Maybe Ritalin is the Answer...

[OldGreyEagle 5]

It wasn't that long ago we (the American Public) was told that that Social Security system was in a mess and that strong measures had to be adopted because if not, the system would go belly-up in a few years. Now many different groups argue when the belly-up date is, but there is no argument that such a date does indeed exist. There was a lot of hand wringing and talk about what needs to be done but as far as I can tell, nothing was done or is being done and the clock continues to tick.

 

Then just recently there was a lot of talk about how the borders of the US represent a sieve and there needs to be strong measures to rememdy the situation as illegal immigrants are sucking the country dry and our security demands that the borders are sealed. A lot of talk and not much else, oh yeah, demonstrations both for and against illegal immigratiion but nothing substantiative that I can find.

 

THen there was talk about "unjust" profits that the oil companies were reaping and that the nations economy couldnt handle it and we needed more oil and it was time to design a real energy policy that would break the dependence on foreign (read Mid-East) oil. And gas prices have gone down a but, although not to pre-spike levels and I havent seen a whole bunch on drilling more or alternative energy supplies and what we are doing to control the countries energy sources.

 

And now, in the midst of having our borders over run by illegals, being dependent on not always friendly people for our energy and an aging population whose Social Security system needs attention we get told our society needs a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as the sanctity of marriage is under attack and its a threat to our way of living that needs to be defended? Who comes up with this stuff?

 

If Carson Kressley comes out and says he has just discovered how to generate energy by a "kitchen sink" cold fusion process I just might be inclined to kiss him full on the lips and may add some tongue.

 

We complain that our youth cant seem to stay on task, I wonder where they get that from?

[gwd-scouter 11]

he he. Glad to see you still have your sense of humor, OGE.

 

Isn't about time that old "Americans without healthcare" issue comes up again?

 

(This message has been edited by gwd-scouter)

[scoutldr 726]

The answer is voting. Make your representatives understand what you expect of them if they expect to get re-elected. Then go to the polls and follow through. Unfortunately, with a 20-30% voter turnout rate, they know it's an idle threat. Most of those who do vote do so without a clue of what the candidates stand for or what the issues are. They vote on who's "cute" or who promises the biggest tax break (that they can't pay for) or "anyone running against Bush".

 

The same thing applies to Council and District operations. If you want a say in what happens, make sure your COR attends the meetings, because they are the only ones who can exercise your unit's vote.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, vote.

 

But the problem is in the big party primary process, eh? In order to get a Democratic nomination, you have to be a Kerry-esque figure completely in bed with the teachers unions and trial lawyers.

 

In order to get a Republican nomination, you have to be a Bush-esque figure completely in bed with bad business and the religious right (and yah, I'm a Christian voter, but that doesn't mean all Christians make for competent politicians).

 

Where do those of us who look for intelligence, honesty, and honor go? Who want fiscal responsibility and environmental responsibility and an energy policy that doesn't put our money in the hands of our enemies? We mostly split our vote trying to decide which politician will be worst. The country isn't split down the middle, just the parties.

 

But sure, I'll vote for Ritalin. Try anything once, eh?

 

[frankj 10]

... and another problem has been the gerrymandering of congressional districts -- that is, boundaries which virtually insure the re-election, if not of the incumbent, the party's choice as successor.

 

This propagates the status quo and the committe chairmanships in House. Both parties take advantage of this. Look at how few districts are really in contention in a given election.

 

 

[evmori 11]

So, OGE, you think same sex marriage is OK?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ed, I dont know how to break this to you, but I have a same sex couple living next to me now, whether they have a document granting a legal or religious union wont change the fact they are living together.

 

I would rather the nation spend its collective energy on how social security is going to be funded in 20 years and where its energy is going to come from rather than the legal/religious status of Bob and Bob's(not their real names)union.

 

 

[yellow_hammer 10]

OGE,

 

I don't give a rat what Bob and Bob do in privacy but when they start mucking around with the basic unit of society in an effort to force acceptance of their particular perversion then I'm going to react.

 

Principles mean more to me than funding a ridiculous ponzi scheme and wringing our hands over lack of energy while reindeer romp in one of the largest untapped oilfields known.

 

I have a few issues that I have long remained focused on nearly to the exclusion of others. Screamin' Dean is on the trail with his simplistic assessment of God, Guns, and Gays.

 

Temporal economic issues pale in comparison to moral issues when I vote.

[evmori 11]

So same sex marriage is OK with you! Watch as the fiber of humanity is ripped to shreds. This is as important - NO - more important than social security.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ed, I would ask the same question others have asked, how does same sex marriage effect me? or perhaps rather you? I am Catholic, there wont be any same sex marriages going on in my church any time soon.

 

Yellowhammer, I agree with you about the Alaskan oilfields, what is being done today, now, to bring them into production? When oil reaches $100 a barrel? I think I heard estimates that from the time an Oil Company got permission to drill to the first time a gallon of gas obtained from that oilfield hit a gas tank would be 10 years. I think it makes a difference if thats 2016 or 2026 to the future economy.

 

And screamin' Dean? Is this the same guy who opined that Republicans have never done an honest days work? Who said that no Democrat took any of the Abramoff money? How did that absurd weirdo get into this discussion? And where did anyone mention gun control?

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

I'm with OGE. The current amendment proposal is simply pandering to the socially conservative base. Apparently it works, too. A much bigger threat than physical security? Remember that if we are attacked by terrorists again because we failed to deal seriously with border control, port control, intelligence analysis, and coordination among security agencies.

 

Let's be honest. Assuming that gay marriage poses a "threat" to begin with (not my view, but let's say for the sake of argument) then how is this threat notably different right now than it was three weeks, three months or three years ago? And if it is such a tremendous threat, then why has the Republican-controlled federal government waited around to act on it? They've controlled both the legislative and executive branches for some time now and yet there hasn't been much in the way of real, serious, effort at the federal level. Answer, as far as I can tell: there's no difference in "threat" but right now is an important electoral time because there are a bunch of primary elections going on that determine who will run in the congressional midterm elections in November.

 

In the same breath, Republicans are suddenly bringing up a flag desecration amendment for the same reason. What, has there been a rash of brutal flag desecrations in the last few weeks or something??? Not that I've heard about, at least.

 

Both parties are guilty of trotting out "their" base issues every time they perceive the need for a little electoral pick me up. That's all that's happening here, too. And strategically, this is a smart issue to "fail" on because when they fail to pass an amendment, they can trot the issue out again next time they need a boost.

Color me unimpressed with our "leaders" if this is the best they can do.

 

Lisa'bob

[SaintCad 10]

"I don't give a rat what Bob and Bob do in privacy but when they start mucking around with the basic unit of society in an effort to force acceptance of their particular perversion then I'm going to react."

 

 

The problem with this stand is that society gives preferential treatment to married couples (income tax rates, medical decision making, next-of-kin, etc.) Once you use the law to limit opportunities for a group of people that another group can have - that's discrimination!

 

Now I know what the argument is: there's no discrimination because homosexuals are allowed to marry, but they are not entitled to marry the person they love. This argument puts them in the same category as pedophiles and incestuous relationships. We all have our own viewpoints on this and no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

 

I personally have more to worry about than Mr. Bob and Mrs. Bob and I personally don't think same sex marriage would be more damaging to society than interracial marriage. Of course, I could be wrong and all this gaydom in Mass. could cause the Earth to stop revolving and fall into the Sun and we'll all die horribly (but I doubt it).

 

[Beavah 205]

Once you use the law to limit opportunities for a group of people that another group can have - that's discrimination!

 

Yah, of course it's discrimination, eh? That's the whole purpose of law, to discriminate between choices so as to encourage one choice or discourage another. Criminal law discourages some behaviors. Tax law and subsidies encourage some behaviors (buyin' hybrid vehicles) and discourage others (smoking).

 

Being discriminating is a good thing.

 

The law encourages some kinds of social partnerships (heterosexual monogamous unions) because society feels they should be encouraged. Think of that the way you think of an ethanol subsidy. Trying to encourage a stable mom-and-dad family is actually a far better investment than an ethanol subsidy.

 

 

[Novice_Cubmaster 10]

Hi Ed & YellowHammer,

 

I don't think same sex marriage is anywhere nearly as big a threat to the fiber of our society as irresponsible heterosexual mating and breeding.

 

In scouts, and other youth organizations I work with, I've seen too many messed up kids from "broken homes".

 

"Broken Homes" - what a bogus euphemism. These homes weren't "broken" - they were never were in working order. Married or not, these parents shouldn't have ever been together, let alone making children.

 

Welfare and other social programs have removed the economic consequences from irresponsible breeding. Social "enlightenment" has taken the stigma away from shacking up, illegitimacy and divorce. All of this has made it easier on the parents, but I think the kids are still paying the price (differently than 50 years ago, but they're still the ones most adversely affected).

 

How heterosexuals behave is more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage and the fiber of society than anything homosexuals can do.

 

Novice Cubmaster.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Ok folks, lets play Local Politics!

 

The first rule is to understand that everyone in this game will not change their mind one little bit. Everyone has their mind made up about what is right and what is wrong.

 

The second rule is that no matter how strong your argument is nobody will be moved from their personal logic, religion or prejudice.

 

The third rule is that only two parties will unite all of these different opinions under one banner or the other. You must understand that you don't have a choice.

 

The fourth rule is that if you decide that you will try to gain support for your belief by establishing a third party, you will never be heard from again and will be laughed at on late night T.V.

 

The fifth rule is that you must forever stand firm and not budge from your position.

 

The point of the game is to win at all costs because the fate of the world hangs in the balance. OK contestants, it's now up to you to show us your stuff.

 

Question one- Can you get one person in this Forum to agree with you that has not agreed with you in the past on any of the issues?

 

Question two- If you were in charge, how would you keep your party together when there are so many strong differences?

 

Question three- What would it take for you to change your mind, remember the rules before you answer.

 

Thats it for tonight folks on Local Politics. (emphasis on the loco)

 

FB