Jump to content

So if Texas (and others) secede from the US, maybe we can change BSA!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Look at the Red/Blue political map.


The Red states could break even by charging a "Fly-Over Tax" from the East coast and FL to the West coast.


Relief from federal mandates will definitely put a secessionist block ahead financially.


TX is just setting itself up as a closer place for the rich to move to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My great hope is that if Boston starts to act up (Again!!)

That this time they do a better job of making a nice spot of tea.

Do they drink tea is Texas?



I was younger in 1977 and spent a week touring with a bus load of International Scouter's.

We sank a good many warm beers (The Brits and the Irish outnumbered everyone else on the bus.) But I do seem to remember spending the night in the BSA HQ in New Jersey, not New York.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, remember folks, I'm from Wisconsin, where our guv was reelected with a larger percentage than the first time, and we have one-party control of the legislature and executive branch (and an elected judiciary, but I digress), but according to the losing side in our state it's still not a "mandate," so he's gotta reach across the aisle and lead a round of Kumbaya on the way to some "healing." So I'm just drawin' some parallels with all the folks who are bemoanin' the fact that the losin' side in the national elections have the audacity to not simply roll over and play dead...


How 'bout showin' all of us knuckle dragging rednecks a little luv? Heck, even when it comes to our real enemies in the world (you know, the ones that want to kill us, not just have political disagreements with you), you spend a lot of time navel gazing asking, "What did we do to cause this?" So where's the outreach? I'm just not feelin' it.


And on the topic of temper tantrums, moose, didja see any of the footage of the shenanigans in the People's Republik of Madistan last year?


I just like to point out hypocrisy...turnabout's fair play, don'tcha think?...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, apparently 48% of people don't share the "majority" viewpoint. Thats not exactly an overwelming mandate."


In 2004, the politicians and the media redefined the parameters of what constitutes a mandate. Winning with 286 electoral college votes, and just a 3.3 million popular vote difference, the Bush administration, supported by the media, declared a mandate. I think there is no reason that the Obama administration and the media couldn't make a case that Obama received a mandate.


But more importantly, I question the whole idea that 48% of people don't share the majority viewpoint. I'd say that 48% don't share the some of the majorities viewpoints, at least not enough to sway theur votes. I believe that the majority of Americans share viewpoints the majority of the time - where we mostly differ is "how we get there". Start breaking down the broad picture things and Americans are in agreement on things far more than they aren't. It's what helps explains Americans being opposed to "Obamacare" but supportive of just about everything that is in "Obamacare" when asked about the separate provisions.


"6. The only unions the Republicans are against in terms of law are for public worker unions, which until fairly recently in history were considered to be unnecessary, due to the high amount of benefits we give civil service workers. Other than that, they are eliminating laws which require union membership for employment, which is pro-worker. Planned Parenthood is not a business, it is a federally subsidized non-profit. The main thing the Republicans want to do is to stop subsidizing it, which is smaller government."


The impression I get from Republicans is that they are opposed to ALL unions - but the politicians can have a far greater impact on public-unions than on non-public unions. And you're kidding yourelf if you think so-called "right to work" laws are pro-worker. They aren't - they're pro-business. Any law which eliminates protections from gained by collective bargaining is always going to favor the company over the worker. As for planned parenthood, it is a women's health service that provides services that the federal government happens to help fund. As such, they should be playing on the same level playing field as any other organization that provides women's health services. They should not be specifically excluded from applying for grants and funding because some folks don't like them. Before you answer that you see no problem with preventing Planned Parenhood from being eligible, let me remind folks that this is the exact same argument that is given in defense of the BSA being eligible for grants and funds - thet they should be allowed to compete on the same playing field as everyone else, regardless of policies that some folks don't like.




Koolaid - your question on number 4 - the reason its intrusive is the laws that were proposed/passed specify a specific ultrasound technique called a trans-vaginal probe. We aren't talking about the ultrasound wands you see on television where they wave/rub it over a womans belly which aren't physically intrusive (they still intrude on a women's right to privacy, though). No, the probes that are required by the law have to be inserted into the woman's body - a medically unneccessary and physically intrusive procedure. That's the problem with #4.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Yes, that is what I was talking about when I said "wand".

Please correct me if technology has changed, the doctor said that up to a certain point (we saw the dr. at 5 weeks) you could only see the ovum with the probe, you had to be further along for the belly transducer (my own scientific description) to work.


That's why I have the question...

Link to post
Share on other sites



Remember that the original Boston Tea Party was supposed to be about taxation without representation. Now we have taxation to pay for representation. ( I am originaly from MA but now live in TX [and yes I know that is considered a "Dammed Yankee"])


Texas does dring tea but has sooo much sugar in it that you wouldn't think it was tea. (I prefer mine black and bitter).





Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the 'fun' thread, right?

Moosetracker, it might have been 'before your time' in these forums but a while back Beavah jumped down my..uhhh...throat for applying the M-word to various concepts that I consider to be, well, things the M-word can be applied to. He basically said I wasn't allowed to apply the M-word to anything because it ALWAYS would offend SOMEONE's sensibilities, or some such... Anyway, because Merlyn noted Twain's association of Hell with Texas, I decided that it would be safe to apply the M-word to....Texas.

But NOOOOOOO, now YOU have proven Beavah to be correct. I can't even facetiously apply the M-word even to Texas!..without getting some cockamamie response from someone...like you. No fun in M-word-ville I suppose. Beavah is right. NO person should EVER at any time EVER apply the M-word to anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...