Someone

You must not work anywhere that has any policies that try to limit the threat of litigation. If it's not a thought process, what would you call it? And it's not always wrong. IF this is how they came to their conclusion in this instance, I would agree with you but companies, groups, etc have to do what they think is best. You can't make somebody do something against their will. You can choose not to support it, which I recommended to you earlier in this post. Ragging on and on and on in Huskerboard won't change anything no matter how hard you try. So now the BSA is a criminal organization since they are putting their interests first? How are they NOT "doing what's best" for the kids with this policy? You can't understand anything but your own rhetoric because you choose not to. If a person has a differing opinion than yours in this forum, you try to beat them into submission to see only your way. When in reality all you do is piss them off. 1. I am not trying to change BSA policy by ragging on and on about them on a Husker forum. Just having a pubic discussion. 2. I never said the BSA is a criminal organization (although they have some pending civil litigation re: how they handled past reports of sexual abuse by their leaders. Putting their own interests above children is not a crime but is in clear conflict with their objectives. 3. How are they NOT "doing what's best" for the kids with this policy? Two way: a: A young leader who earns the rank Eagle Scout and has years of service working with younger scouts who happens to admit that he is gay is going to literally get drummed out of the organization when he turns 18 because he is no longer fit to work with scout youth. Such a concept is so flawed and so absurd that our pack is working on the details of what the ceremony will be called and what it will include. The boys came up with the idea. Will it be a divestiture ceremony or Life Unrank Ceremony or my favorite: Court of Dishonor. The very concept is absurd. b: BSA has trouble recruiting leaders at the youngest scout levels, often because the newest scouts are from households that haven't been part of scouting. There have been specific examples where a Den leader who ise the parent of one of the young cubs that just happens to have 2 moms has been dismissed because she is gay. This harms the youth who now are without a den leader. It sends a message to the youth that it is appropriate to jusdge others based on who they are, not what they do.

Done. Taking action is often better than just complaining. Unless the topic is gun use and the action one takes involves doing something illegal with a gun -- that action is never good action -- not that you would ever consider doing such a thing.

I want what you're smoking... As for the safe haven for AQ operations, we don't need assets there to monitor them. What is needed from the C.I.A. is a more aggressive stance against AQ and other terrorist factions, instead of sitting back and reacting to what they do... Someone is off base here. Is it you are me? I post I made was supposed to have a link. "Lybia could become a democratic model in a region struggling to overcome generations of authoritarianism". (As you an see in the Gun Control thread, my browser seems to be having issues with the formating tool in this BBS software.) So the comment that made you suggest I must be on drugs is straight from an editorial written by 3 non-partisan experts on Lybia. No, you're on drugs... Folks in that part of the world, have hated each other for centuries, and if you think that us having CIA assets in that part of the world is going to help, you've lost your ever loving mind... Well, where's the verbose reply from Captain Current Events??? No need. You are free to have what opinions you choose. If I were to attempt to convince you. it would be a pointless and futile effort. Ronald Reagan understood that national security is maintained by want we and others do outside the us. "There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world" RR. From that same speech in 1983, he addressed threats in Yemen and other Northern Africa nations. Smart, rational people understand that operations against the US are created, planned and made 'operational' in other parts of the world where terrorist groups are free to operate and have access to weapons that facilitate their objectives. You my friend, are free to believe whatever you choose. God Bless America.

Whatever floats your boat.... ouch. The dreaded "change the content of what you are quoting" post. I remember 4th grade.

I hope BSA never chooses to CYA & exclude just because of a perceived threat of bogus and frankly illegal faulse accusations. When anyone does this, they putting the interest of criminals over what is best for children. Such a 'thought process' as St Paul calls it always wrong. BSA and the Catholic church have been guilty of doing this in the past. I CANNOT "I understand [that] thought process if that is how they came to allowing one over the other".

I think there is. If a 'leak' allows the media to expose the fact the US, British & Saudi Intellegence agencies have a double agent deep inside Al Qaeda's #1 bomb making operation and the leak forces the removal of the double agent before the bomb-making leader can be 'taken out', would you consider that to be a 'national security' or a 'job security' issue? That gets a national security ranking, while the guy is undercover. As getting outed means getting dead. But not a forever 'classified' thing though. And no self respecting news people should ever put info out there that would get someone killed at any rate. If a reporter got that kind of info, sitting on it would be the right thing to do. In this case, the AP agreed to sit on it for a few days into the double agent and his family could be extracted. The CIA lost their best chance to find and kill the bomb maker as the operation was forced to be terminated. Many assets were 'burned' do to the leak. This is a real case. The AP really did this. This is exactly why, after a year of refusing to give up the source of the leak, the DOJ is getting phone records.

It is your life man. You can change it. And I am sorry to come down on you so hard when you posted the Foote and Lott studies. I should have realized you where being sarcastic and that you knew they were totally bogus attempts to refute the DL findings. Even the NRTL folks know that DL only attribute abortion to about 50% of the drop in crime. The key finding is women how get abortions often have the same reproductive rates as other women. This means they are still having children, but they are getting abortions to address unwanted pregnancies - often because the timing is bad. (Not saying this is god or bad. Not making a social judgement.) Teen moms are far more likely to raise children who become violent criminals. A women is more likely to get an abortion when she is young unmarried and unemployed. That same woman might be married, working and out of college 5 years later and far less likely to choose abortion, even if a pregnancy is unplanned. A rational discussion would include looking at the benefits of long term birth control (such as implants--as a recent St. Louis study did) and paying women to who are pregnant to choose adoption over abortion.

BRB: I get what you are saying about the KKK. However, St P seems to be suggesting that perhaps BSA believes a Gay Leader either: a.) Is a greater risk of sexual assault on a child [Which they are on record as saying is NOT the case.] b.) Is a greater risk of being the target of bogus claims of sexual assault. If he believes that b is true, then I have tell you -- that would be the most spineless, jellyfish, chickensh#t justification for excluding gay scout leaders (often parents of the kids in scouts).

Wrong. Watch the video. Red: The study by DL was published in a peer-reviewed professional Journal. Green: None of which have ever been published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Orange: If by "botched the data" you mean failed to include the correct table for some data in the published version of their paper even though they didn't rely on the flawed data to estimate the magnitute of abortion's impact on crime. Blue: Simply not true. From page 414 of the publication of their original study: "legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" Also, from footnote #37, same study: "This is not to say that other factors did not also contribute to the decline in crime." It is easy for someone like to to disprove a claim that DL never made. So, let's review, the major flaw you see with their study (still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop) is based on a 100% erroneous assumption. Next. You've got to be kidding me. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. I see you got nothing.

I do understand that, St. P. What I don't understand, and what I have asked you to clarify, has only yielded the following from you: "If you aren't smart enough to see it by now, there is no help for you."

<notgoingtopostagifinanefforttoavoiddiscussingpost>

yep, she said she isn't running again. I sure hope she doesn't run for pres again. Need new blood, new ideas. And I don't want to hijack my own thread by starting a Bachmann thread. Carl and Saunders are doing a good job of keeping the discussion going. She will probably run for Governor. Maybe. Depends on what the FBI finds out. http://www.minnpost.com/political-agenda/2013/05/fbi-joins-probe-bachmanns-presidential-campaign

Wrong. Watch the video. Red: The study by DL was published in a peer-reviewed professional Journal. Green: None of which have ever been published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Orange: If by "botched the data" you mean failed to include the correct table for some data in the published version of their paper even though they didn't rely on the flawed data to estimate the magnitute of abortion's impact on crime. Blue: Simply not true. From page 414 of the publication of their original study: "legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" Also, from footnote #37, same study: "This is not to say that other factors did not also contribute to the decline in crime." It is easy for someone like Lott to disprove a claim that DL never made. So, let's review, the major flaw you see with their study (still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop) is based on a 100% erroneous assumption. Next.

Bachmann is done.

I sort of thought you would lead with Foote & Goetz. More later...

Is this what you are refering to when you posted: "The ones listed earlier"? "I think I see what they are trying to avoid. They don't believe that the leader would start teaching and guiding kids to be gay. It is probably from a liability stand point. Kids have been known to say things to get adults into trouble. This is their way of avoiding it. All it would take is a disgruntled parent of this vote to send their child on an overnight with the new gay leader and when they returned, the kid has a story of what happened"

How many articles do you want links to showing that Levitt got it wrong? How many your got? Give me you best ones, please.

Here is the finding of the study's author.

1) Wow...I didn't realize the term "liberal leaning" was so inflammatory. I honestly thought it was a fairly benign comment. 2) Where did I claim it isn't? 3) Where did I claim it isn't? Where did I say it was inflamatory? For 40 plus years, some conservatives have used the term as a derogatory epithet. Past Presidental candidates and current politicians have also used the term as a pejortive. Are you saying #2 is true? Are you saying #3 is true? For the record: My voter registration card says Republican. If you must apply a label, these are some that I believe are accurate: Open and Affirming Pragmatic Factual Capitalist Small Business Owner Job Creator Independent I am sure that there are people who's politics are to the right of mine and I am just as sure that there are people who's politics are to the left of mine. Only one person each can win the titles of the most conservative voter in America and the most liberal voter in America. I doubt either of them are posting here. The rest of us all fall somewhere in the middle.

BigRedBust'r: Why the labels? True or false: Gun Violence is down 49% since 1993. True or false: Economist have demonstrated in peer-reviewed published studies the connect between Roe vs. Wade and the above mentioned drop in gun violence. In the 10+ years after these finding were documented, no peer-reviewed published study has successfully refuted these findings. Straight forward facts don't lean left or right.

There is no perhaps about it. I said enough times that it wasn't my view. I said that it wasn't even the BSA view. I didn't even say it was a greater risk. I brought it from the viewpoint that a kid might initiate a claim or a parent with a problem with allowing gays could initiate a claim. I said NOTHING about there being increased risk of something actually happening. As far as there being increased exposure to a liability claim, I believe I am right due to the reasons I just listed. Regardless of how YOU feel, they have a right to do this in a way that protects them as well. You've returned to the liability well, while saying both you and BSA don't think a gay leader is a greater risk. Yet you believe they might not want a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong? Would having black leaders in the south create a greater risk of a false claim if a scout's parents are skinheads? Should scouts have the right to protect themselves against bogus racially motivated claims by excluding black leaders or a Sikh or women We have already confirmed they already have strict policies that prohibit any adult to be alone with any child. Stop saying that I believe something when I haven't said it. I will not go into hypotheticals about race on this issue because it has no bearing on the main reason there was a debate and vote in the first place. It had to do with morality and the values within the BSA not skin color. And what good is a policy if there is no one there to enforce it? I am sure you can look at any organization and find policies that are made and frequently broken. The military had one that says a male drill sergeant cant be alone in a room with a female recruit. I know with 100% accuracy that this policy was broken numerous times while I was in training. The point being is that the policy is a cover your ass statement. Ok. Let's look at your first bolded statement. Do "you believe they might not want a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong?" You have posted: "the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can." What limitation of liability are you refering to? You have posted: "The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." What increased exposure to liabilities are you refering to? How does the concept of a GAY LEADER factor into either of the 2 above statements posted by you? As far as you second point: There are no 1 adult camping trips. There is significant training that adult leaders receive that address child safety, including how to have a private conversation with a scout while still being where other adults can see what is happening at all time. All violation are to be reported. It saddens me to hear the our military doesn't follow their own rules. We have seen the problems this can cause with recent headlines. The Catholic church is learning the hard way that these rules must be enforced. Is enforcement perfect? No. See the BSA's own scandals and the recent release of 1200 names due to an Oregon case.

If you need a perscription come 2014, should you call the IRS? This week, the National Republican Congressional Committee seems to have shifted into full-tilt desperation mode with this 'mobile billboard' attack aimed at a man who voted against Obamacare. Have integrity and honesty lost all meaning? Is knee-jerk opposition to everything Barack Obama says valued more than developing real public policy?

I think there is. If a 'leak' allows the media to expose the fact the US, British & Saudi Intellegence agencies have a double agent deep inside Al Qaeda's #1 bomb making operation and the leak forces the removal of the double agent before the bomb-making leader can be 'taken out', would you consider that to be a 'national security' or a 'job security' issue?

Beg all you want. Sir Knapp wrote (or as Sir Saunders prefers--Knapplc): "we're actually fixing the gun violence problem" You are correct. He never pointed out that Roe vs. Wade has lead to the 49% drop in gun violence that Sir Knapp linked to. I pointed that out. FACT #1: Roe vs Wade + 20 years = Violent crime begins to drop and that drop continues until it is about 1/2 of what it was in 1993. The legalization of abortion has played a very significant role in reducing violent crime in the US. FACT #2: Sir Knapp posted "we're fixing the gun violence problem". MY OPINION: It would be a mistake to suggest that more abortions is the solution to our violent crime problems. ANALOGY: My spouse can correctly point out that I should do something about the 10 weeds that have sprouted up in our front yard, BUT if I go out and broadcast spray with Round-Up, while l reduce the weed problem in the short term, it would be incorrect to suggest that my actions are a good 'fix' to the problem. If you can't even bother to spell his name right, don't get pissed when we don't take you seriously. Point taken.

It is official: 54% don't like Obamacare. Of the 54%, 16% oppose it because it doesn't go far enough. That means 38% doesn't like it for some other reasons. In Minn, this is the headline today: Obamacare: It's not news when the train doesn't wreck Here is another good bit of Capitalism on the Obamacare front. (Hint: Better Data = Better Outcomes) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamacares-other-surprise.html?_r=1&