moosetracker

Brewmeister said this: I think the better question to ask is what those in the current ruling majority are going to do to reach out to those in the current minority. You know, the whole big tent thing. Because one thing we know for certain based on past comments, 51% is by no means a mandate, right? Time for the democrats to really reach out across the aisle...find out what aggrieves those who are behind these secession petitions so much...do some consensus building. I said this: Brewmeister - BOTH parties must find compromise.. If you are still trying to say that compromise is when the Democratic party does things the way the Republicans want, you are in for a long wait.. Frankly, Republicans do not have to accept how Democrates do things to fit under our big tent. They just need to understand, the meaning of compromise.. And wake up to the reality of the world they live in. We need a two party system.. So, I don't think Democrats want to welcome you into our tent so we are one big happy family. What they are looking for is for you to modernize for todays world and be less cruel to anyone who is not a white male.. Basically you need to find a better Fiscally conservative program, and go back to not trying to force social conform through government.. You want to be a party of small government? Well with you social agenda you are far from small government.. Small government doesn't : 1) put up brick walls to what an individual can do.. 2) It doesn't make up laws to restrict the rights of others in voting. 3) It is not like Michigans Republican Govenor who created some sort of Emergancy take over program that allows the Republican govenor to choose any city he wishes (usually with Democratic local government) and bring in a dictator that can thow all the elected official out, fire anyone they choose, sell off any assets of the town they wish, and force the town to pay them some exorbant salary for all this help. 4) It is not Virgina's Governor Ultrasound.. 5) It is not Arizona's tough immigrations laws.. 6) If you want to stay out of buisness, then why are republicans getting involved in breaking up unions? If Government should stay out of buisness, they shouldn't take sides and try to create laws to favor their side.. That goes for laws targeted specifically to make it impossible for a specific buisness you don't like to function (Planned Parenthood).. If you want to champion small government, then doen't be such an oppressive and cruel and dictating government.. Figure out what small government truely means and revamp your program. As for Fiscally conservative.. Sorry, spending more with less tax revenue, just does not compute.. It returns you to the Bush's failed economy.. Find a new smart workable fiscal program.. Republicans need to wake up, and become a party with new ideas.. Listen to people you recently rejected.. Jon Huntsman was on an interveiw the other day, he sounded rational.. Listen to small pool of younger people in your party.. The daughter of John McCain also sounded like she had an inkling of what is wrong with your party.. Your party has hope, if it seeks out the knowledge of those in it who acknowldge you need to change, and you start to listen to them. Forget a civil war with the USA, work on not having a civil war within your own party, by listening to each other and finding a new message and new solutions for todays world. Perdidochas said this Moose, A couple of things. You have misinterpreted a lot of Republican ideas. Moosetracker wrote: 1) put up brick walls to what an individual can do.. 2) It doesn't make up laws to restrict the rights of others in voting. 3) It is not like Michigans Republican Govenor who created some sort of Emergancy take over program that allows the Republican govenor to choose any city he wishes (usually with Democratic local government) and bring in a dictator that can thow all the elected official out, fire anyone they choose, sell off any assets of the town they wish, and force the town to pay them some exorbant salary for all this help. 4) It is not Virgina's Governor Ultrasound.. 5) It is not Arizona's tough immigrations laws.. 6) If you want to stay out of buisness, then why are republicans getting involved in breaking up unions? If Government should stay out of buisness, they shouldn't take sides and try to create laws to favor their side.. That goes for laws targeted specifically to make it impossible for a specific buisness you don't like to function (Planned Parenthood).. 1. What walls are being erected by Republicans on individuals? 2. Foreign observers marvel that we don't require voter ID in most states. How is requiring proof of ID restricting other people's voting rights? 3. Unsure what you are talking about. 4. Agreed on that one, it is too intrusive, although I do think the antis are exaggerating about the exact procedure required. I've never heard of the ultrasound mentioned by pro-choicers until this argument. 5. AZ's laws just enforce federal law. It is illegal for undocumented people to work in the United States. That is not a AZ law. 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. Koolaidman said this: Hate discussing politics, but I've been wondering what the hubub is about number 4. My wife goes to the OB/GYN says doc I think I'm pregnant. He says "What makes you think you're pregnant?", We'll I haven't had my period and the test from the drug store came back positive". He says "Well the best way to tell is" and breaks out his ultrasound wand. Seems if we seeking an abortion, he'd make sure she was pregnant in the same fashion (because can you imagine the lawsuit stemming from performing an abortion on someone who isn't pregnant?). So, if its going to be used anyway, how is it intrusive? It's an honest question. Not taking a stance here... Calicopen said this: "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. koolaidman said this: Calico- 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.. Ok guys continue in this thread! I will join you when I have time..

OK.. Because it is getting serious & not fun, I will do the people who want fun a favor and move serious to a spinoff thread.

Nah!! BSA should have American values, not the values of the Republic of Texas.. Especially if the state is seceding for the reason that they no longer share the values of America.

Awwww... That means they get a card from Obama.. Dear Texas, I have reveiwed your request.. The answer is "No".. Sincerely The Prez Obama It might be a collectable in a hundred years..

Calico - You are correct.. None of these states Govenments have signed on to these ideas, also it is silly to think you can remove a state from being a part of the US with 250,000 votes when there are millions in your state.. I am not sure what Obama does once 250,000 members sign a petition, perhaps congress is suppose to look into the viability of the suggestion.. Which if you are 250,000 out of millions in the state and your State Government is not on board, will not get you far.. Still it is an interesting show of an adult having a 5 year olds temper tantrum.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Brewmeister - BOTH parties must find compromise.. If you are still trying to say that compromise is when the Democratic party does things the way the Republicans want, you are in for a long wait.. Frankly, Republicans do not have to accept how Democrates do things to fit under our big tent. They just need to understand, the meaning of compromise.. And wake up to the reality of the world they live in. We need a two party system.. So, I don't think Democrats want to welcome you into our tent so we are one big happy family. What they are looking for is for you to modernize for todays world and be less cruel to anyone who is not a white male.. Basically you need to find a better Fiscally conservative program, and go back to not trying to force social conform through government.. You want to be a party of small government? Well with you social agenda you are far from small government.. Small government doesn't : 1) put up brick walls to what an individual can do.. 2) It doesn't make up laws to restrict the rights of others in voting. 3) It is not like Michigans Republican Govenor who created some sort of Emergancy take over program that allows the Republican govenor to choose any city he wishes (usually with Democratic local government) and bring in a dictator that can thow all the elected official out, fire anyone they choose, sell off any assets of the town they wish, and force the town to pay them some exorbant salary for all this help. 4) It is not Virgina's Governor Ultrasound.. 5) It is not Arizona's tough immigrations laws.. 6) If you want to stay out of buisness, then why are republicans getting involved in breaking up unions? If Government should stay out of buisness, they shouldn't take sides and try to create laws to favor their side.. That goes for laws targeted specifically to make it impossible for a specific buisness you don't like to function (Planned Parenthood).. If you want to champion small government, then doen't be such an oppressive and cruel and dictating government.. Figure out what small government truely means and revamp your program. As for Fiscally conservative.. Sorry, spending more with less tax revenue, just does not compute.. It returns you to the Bush's failed economy.. Find a new smart workable fiscal program.. Republicans need to wake up, and become a party with new ideas.. Listen to people you recently rejected.. Jon Huntsman was on an interveiw the other day, he sounded rational.. Listen to small pool of younger people in your party.. The daughter of John McCain also sounded like she had an inkling of what is wrong with your party.. Your party has hope, if it seeks out the knowledge of those in it who acknowldge you need to change, and you start to listen to them. Forget a civil war with the USA, work on not having a civil war within your own party, by listening to each other and finding a new message and new solutions for todays world.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Went to the "We the people" site to check out the happenings.. Texas is up to 60,000 signatures.. What is even more surprising is there are even petitions from deep blue state like California, New York, New Jersey.. Now you know the majority in those states are very happy with the outcome of the election.. So if you are unhappy with the political leanings of your state, move.. You can't get mad, and roll up your state and take it with you! (those states have low signatures, I doubt they will make 25,000.. There are some petitions to deport anyone signing the petitions to secede.. There is at least one to do a total recount for the whole country.. Seems Republicans are blaming Democrats for voter fraud.. What a laugh!! That last one is like Grover Norquest stating yesterday that Obama won because he called Romney a poopyhead, then said vote for me I'm not Romney.. I kid you not.. Norquest used the words poopyhead.. So wasn't that Romney's whole campaigne, Obama's a poopyhead, vote for me I'm not Obama.. Also Grover Norquest thought the negative ads on the Obama side were so unfair.. What??? You can run negative ads, (even total lies like the Ohio jeep ad), but your opponet can not? He said other things in that interveiw that had you wondering what planet he was just beamed from.. Like Obama did not run by stating he wanted those who make over 250,000 to pay a little more.. Nope, didn't say it in any of his speechs.. Never said it even once.. In fact he thinks Obama ran on lowering taxes.. This is pretty funny stuff! So what stages of grief are these? I would say Norquist is in denial, and those wanting to secede from the Union is more at the stage of anger..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Hey! I'm not the author of this article.. I am just enlightening my fellow scouts to news that may have an effect on the scouting community.. So you think removing the wheelbarrow age limit is pushing it, huh? (pushing it? Get it? yuk, yuk..)

A few states (still in tantrums over Obamas win) want to secede.. Seems Texas is the most serious so far.. So that means the HQ of BSA secedes with them to become BST (BoyScouts of Texas).. We can create a new BSA HQ, one with a more tolerant stance.. What say you!.. http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/12/obama-re-election-renews-extremist-demands-for-secession/ Texas was the state that had the judge who wanted to raise his own state army a few months back for this purpose.. Don't know how he came with his army, but they have an on-line patition.. Obama will take it seriously if they can get more the 25,000 signatures.. They set up some program last year to deal with this.. What program? Will it really be that easy? The petition being on-line, I don't know if they need only signatures from Texas, or if signatures from people outside the state who want to cut this state loose, will be counted.. So what if you live in Texas and want to stay in the US? Will they need to move out, while others Republicans move in.. Sort of like a house exchange plan.. So, if we loose BSA HQ.. Where do you think we should set up our new offices? I think we should put it back in NY state.. What should we change, besides being more tolerant to homosexuals.. What about atheists? What about girls? Can we loose the age limit for handling a wheelbarrow?

Wouldn't this also be for Presidential election? Of course the Presidential election is always held the same time as an election with Congress members, so it would be covered in that manner, but seems strange if it isn't included in the wording. So are you reading verbage directly from the Constitution, or did you see a different show that covered this topic?

Eagle732 - While I agree that all is interconnected. Because of it's interconnection it is one reason why I voted Democrat.. It is just different viewpoints on what everyone sees as a better America. I think Democrats have an eye on the future and have taken the lead in not only what use to be the Democrat platform, but what use to be the good policies of the Republican platform that in the last few years they abandoned and allowed the Democrats to pick up and lead in. As for unemployemnt reports you are hoping will show up next month. Unemployment may be up due to some executives throwing tantrums and firing employee now rather then waiting to see what changes happen in the year before Obamacare hits in 2014.. In a year, more people may be finding jobs, spending money, your company may see an uptick in demand, also there may be something offered to small buisness to give them incentives to expand.. All of this is a reason a smart buisnessman will not act now on a foreseen problem in a year, except to try to make a political point. But, when the unemployment numbers came out this month, they already knew there would be a different reason that next months unemployment numbers would be up. Something that hit before the numbers came out, but after the numbers were collected, so there was no impact from it in this past unemployment numbers.. That is Hurricane Sandy, which destroyed many buisness either permenantly or for a few months as they rebuild.. Alot of people's jobs were affected by it.. Therefore if you are hoping to point to next months numbers as proof positive that we all need to vote Republican in order to not anger the buisness tycoons.. That we all must except that our country is owned by the 1 percenters and bow down to them.. The point will be lost, to the bigger setback to job growth. Hurricane Sandy.. Most analysts feel that barring a upheaval in Europes economy, or some other unknown factor, signs are the economy is recovering. Obama will be able to take credit for what he put in place in the last 4 years.. Had Romney won, Romney could have taken credit for what Obama set in place if he didn't throw a monkey wrench into it.. Those 12 million jobs Romney promised to create, were jobs analyst anticipated to be created in the coming future through the policies Obama put in place.. But, that uptick is not planned for next month, next month they will be looking for the toll Hurricane Sandy took on employment.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

AZMike :Should there still be a place for diversity in matters of opinion? Should we not still have a place in American society for the Nelsons, Reeds(?) and Cleavers? No one said the Nelsons, Reeds, or Cleavers, are not welcome.. The problem was in stating you were going to enact laws that forced everyone to become Nelsons, Reeds, or Cleavers, because you could not accept a society that was more diverse then this narrow framework.. There are too many families that do not fit into this mold, and they don't like being told they are not wanted, and must change to conform for someone elses comfort level, or self-deport (or at least their parents or grandparents must.) Nor can you insist that only the Nelsons, Reeds and Cleavers, get the right to vote in this country and try to suppress the vote of those who do not fit your mold of traditionalism.

Beavah.. Nice distinction of what being a Republican use to be.. That was the time, I voted more Republican then Democrat myself. Health care reform, use to be in the Republican platform, when the Republican platform was something to be proud of.. Now it seems the Democrats are not only carrying their own agenda, but what use to be the old Republicans agenda, because it was dropped by the Republican party and someone had to carry the mantle.. Agree with you also that if a buisnessman is reacting today over his fears of when Obama-care kicks in in 2014, yet really doesn't know all the details, or is not employing over 50 people, they are over-reacting in order to have their tantrum heard and felt as a declaration of "See, this is what happens when you elect someone I don't like!" There is talk in the upcoming discussions of what to do for small buisness (I mean small, not the Bain Corps of the world.) or to promote keeping buisness in the US rather then offshoring.. If that comes before 2014, it might offset the hassle of Obamacare or at least lower the sting of it.. But, they aren't willing to wait.. Coal is another matter.. Perhaps coal executives were hoping the Romney administration was going to kill enough of the green energy alternatives to increase the demand for coal.. But sorry, that is the wrong direction for this country to go in and will not position it well in the future.. Horse & buggy had to make way for automobiles.. Trains had to make way for Planes.. Typewriters had to make way for computers, Coal has to make way for newer energy alternatives like wind, solar and natural gas.. This might have some basis for the executive to state it is because of who we elected.. But, it doesn't change the fact that Obama is on the right side of history in this arguement and Romney was not. We can't hold our future hostage to the past in order to keep a dieing buisness going.. These executives have to figure out how to harness the future.. From some commercials put out, it seems some of the oil companies are now exploring solar and wind alternatives.. They are trying to find ways to embrace the future and be a part of it.

Beavah - I pray for the continuing health of our president, as I think he may become one of the great Presidents in history.. But, gives you pause to think of Uncle Joe taking over the Presidency.. I think he would be good to, but he was kindof the jolly old Uncle sort in that last debate.. Great knowledge of the subject matter, but not quite the right tone while making the arguements.. He may be fun to watch as President.. I think he would make people stay on their toes.. I know he plans to run in 2016, but if Hillary runs, I think Uncle Joe may just go no further then being our delightfully interesting VP.. They are talking Clinton .vs. Bush for 2016.. With Jeb Bush already stating he will run. Poor Joe says he is going to run, but he really hasn't gotten much support yet, while Hillary who hasn't said she is interested has all the traction.

Talking about Republican fruitcakes on the Oversight committee what about Senator Darrell Issa get re-elected?.. That's another one that seemed like he didn't fear re-election.. To be releasing papers with highly sensitive information after editing it to remove any information that conflicted with his theroy of what happened in Bengazi, but not remove names of people he put in harms way.. I see he won re-election.. How is that given he is a representative in California. They were not kind to Republicans in this election.. He must be in small deep red spot in California. He sure did not seem like he was having to run for re-election given what he did while he wasn't a representative living in the safty of a deep red state.. I suppose he will continue to head this committee although he is the one who should go through an investigation about his actions.. Packsaddle - with all the people elected to the house & senate, we can all get our wingnuts.. Question is, does the party ignore them, casually except them, or embrace them and make them the head of a committee or one of their spokespersons..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

I don't know, are you one of the billionairs who have seen great profits from your companies (due to already having streamlined your staff over the last 4 years, or outsourcing to china) and are enjoying wonderful returns in the stock market. (It is a proven fact that during this recession the rich got richer as the poor got poorer..) But still have to take out on your employees because the guy who would have made you MORE richer lost the election? If so, yes.. You probably do have a few money trees from which to pull money out of, so stop beating up on your employees, wife and dog..

No, people who take their frustrations over the outcome of the election out on their employees are spoiled and self-centered. You want to spend some days in your jammies in total depression about it, then go ahead.. You want to go through the Denial, anger, depression, acceptance stages then go ahead.. After all the Democrats would have done that had they lost, but I doubt they would have taken it out on their employees, spouses or dogs.

For the employers laying off, some of those employers were planning these layoffs before the election, and were not doing it because of who got elected.. They just got pulled into the arguement of Republicans to say.. "See.. See..".. Those who are laying off and publically blaming the president, are showing thier spoiled, self-centered, 5 year old tantrum side.. Sour grapes.. Now I have to ask them, "If you lay off these people, what are you going to do 4 years from now, when you need your employee force to scare into voting for your Republican canidate.. I mean now you will have less people to be able to coerce into giving you more then the one vote you are allowed to have." As for the ACA (I like ObamaCare).. Although it could be improved on, I doubt it will, although the house sounds like it is determined to spend most of the next two years argueing over this rather then the best way to put Americans back to work.. John Boehner gave me hope in his first comments, that he accepted the fact the election put this to bed.. But, in the typical Republican move, after this interview he was told be the mysterous puppetmaster of this party to walk back those comments and say that the Republicans would waste the next couple of years trying to repeal it.. (Even though with less house seats, and more Democrats in the Senate, this will get them no further then it did for the last 2 years.).. I though was heartened by how the President took up the fight for the fiscal cliff problem.. Hopefully I would like to see the president make more Presidential State of the union addresses.. Some Presidents did it often, some didn't.. I expected that Obama would give us a lot as he is such a great orator, yet he did not in his first term.. I was heartened to hear early in the campaign when asked what his biggest mistake was, he said it was putting policy over storytelling.. (Of course Romney ran with demeaning that statement for a day or two until he found another soundbite to twist and distort.) Anyway, here is the part of the interview, without the Romney distortion: "the mistake of my first term - couple of years - was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times." Mr. Obama acknowledged the dissonance between others' perception of his strength as an expert orator, and his own. "It's funny - when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job?" he said. "And in my first two years, I think the notion was, 'Well, he's been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where's the story that tells us where he's going?' And I think that was a legitimate criticism." All I can say is "Exactly".. Keep us informed.. That is exactly what I expected from him due to his oratory skills, and what I felt he didn't deliver on.. Although he says it will help Americans keep their hopes up, I also think it will shine a light on who is slowing down and obstructing the process.

Yes, but aren't they suppose to come up with proposals as to what to legislate on these topics they join the committee for? Might be nice to be a Science Engineer to be on the committee, but since most likely you are not, I would hope they can find people with an 8th grade knowledge of science and some interest in the subject rather then total disdain, because it either contradicts the Bible, or it might have your billionaire crony friends have to spend a little cash in order to keep this planet inhabitable for the next generation. Whoever assigns these possition (I know the Democrats choose what committee a Democrat will be on, and a Republican chooses their people for the board, and the Party Leader chooses who will head the committee.).. Anyway you shouldn't choose the guy who says he thinks science are lies from the pit of hell, for the science committee, nor people who science stopped at 1st grade..

Packsaddle asks: Is this really how the Republicans want to be portrayed to the people? Answer: Yes, it is.. He seems to be in good company at the Republican House of Science committee.. It simply shows that republicans have total disdain for science which might get in the way of business being able to make profit with no regard to the planet or the people who live on it. Todd Akin - the guy who believes women can shut down the ability to get pregnate when being raped, was on the Science committee (but gave up his seat to run in the Senate, where he also lost.. bye, by Todd). Roscoe Bartlet - also just lost his seat, but was on the Science committee.. He too believed rape didn't cause pregnacies. Dana Rohrabacher - (Who they are thinking about leading the committee). who do not believe in man-made global warming, he says it might be due to dinosaur flatulence.. (Well it's sarcasm, while he attempts to point out it could be anything other then the activity of man.) Jim Sensenbrenner (another possible choice to lead the committee). thinks there is nothing wrong with carbon emissions. If we regulate that we will all need to wear catalytic converters on our noses.. Republicans go out of their way to discredit Science. Too bad Dawin didn't win.. Maybe he can win in the next election..

Yah, moosetracker, yeh do realize we elect the entire House every two years, right? So what happened in 2010 really isn't relevant for this discussion. Da problem is the House doesn't accurately represent da actual voting choices this year. Very true, Beavah.. 6 years for Senate, 2 years for house.. I know this, if I stop to think, yet when I don't it's hard to fathom all that work to get elected and it only last 2 years.. Also It seems like some don't run every year.. Like the minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi was working on everyone elses campaign but didn't seem to need to worry about her own, and a comment that the majority House Leader John Boehner did want to find a deal to the fiscal cliff as he was facing a difficult re-election in two years (like he didn't run last week.). Still, I think it will shift back gradually.. Especially if the Republicans keep on obstructing.. I think this time the President is going to make it public knowledge who is doing what.. That is why he held his little meeting today, dragging in a group of average citizens to stand behind him as he gave it.. As he has said, our jobs as citizens is not only to vote every 2 to 4 years, but to stay involved and help him push the issues.. I just need some direction as to how to push, I will be happy to help out. I don't know if writting to my Democratic House Rep or Senator will help at all, I don't have a Republican Representative to yell at.

LOL... You listened to Rush Limbaugh for YEARS before deciding you didn't like him?? I think I knew after 3 to 5 minutes of listening to him..

Don't know about both the states that passed pot smoking.. But, I heard something about a rule you can only smoke in your home, not out in public... If that is in both states, I think BSA shouldn't worry about rules around pot smoking for awhile yet..

As to the House being mostly Republican, some of that is Gerrymandering, as you note.. But, I think something else too.. The house leaned slightly Democratic before the 2010 election, which probably was a good representation of this country. Presidential Elections is the one that normally the casual citizen wakes up to vote for, then goes to sleep for 4 more years.. I think this was true of Democrats & Republicans.. In the election of 2010, the Democrats were in their 4 year hibernation, and did not realize the swarming anger of Republicans whether it be for Obamacare, or just the insult of having a black man in the high office.. Angry Republicans swarmed to turn out for this election, and the with Democrats it was only those with enough political interest to bother.. But, after the Republican swarm.. Republicans started making laws like they were not elected officials, but more like they were mini monarchs.. Which angered the Democrats.. I am unsure if Democrats have been shaken enough to realize that they now have to come out for the elections other then just the Presidential one.. If they haven't 2014 may still win some red, if Democrats stay awake to match turnout in the other elections they will little by little flip things back to an equilibrium.. I think in some states that are suffering though bad republican State government, they know to turn out.. Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Virgina are some counting the days off until they can send their Governors packing.. Here in New Hampshire, we never suffered through a tea-party Governor, but alot of our house went red, causing our poor Governor to have to use his veto power alot over the last few years until we could turn the house back to blue in this election.. I wish our new Democratic Governor the best, but loved our old one, and those two years of hell is probably why he didn't run for another term in this election.

Although I would love to see BSA change, this wouldn't be a mandate for BSA to change.. It is though just something else that says they are now on the loosing side of history on this position. It will come, but not without BSA getting way out of step with time.. I would be interested to see how the Republican party chooses to deal with the reality of a shifting of social issues in America.. I doubt it will be more then a small hesitant baby step out of the 1950's toward the 21st century.. Perhaps they may move to about 1955.. Neither will change for a while without kicking and screaming. They will deny reality for a long time to come.