? Of course, they passed a bill claiming they did, after yanking out any remaining teeth and giving a free lobotomy.

You are preaching to the choir on this one.

Kool-Aid potential again, here. The matter should be up to the states, so any time you hear about making women suffer &c. it's because the Democrats don't want to lose that yummy infanticide funding stream.

It doesn't matter who makes that determination, state or federal, what matters is that the government doesn't decide it belongs in our women's wombs. The right is very selective about their paternalism. I'm not.

By the way, so if it does go to the states, and since I'm in a blue one, you're okay that abortion would be legal in Illinois, or any of the many other states where it would be? How about women driving across the border to where they could be performed? I think this leave it to the states answer is a cop out for conservatives. Yes, legally it should be left to the states (or the people) because of the tenth, but then we're guaranteed to have several states do the wrong thing. That doesn't resolve the issue, it just shuffles it around. It's a campaign answer, not a real one.

Point being, the reason the BSA is on the shyte list is because they didn't want proud queer Scoutmasters evangelizing to the kiddies. Nobody likes to discuss the links between queer behavior and pedophilia because it's not Politically Correct, but that won't stop the ACLU from claiming discussion of it is equivalent to racism... somehow. The BSA used to have far more overt support from Gov't agencies since it's a National organization, but ever since the communist ACLU types took this up the Gov't has had to throttle almost all support.

Hate to break it to you, but you can't catch the ghey. it doesn't work like that. I have homosexual friends, and I'm certainly not changing teams. Also, there is a difference between a *** guy who likes adults and a *** guy who likes kids. there's also straight guys who like little girls. the world is full of weirdos. obviously, the weirdos who like kids shouldn't be scout leaders. no one is arguing anything different.

Claiming that because you're *** you're also a pedophile is pretty repulsive. I can see why that might be equated to racism. Is that REALLY your position? Homosexual= Pedophile ?!?!? I really hope not.

I was a boy scout as a kid. I was one step away from eagle, but i got distracted by work and women. Looking back, i wish i had finished all that stuff and gotten it, instead i got minimum wage and some awkward groping. i did learn a lot from boy scouts and i think it's a good organization. the whole god thing was rather de-emphasized in my troop--we didn't really talk about it or anything. i don't even know what denomination of church it was that sponsored us. i could see that being a bigger deal in other areas, but it's not all a super religious-*** hating organization, and i hope that one day the boy scouts see the light on this one. Who knows, maybe you'll see alternative groups spring up.

I remember such seemingly gross case of Gov't waste - an Army Kiowa chopper delivered our load of paper plates so that the pilot could clock some flight hours. Also, the 11th Armored Combat Regiment sent their field kitchen unit on training as our mess hall. Yet we don't bat an eye when the taxpayer pays for such efforts in totality and they're applied to other nations...

I'm not sure how this relates to the boy scouts, who i don't think take taxpayer money, but if we're flying useless missions, to fill some quota or something they should stop....I'm not sure how else to reply to that.

Right, it displays the same fallacious argument, which is why I brought it up. However, Paul has endorsed and embraced them, which is the reason it's dismissible. Now, if he supports and embraces the prostitutes...

While I'm sure he appreciates their limited government attitude, I don't think you'll see a lot of "embracing"......

[SaroDarksbane]

It was inherent in your argument, where Ron Paul is the primary recipient of military donators.

Not really. It was more along the lines of "If you say you support the troops, perhaps you should listen to what they're saying". That doesn't mean that Ron Paul is more "moral" because of their support.

In fact, I don't even think the US's worship of the military is particularly healthy, and I tend to regard with suspicion any man who offers to suppress his reason and morality in order to be commanded, so I would never say that simply getting the military vote makes a candidate morally superior.

It shows your argument as a logical fallacy, along the 'appeal to authority' line. "If the noble U.S. military supports him, he must be greeeaaat!" line.

When I said: "How would the endorsement of a prostitute refute that anyway?"
What I meant was: "What's wrong with being endorsed by a prostitute?"

You may as well have said "SEE!!! Ice cream vendors are all for Ron Paul! Questioning your loyalties now??"

My answer is the same in either case: "No, not really. What's the problem?" Did you think I would find the endorsement of a prostitute abhorrent or embarrassing or something?

[BobCox2]

Why the Military likes Ron?

[jmervyn]

clearly, they meant that people should be able to own guns.

Clearly, the Democrat Party thinks you're a borderline criminal. Guns are only for the Gov't, or for rich people who are steadfast Progressives to whom the law need not apply. It's OK when they have them.

they also thought we should all be in militias. That made a lot of sense at the time.

Depending on where you live, it makes a lot of sense now. Urban areas could definitely stand to have an armed Neighborhood Watch, but most of them are under Progressive/Left domination and can't.

I'm not putting a stat on that, because my evidence is anecdotal, but that is my experience.

Uh, your experience is anomalous, to put it incredibly nicely. The reason it's Kool-Aid is that corporations are already under far more strict legality than Unions, yet Unions donate without approval - and often without much scrutiny whatever. The game is rigged, to be sure, but it's been rigged for the Progressives for at least 40 years and probably longer.

what matters is that the government doesn't decide it belongs in our women's wombs.

There's hypocrisy in the claim of the Gov't not being in women's wombs, yet bankrolling abortion AND deciding that medical providers shall provide care by law, at a loss. I'll take it on faith that you're not being a hypocrite.

By the way, so if it does go to the states, and since I'm in a blue one, you're okay that abortion would be legal in Illinois, or any of the many other states where it would be? How about women driving across the border to where they could be performed? I think this leave it to the states answer is a cop out for conservatives.

(Oddly enough, I started typing this in the previous block) The only reason I'll cut Romney some slack is that a state DOES have the right to decide some of these issues; our Republic was supposed to be a confederacy, not an oligarchy. All my professional career, I've seen the shortcomings of centralizing power and management. It's not a cop-out; it's that a state is supposed to stand or fall on merit.

Fascism/Communism/Socialism cannot exist in isolation; like any other cancer it will burn itself out. So CA, my state of NY, NJ, IL, and all the other Progressive havens would be burning if they weren't able to both leech from the other areas and force their policy upon them. The Progressive response is generally that these states are actually the ones who contribute most financially by comparison with the flyovers (which can appear true, if one shuffles the cards appropriately). However, if not for Federal overreach, companies would have fled them decades ago for better environments as seen by the abomination regarding Boeing.

Hate to break it to you, but you can't catch the ghey. it doesn't work like that.

Untrue, if you think about it. Don't pull the "some of my best friends" bit, I've had sufficient experience. At issue is that you don't put someone in charge of children who will guide them into a lifestyle which is not "morally straight", and there's more than sufficient numbers of queer folk who evince the label. Queer IS a choice, though not necessarily conscious or willing, and the point is that BSA don't want that choice evangelized or even risk the perception of doing so.

obviously, the weirdos who like kids shouldn't be scout leaders. no one is arguing anything different.

The ACLU most certainly wants 'weirdos' as scout leaders, and Scouting doesn't agree - BSA is unwilling to risk the chance based on past experience, to say nothing of the all-too-frequent sneers about queer Scoutmasters (and in the British Public School system, Headmasters).

Is that REALLY your position? Homosexual= Pedophile ?!?!? I really hope not.

Of course it isn't. But the point is that queer/drunk/druggie/abusive behaviors often overlap, and none of them should be near der kiddies. There ARE studies that link queer to pedo tendencies, but those are so hatefully and angrily denied that it doesn't merit bringing them into the discussion. Easy enough to leave the issue as being a perception of immorality that is not in keeping with standards of conduct.

i could see that being a bigger deal in other areas, but it's not all a super religious-*** hating organization, and i hope that one day the boy scouts see the light on this one. Who knows, maybe you'll see alternative groups spring up.

Since I not only DID make Eagle, but was also an Assistant Scoutmaster afterward (plus am actively involved now, and likely to be more so in the future) I figure I have a pretty clear point of view on the matter. You (Steve) are confusing religion with hating. Why? That says more about you than about the accusation you make. If the BSA sanitized things to any greater degree than it already has, there wouldn't be much point in reciting the Oath.

Scouting is completely tolerant of religious diversity, but it definitely isn't pro-Atheism. IF your organization is devoted to nurturing youth and training them to be outstanding young men, it shouldn't be considering "King and King" as training material. The Girl Scouts is currently taking a lot of flak for exactly that sort of failing.

I'm not sure how this relates to the boy scouts, who i don't think take taxpayer money, but if we're flying useless missions, to fill some quota or something they should stop....I'm not sure how else to reply to that.

It's that the ACLU will play "six degrees of separation" in order to harass the BSA; the BSA doesn't get tax money but they get logistical support from Gov't agencies.

Not really. It was more along the lines of "If you say you support the troops, perhaps you should listen to what they're saying".

Doesn't wash. Nice try though.

Did you think I would find the endorsement of a prostitute abhorrent or embarrassing or something?

No, I just think it's hee-larious how you're desperately trying to re-redefine the situation in order to claim you didn't do what you did.

Why the Military likes Ron?

That's a factor. Not an overriding one though, because by that logic both McCain and BobDole would have received overwhelming support.

[SaroDarksbane]

Doesn't wash. Nice try though.

If you're going to start every conversation by telling the other person what they meant, then there's no sense in having the conversation in the first place.

[Stevinator]

Clearly, the Democrat Party thinks you're a borderline criminal. Guns are only for the Gov't, or for rich people who are steadfast Progressives to whom the law need not apply.

The hyperlink monster ate your link. That guy is advocating for allowing kids to carry firearms, which will never happen. the poor urban areas that might be helped by gun ownership are the exact places where it is the least likely, and where people are least likely to afford a gun even if it was miraculously passed.

Depending on where you live, it makes a lot of sense now. Urban areas could definitely stand to have an armed Neighborhood Watch, but most of them are under Progressive/Left domination and can't.

Isn't that essentally what the gang does? sort of acts as the law in it's territory? That's the problem isn't it? their sort of law isn't known to be the fairest or the most merciful.

Uh, your experience is anomalous, to put it incredibly nicely. The reason it's Kool-Aid is that corporations are already under far more strict legality than Unions, yet Unions donate without approval - and often without much scrutiny whatever. The game is rigged, to be sure, but it's been rigged for the Progressives for at least 40 years and probably longer.

I think the problem here is your definition of conservative and mine are rather different. Also, you went back to decrying the unions while the point of my post was ignored. it was wrong for corporations to be treated as people, AND it is wrong for unions to be able to back candidates the way they do. money should come from people, not from organizations or corporations or unions.

All this nonsense about the rights of groups is irritating. A company, a church, a union, none of these should have rights. People have rights. organizations are just people. if the union members want to voluntarily support a candidate, great. i don't even mind if the union tells them how awesome he/she is. but individuals need to be making their own choices. and it's equally wrong for a corporation or a church or a union to pledge money donation or generated by employees or members who may not agree or what their hard work put towards a particular candidate. If my employer (especially if i was also a part owner) took money and pledged it to a particular campaign, i would be pissed. And that has happened--albeit indirectly.

Since you brought the church thing up. that also annoys me. the church does not have rights. you can practice your religion and not have an abortions or whatever, but if a non-catholic woman goes to a non catholic doctor, and wants the procedure done, then that should be allowed (everywhere), and if a non-catholic who works for a cathcolic organization wants to make an arrangement with a non-catholic insurance provider that would cover that procedure, then they should be allowed. Hell, if a catholic says I don't like the church's stance and I want this covered, they should too. Individual liberty. that's what conservatives are supposed to stand for. Churches though are the very thing you rail against. they're groupthink and supression of the individual.

That's why this whole "true conservative" thing is a joke.

There's hypocrisy in the claim of the Gov't not being in women's wombs, yet bankrolling abortion AND deciding that medical providers shall provide care by law, at a loss. I'll take it on faith that you're not being a hypocrite.

You changed the subject. and you're trying to pin Obamacare on me. I've said before that employers and healthcare should be separated, but that i didn't have all the answers for the system. that's not support for obamacare, quite the opposite.

By the way, if they want, instead of them paying, they can take all those tax dollars they didn't pay in income taxes or property taxes and use that money that we the taxpayers gave them to pay for it. how about that?

(Oddly enough, I started typing this in the previous block) The only reason I'll cut Romney some slack is that a state DOES have the right to decide some of these issues; our Republic was supposed to be a confederacy, not an oligarchy. All my professional career, I've seen the shortcomings of centralizing power and management. It's not a cop-out; it's that a state is supposed to stand or fall on merit.

Good luck putting that into a 30 second spot.

Fascism/Communism/Socialism cannot exist in isolation; like any other cancer it will burn itself out. So CA, my state of NY, NJ, IL, and all the other Progressive havens would be burning if they weren't able to both leech from the other areas and force their policy upon them. The Progressive response is generally that these states are actually the ones who contribute most financially by comparison with the flyovers (which can appear true, if one shuffles the cards appropriately). However, if not for Federal overreach, companies would have fled them decades ago for better environments as seen by the abomination regarding Boeing.

Not an answer. you're very dodgy today.
I am intrigued at which cards you thought were being shuffled in which way, but really it doesn't matter. some states are going to generate more income and some less. some will get funding some less. if we shrink both of those pies it becomes less and less of an issue.

Untrue, if you think about it. Don't pull the "some of my best friends" bit, I've had sufficient experience. At issue is that you don't put someone in charge of children who will guide them into a lifestyle which is not "morally straight", and there's more than sufficient numbers of queer folk who evince the label. Queer IS a choice, though not necessarily conscious or willing, and the point is that BSA don't want that choice evangelized or even risk the perception of doing so.

wow. That's pretty terrible. there is absolutely no reason why a *** guy can't be a scoutmaster, except for bigots like you.

Let's assume for a moment that there was a *** couple who adopted and had a child, and wanted to be involved (like parents are), and was not a pedophile. you're saying that the dad SHOULD be blocked from attending meetings, going on trips, perhaps acting as a scoutmaster in some capacity? You're not just saying the BSA COULD stop them, you're saying they SHOULD? Because the kids could catch the ghey, and most homos are pedos.

And that's not what morally straight means.

. . . and morally straight.

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

Respect and defend the rights of all people. now if your religion says to hate gays, (which I'm sure it does not), then you might have an argument. but it doesn't.

The ACLU most certainly wants 'weirdos' as scout leaders, and Scouting doesn't agree - BSA is unwilling to risk the chance based on past experience, to say nothing of the all-too-frequent sneers about queer Scoutmasters (and in the British Public School system, Headmasters).

homosexual doesn't not necessarily mean weirdo. granted some are, but so are a lot of straight people. have you been on the internet? go to any pron site and look at some of the categories. yikes! right?

Of course it isn't. But the point is that queer/drunk/druggie/abusive behaviors often overlap, and none of them should be near der kiddies. There ARE studies that link queer to pedo tendencies, but those are so hatefully and angrily denied that it doesn't merit bringing them into the discussion. Easy enough to leave the issue as being a perception of immorality that is not in keeping with standards of conduct.

You do know that there are straight pedophiles too. it's a whole separate thing from the ghey. And even if there was some link, that doesn't mean you can condemn all gays for eternity. There's also a link between white men and serial killers. Lock us up!

It's angrily defended because it's idiocy. It sounds a lot like racism and sexism. It's off-putting just to hear someone say it (or type it) in any serious way. it's like listening to the KKK chants. How can you not see that?

Since I not only DID make Eagle, but was also an Assistant Scoutmaster afterward (plus am actively involved now, and likely to be more so in the future) I figure I have a pretty clear point of view on the matter. You (Steve) are confusing religion with hating. Why? That says more about you than about the accusation you make. If the BSA sanitized things to any greater degree than it already has, there wouldn't be much point in reciting the Oath.

Congrats. If their reasons for discluding homosexuals are as yours, then they are haters. That says about me that I really don't have a taste for bigotry. As much as the religious say that they're all about love, here's another instance of them actively hating. It's not fair to treat all religious as the same as you, i know, and i don't. but when it comes up in a political discussion, it's always hate filled.[/QUOTE]

Scouting is completely tolerant of religious diversity, but it definitely isn't pro-Atheism. IF your organization is devoted to nurturing youth and training them to be outstanding young men, it shouldn't be considering "King and King" as training material. The Girl Scouts is currently taking a lot of flak for exactly that sort of failing.

My troop didn't have a book list.
And yes, there was a repeated reference to god, but it was clear they didn't care which one, and they never asked. As long as you had some god you were okay. it's been a while, but I don't recall there ever being a reference to more than one god. i'm pretty sure they wanted you to pick a particular god and worship that one.
I was a scout before my religious searching started. at that point the catholics had annoyed me and i already had issue with them, but i hadn't really asked myself any of the big questions yet. none of that really got going until i was older. I'm kinda glad i didn't get too inquisitive then. i have fond memories of the scouts, and if i had gotten the same response i got from the Priest, i might not.

[BobCox2]

a LITTLE dATED BUT THE aMAGRAMS ALL STILL WORK!
Ron and Mitt are interesting.

My I'm Rotten

and

Our Plan



I need Jessie Ventura?

and Newt and Santorum

[jmervyn]

If you're going to start every conversation by telling the other person what they meant, then there's no sense in having the conversation in the first place.

I could make some sort of "I know you are but what am I" riposte, but I'm not in the mood. That Detroit article made me grumpy.

The hyperlink monster ate your link.

Hmm. Maybe this one?

That guy

"That guy" is Thomas Sowell, who I often consider one of the luminaries of conservatism. To wit -

Voters with forty years of politically correct education are ecstatic to have the first black president. They just love the idea even if we did get Flavor Flav instead of Thomas Sowell.

While it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Sowell is advocating the arming of inner city yoof, there's a number of quotes from the Founders regarding firearms training from early years that would back him up if he had.

Isn't that essentally what the gang does? sort of acts as the law in it's territory? That's the problem isn't it? their sort of law isn't known to be the fairest or the most merciful.

A fair point, as far as it goes. Most criminal organizations start as protection rackets claiming to be defenders of the home turf. The difference is that street gangs prey on the larger society specifically because the society is unwilling or unable to defend itself. If the Detroit scenario was writ large, as is likely, the punks will mostly keep to reenactments of dance-offs from "West Side Story" and keep the thuggery on the down-low.

I think the problem here is your definition of conservative and mine are rather different.

Conservative <> Libertarian, for starters.

it was wrong for corporations to be treated as people, AND it is wrong for unions to be able to back candidates the way they do.

I pointed out that nobody much stands in the way of unions (and Planned Parenthood, and Soros PAC's, and FNMA/FMAC, and assorted other Progressive groups) dumping shyteloads of cash on Democrats, but you'll find a billion articles challenging corporate "personhood" while not even considering the subsequent right of donation as legitimate. Not quite apples v. oranges, but more like v. apple saplings.

and it's equally wrong for a corporation or a church or a union to pledge money donation or generated by employees or members who may not agree or what their hard work put towards a particular candidate. If my employer (especially if i was also a part owner) took money and pledged it to a particular campaign, i would be pissed. And that has happened--albeit indirectly.

Perhaps one of the two of us is mistaken, but from my understanding it is completely legal for this to occur with the union, but completely ILLEGAL for it to occur with church or corporation. I'm certain that I have been aware of any number of legal steps designed for curtailment of such "blind" donations by church or company.

Hell, if a catholic says I don't like the church's stance and I want this covered, they should too. Individual liberty. that's what conservatives are supposed to stand for. Churches though are the very thing you rail against. they're groupthink and supression of the individual.

Uh, Steve, maybe you're completely oblivious to what the real issue is here? None of what you just said is somehow forbidden; Billy Joel's disgusting little song about a Catholic Girl not putting out for him was because he expected full service SINCE she was Catholic. There's a number of foul yokels in Technomancer's branch of the woods that don't even consider Catholics to be Christian (thus exposing them to deserved derision). The issue is simply and openly that Obama/Sebelius want the Papacy paying for abortions so as to make them "free" as part of Obamacare. Kind of as if he approached the Anti-Defamation League and demanded they financially support Louis Farrakhan, or NOW pay for Dice Clay's tours.

That's why this whole "true conservative" thing is a joke.

A joke because you're laboring under a variety of misapprehensions? I don't get you here.

You changed the subject. and you're trying to pin Obamacare on me.

I'm pointing out that the whole "Gov't out of my womb" claim is often made by blatant hypocrites.

By the way, if they want, instead of them paying, they can take all those tax dollars they didn't pay in income taxes or property taxes and use that money that we the taxpayers gave them to pay for it. how about that?

Huh?

Good luck putting that into a 30 second spot.

It's why Romney is being cudgeled by Newt & others. Not a clear topic if you don't understand Federal overreach and role of the Republic to begin with.

Not an answer. you're very dodgy today.

Sure it's an answer, and I don't even need to do my "Fast Show" impersonation about 'dodgy'. Specifically, yes, women should be able to cross the border to get scraped. For all the vile Planned Parenthood insinuation about coathangers, this was the status quo in many areas prior to Roe v. Wade. The extrapolation is economic in nature; if there are REALLY so many sluts in the state population that abortion was an out-of-control demand, other factors come into play as well, not the least of which is condemnation for burdening the society with a plethora of unsupported bastards and the resultant negative social effects. The reason the situation exists in the first place is interference at the Federal level: dissolution of the Black family, Progressive love of eugenics, forced dependency on Gov't, &c.

if we shrink both of those pies it becomes less and less of an issue.

The Progressive claim is that flyover states leech off the benevolent, self-sacrificing Blue hubs. Said hubs can't afford to shrink either pie.

wow. That's pretty terrible. there is absolutely no reason why a *** guy can't be a scoutmaster, except for bigots like you.

So I'm a bigot because, in equal fashion, I wouldn't want a slut raising my daughter? Or a drunkard tutoring my kids after school? An Islamist teaching Sunday School? If one rejects the falsehood that being queer is genetic (as a significant number of queers do out of hand), AND that it is a lifestyle choice which disagrees with the basic aims of the group, then it is you who patently holds the bigoted, wrong-minded position.

You're not just saying the BSA COULD stop them, you're saying they SHOULD? Because the kids could catch the ghey, and most homos are pedos.

In the same way the BSA doesn't let adults be solo with the kiddies - you trivialize the issue in order to support a false proposition. A queer parent isn't banned from Scouting as you infer, but they are NOT allowed to proselytize - which is factually what the ACLU demand supports. They want a Scoutmaster to be leading his/her/its troop in Pride Parades and taking outings (horrible word choice) to "Ghey Days" at Disney, perhaps to catch the stage show running next to the Country Bear Jamboree (Google if you have the stomach or interest). That, in fact, IS what morally straight means. I gone through too many days worth of military ethics, above and beyond the boy-level leadership training, to be able to take your tut-tutting seriously.

Respect and defend the rights of all people. now if your religion says to hate gays, (which I'm sure it does not), then you might have an argument. but it doesn't.

Since you believe that denying a leadership position to someone who is considered perverse is the same as hatred, there's not much point in further discussion. I'm sure you'd also support and condone the "Bear show" or a Pride parade for the kids as I mentioned previously, but that's why Progressives don't do so well when it comes to talking about absolutes in morality.

homosexual doesn't not necessarily mean weirdo. granted some are, but so are a lot of straight people. have you been on the internet? go to any pron site and look at some of the categories. yikes! right?

Not the issue, and neither is it relevant. ANY kind of perv is going to be denied a leadership position, and that's in full consideration that people aren't exactly para-sailing in to take the job.

You do know that there are straight pedophiles too. it's a whole separate thing from the ghey. And even if there was some link, that doesn't mean you can condemn all gays for eternity. There's also a link between white men and serial killers. Lock us up!

Trivializing to debase as if a strawman, yet again. Would you want someone taking care of your kids to be a barfly?

It's angrily defended because it's idiocy. It sounds a lot like racism and sexism. It's off-putting just to hear someone say it (or type it) in any serious way. it's like listening to the KKK chants. How can you not see that?

Because I have a larger, wider, and senior point of view. As you get older and wiser, you may be shocked to find yourself seeing things more as I do.

It's not fair to treat all religious as the same as you, i know, and i don't. but when it comes up in a political discussion, it's always hate filled.

It's hilarious to see you waving your complete ignorance and lack of self-awareness so proudly. This is what, the sixth or seventh time you've called me a hater or bigot? If you were arrested for public drunkenness or smoking weed, would I be a bigoted hater for not insisting you be released?

My troop didn't have a book list.

Of course they did. There's a whole stinkin' library.

As long as you had some god you were okay. it's been a while, but I don't recall there ever being a reference to more than one god. i'm pretty sure they wanted you to pick a particular god and worship that one.

There's a deliberate policy to keep it vague, because the point is general reverence rather than multi-culti bullcrap that you probably are more familiar with. No reason polytheism would be excluded, actually.

none of that really got going until i was older. I'm kinda glad i didn't get too inquisitive then. i have fond memories of the scouts, and if i had gotten the same response i got from the Priest, i might not.

Sad thing is to see the intense hatred you developed later as something you believe is wholesome. Not really part of Scouting at all. But in your twisted, reverse-image world, it's <MY> hatred and <MY> bigotry...

[jmervyn]

Enjoyable linky movie fun regarding Steve's union issues...

both Michigan and Minnesota tried to extend this forced-unionism into day-care operations as well as home-care situations. There is no reason to force parents who receive Medicaid to care for developmentally-disabled children into unions, except to pick their pockets for the benefit of union bosses and political parties. It’s positively ghoulish, as I wrote at the time, and only the efforts of Republican-controlled legislatures in both states kept them from forcing babysitters into unions.