moosetracker

Because unless there is a real juicy scandalous scouting stories or battles, alot of the other threads can get one or two comments from each poster, even if another poster have a difference of opinion, your happy making your suggestions and letting the OP decide.. But, only occasionally does it get you so riled you get bull headed and roll up your sleeves to fight about the differences of opinion.. Sometimes it will, and we can get rolling with it.. Like uniforms and Advancement can get some rolling, .. In the summer, except for some summer camp incidents we don't get so many juicy stories.. Things usually pick up some in the Fall through Spring months. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Well someone started being responsible when the deficit started improving in Bush Sr. Term, and became Balanced in Clintons term.. Hmm.. pluses for one Republican and one Democrat.. And if you were born after 2001 you are very young like 11 or younger.. So, sorry you are doing great keeping abreast of the news, but you are too young to vote. Honestly the info about the chart and Obama's speech and the debate back and forth about who was responsible for what between the two parties was weeks ago that I saw it.. I could not refind the exact thing I saw, I just knew if I went looking for a chart on it, I would find it, as it wasn't a single small minute hard to find article.. It was a big brew-ha-ha of bickering for a while. So I found a chart and pulled it. But, your right otherwise.. Except for these two presidents, most Democrats and Republicans spend us into debt. So now we have what both parties wanting to spend again.. And really the government cannot fire everyone, because with more millions out of work, the economy will get worse.. So what to slash and what not to slash.. Republicans want to approve a bill for spending as much in defense in the next few years as we did in the past 8 while we were now pulling out of the war (the difference between what the Senate wants (Dem.) and the house wants (Rep.) is the Republicans wants to spend 3 billion More in defense then the Democrats.. Democrats want to spend on small business and construction like roads. Hmmm.. more bombs (another thousand missiles, pointed at Iran because the first 20 thousand are not enough..) Or road construction, for bridges that are dangerously in need of repair.. And small business aide so that we can support those who will hire others (because I trust the small business owner over the billionaires).. Both are going to spend, trying to dig us out of the hole..If we have to spend, in order to keep people employed, whose plan is a wiser smarter plan? For me, its the Democrates.. Now give me some sane, responsible Republicans that can keep the Democrats in check, but not hold the whole country hostage. If not, then I still want the bridges more then I want the overstock on ammunition, if I end up with all Democrate.. I just may get a bunch of other stuff I may not want also, but it is a higher possibility the thing I don't want may be something I could utilize, rather then spending to pamper the wealthy and stock pile bombs, missles, tanks and war planes..

You simply asked for proof that the Democrats have a different interpretation on who the deficit belongs to, as if I made it up.. You did not tell me you had to approve of the place I gave you the chart from.. How about the wallstreet Journel? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22 Here is the speech obama gave with this arguement.. Very well known speech, regardless of what side you are on. In fact the whole debate is very well known.. The fact you do not know about the Democrats version of how things came to be just proves you came to your choice of which side to vote fore, without listening to any debates, or have only listening on occasion to one sided news and really don't wish to hear both arguements. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-debt-deficits-were-baked-into-the-cake-125978.html Personally, the war does belong to Bush and Obama couldn't turn it off like a faucet. Although claimed he would when he ran for office.. But then Romney is guilty of the same impossible claims as to what he can do on day one of his presidency.. As if he will not have to work with Congress, but will run his own dictatorship. The first year of the stimulus package I will also give to Bush, Kind of hard to walk in mid-November to Presidency and get rid of the stimulous package for the 2008 tax year. But by the 2009 tax year the stimulus package should have been removed.. Arguing it is a tax raise (on anyone) is about as stupid as people who do alot of overtime, get use to it and complain that their employer cut their pay when the overtime is cut. The reduction of the taxes is a temporary thing.. And a plan that did work, as all that happened was the wealthy hoarded their wealth. When it ends, it ends.. One thing proven, it did not work.. Who is proposing to continue with it? Not Obama, but Romney.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

If I had a wonderful volunteer, and he/she was terrific, then found something out.. Basically, it is not me who would have a problem with it, so I would do nothing to rock the boat.. If by some other way the Council found out (not by me), went out on their little witch hunt, well then they can take the heat of if from the news media and the parents in the unit.. I would not lift a finger to do their prejudicial, ignorant witch hunt for them. You might turn your brother in if he committed a murder.. But would you turn your brother in because he did 45mph in a 35mph zone?(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Oh I agree Obama should have gone back to the Clinton tax format as soon as he could, it was working.. I don't even care if that meant everyone went back to the old tax rate.. But, if I had to choose raising taxes on the middle class and allowing the wealthy more tax breaks (in a hope they might throw us a bone), or the wealthy getting the tax raise, then the wealthy should have gotten the tax raise. He should have not waited to the end of his term to do this. I don't get into the nitpicky of the budget, but I know the Republicans show one chart that says Obama raised the taxes, The Democrats shows a chart which shows the deficit didn't get better, but it didn't get worse. I know part of that is a debate of what costs were still being charged in 2009 due to contracts Bush set up, that couldn't be killed (People frown if you are half through building you a plane or ship and you say "I changed my mind).. I am sure though Democrats credited some of their own charges to the Bush era, and it wasn't his.. But, somewhere in the middle of that argument is the truth. Bushes deficit is higher then the Republicans chart, but Obama did add some (but I am confident not as much or more then Bush did..)

And the return question to you is... How is your unit at fault when appointing a person, if they don't volunteer the information? If later on you have a volunteer who has a proven record of being a wonderful adult leader, and you find something out through the rumor mill. Why would your unit fire them over something that doesn't interfer with their great leadership skills. Unless you are from a ultra-conservative prejudicial unit most groups will continue to have confidence in this fantastic person.

I wasn't sure what you meant by 2008.. But it did trigger the memory that I am mistaken, After the Democrate Clinton year where we had a balanced budget (by a tax increase on the wealthy).. The Republicans left us in 2008 with a huge deficit, by removing those taxes from the rich.. If you are fighting for the Republicans, it is best for you to remember it is a risk to remind the voter about the Bush years..

Agreed.. Our choice is between the less of two evils. Or, voting against who you hate more. It is a choice of who has done little, against who has done nothing.. I have no idea why the Republicans choice a guy that even the Republican admit they dislike..

At least they are the only party wanting to work on job creation and the economy problems.. I would much rather have someone looking at what is really ailing this country, rather than concentrating on things voting to repel Obama care 33 times, when they know it will die in the Senate, trying to force Washington DC to have anti-abortion laws and dealing with conspiracy theorist like the Muslim spy ring and fast and furious.. Time & time again, Republicans show their man concern is only on their own backward issues, and not at all upon the serious problems our country is in.. Well I don't need a republican government enacting laws against my private lady parts. Nor do I need a government putting laws in place for inequality for homosexuals.. Also maybe I don't want to see alot of new policies, but I don't want to loose the social net work already in place, especially as I get closer to retirement myself.. Especially if on at the same time your party wishes to find more tax-cuts to the wealthy, who have done absolutely nothing to help this country with job growth, but amass and sit on their wealth. Top-down economy is a crock-of-YouKnowWhat..

Although I agree with Lisabob, this policy will hurt units who don't inquire, when we are not suppose to inquire. Once the person is part of their scouting community, unless part of some rigid conservative group (which I would hope a homosexual will choose a more liberal group then conservative).. The Council's Gay bouncer brigade, will not be smiled upon and their actions will not be appreciated, as the Adult Leader will be one of their community, one of them, rather the a "homo".. In this case it was the units fault, as she told them straight out her concerns, and was welcomed by CC? SM? not sure one of the key 3.. Then it was the very same person who welcomed her, that got into some other disagreement with her, and decided to use the councils bouncer bragade to get rid of their problem for them by reporting her.. The rest of the unit was hurt, by this persons actions, as was the women herself. I would not be surprised if this whole thing caused this pack to self-implode.

Unfortunately about 10 years back 2+3 use to equal 0 for one group and 10 for the other.. Together they could come up with 5.. Now, while one group still says 10 the other has gone to -10, and wont even come up to a 0, let alone a 5.. They are more set on obstructing the President in hopes to make him look bad, then in fixing our country when it is teetering on the brink of disaster.. As stated a well run government finding common ground and compromise through argument and debate.. So the Republicans cannot get my vote for anything, unless I find a truly promising level-headed candidate running.

C.C. I guess I am looking for Utopia, I want a mix of Republican & Democrats, each balancing the other "ultra" side, and keeping each other on the straight and narrow.. I have had my Utopia in the past, but I now fear I will never see it again, since the Republicans don't know how to play nice anymore, and don't care if they flush the entire country down the toilet.. So unless the Republicans can get some people who truely care about the country, rather then their political party.. (And I saw one that is going to run against one of the ultra-radical highly disliked Republicans now in office, unfortunately not in my state though.. And I can't backtrack to who it was now.. But boy when he came on and talked about working with the Democrats and finding common ground, and running because of the disastor that is currently holding office in their state.. I was so excited, like a saw a freaking Rock Star!!.. Who ever he is, who ever is in his state.. Vote for him! Vote for him!.

Well, TAHAWK.. Although your document is much more official, and I will concede, it sounds the way you say, so may be, but I get lost in official documents.. I still don't pull from the piece I heard those they represent who are "non-union members".. Simply the word she should have used was not union members, but "people who the union represents".. period.. Well that just doesn't jive with only "non-union members, who the represent".. They "DO" represent their union members, I am unsure if they consider they represent their non-union members or not.. I know they pay union dues, but the dues they pay is kindof forced payment, because they don't want to be part of the union, they don't want the union to represent them.. I can see why they should be allowed to say if they wish to have their union dues support a specific party.. But, going from "union members" to "people who the union represents", does not mean the union members are excluded from this pool.. So if what Racheal Maddow still needs more debunking, then you could be right.. But, I disagree she is saying what you are saying.

Then I appologize.. You are right, I read the discussion here and drew the wrong conclusion.. If they are open to hiring homosexuals, then they should have the right to their own personal opinion and support the causes they wish to support.. I stand corrected, and will agree that would not be fair.

Sounds like you have a problem with THIS PRESIDENT getting security clearance this way.. But are not bothered about any other president post or future, who gets security clearance the same way.. Sorry, anyway you slice it, sounds personal. Well, maybe we should keep him 4 more years, rather then run the risk of a new person who might become a new "unknown" risk..

Oh.. That is good Beav! The mayor of Boston is fighting to not allow Chik-Fil-A in the city, because of the strict beliefs of the company--will they work to remove the BSA as well? Do yeh feel that's right, CCbyTrickery? Is it OK for da government to try to destroy the business and livelihood of a citizen because the citizen happens to disagree with those in office? Remember, Chik-fil-A is happy to sell to gays, to have gays in its store. Its only "crime" is that da owner happens to have a traditional religious perspective on morality. For that, it's OK if da government tries to destroy his business? This is where the liberal argument runs off da rails and becomes truly despicable. Remember they are not kicking them out, they are only not allowing them in.. So lets turn this around, chik-fil-A will not hire a gay.. So is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?.. Answer "neither is destroying anyones livelihood, because at this point chik-fil-A doesn't have a buisness there, and no one is working for chik-fil-A.. But.. "Neither is right for no allowing equal opportunity." Now go futher "If a gay is found working at chik-fil-A, they will be fired.. Now let us ask the question. Is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?.. Answer "No, it is not".. If chik-fil-A was being booted out of their established place of buisness, then that would be wrong also. Getting a little taste of what the gay person constantly gets and not liking it one bit, are we Beavah? One of your own, got a door shut on their nose. Sorry the fact Chick-fil-a will take a homosexuals money but not hire them is not treating them equally.. BSA will take contribution money from a homosexual also.

I didn't say union members, but everyone who the union represents.. That does mean something different then union members, but I am uncertain what as the union is suppose to represent it's members.. But, perhaps if it is a union that represent groups within different corporations then it is a vote from each corporate group.. As I said I am not sure how the approval is met.. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/48106643#48106643 As for the rest of you, it is all speculations, innuendos and hope & wishing.. Absolutely nothing but crackpot theroys, with nothing to back it up. Perhaps you too can put a wanted poster up with a reward in the Washington post for someone who can proove a crackpot theroy. TAHawk stated Specifically, she didn't suggest that "The president is a Muslim", that "Every Muslim is a terrorist," that "Everyone who is not "like me" is a spy," or that "Any one who disagrees with me is a mole." I suppose "she" is the crackpot in Congress (Michele Bachmann, for those of you who can't figure out a crackpot when you see one) who is making unwarrented accusations against Humin Abedin.. My comment was not toward that "she" .. But more directed toward Callooh! Callay! Comment. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance. Along with others of the same beliefs like Seattle Wow Seattle, scandalous that in the melting pot of America we may have other people working in close proximity of the President who are not all white middle-aged men. The birther crackpots, like Donald Trump.. My own states lovely John Sununu who is representing Romney I wish our president could learn to be an American.. Romney himself : his Obamas policies are foreign, ..his course is extraordinarily foreign.. the course we are on right now if foreign to us.. Foreign.. No Democrats have been around for a long time, and they have even run the country before, and they have even created created policies before.. But, seriously the message is to feed the crackpots among you.. It is code, that "hey, you crackpots are on the right track".. ?Hes a foreigner".. It is crackpot code talk for "psst I can't say it, or I will be labeled a crackpot with the rest of you.. But, I agree with all you crackpots".. So now all you true believers can put on your little tinfoil hats and look for the hidden meaning behind perfectly straight forward sentences.. Go out on your Obama hunts.. Post rewards for someone proving your conspiaricy theroies are more then simple delusions inside your brains.

Callooh! Callay! I think you are trying to rationalize with that rambling that you follow the crackpots.. Wow! Your even believing "The president is a Muslim" conspiracy.. Even the normal Republicans are laughing at these guys and there remarks.. Every Muslim is a terrorist.. Everyone who is not "like me" is a spy.. Any one who disagrees with me is a mole.. Maybe they are a foreigner.. They are not like "us". They are not one of "us".. The new code to words..

Knox vs SCIU.. Not that I disagree with the ruling mind you.. States that Unions need to get approval from everyone they represent before spending money on a political campaign.. Which means if you are paying your union dues, you get to say if you want some of it split off to go to supporting politics.. Corporations though do not have to check with shareholders to spend money toward political campaigns, of course billions do not have to check with anyone to spend their billions.. Just means Labor unions have to jump through hoops others do not need to.. I am also unsure if they need a majority vote, or if you check some box to say $10 of you union dues can go to a political campaign or not or how they work it.. Thing is when unions spend the money, it is not anymore the big Labor boss buying the politician.. It is all the little people the union represents.. Somehow the "we the people".. The "we the little guys put collectively put our little dollars together" takes the sleaze, and sinister out of the whole thing for me. Before this ruling, unions could look just as sleazy.. It might make it harder for the unions to compete, but it brought them down a notch or two on the sleaze odometer.. A big Union Labor leader is not giving this money, all these little guys collectively are giving this money. Do the little guys pool their money collectively to keep someone in power who they feel will be more favorable to them and their unions.. Sure! When do you ever contribute to someone you think will not represent you favorable? I am surprised that with this hoop jumping this union was able to contribute this much.. But, all I said was it makes it harder, not impossible. Still feel better about a Union who gets their members to agree to support a canadate, rather then one man who wakes up and decides today he would like to buy a country.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Absolutely.. No doubt.. It is broken.. How can you stay in the fight with someone spending a billion dollars on his campaign without capital itself.. Take all that money and put it to the deficite and our country would be starting to pull itself out.. Labor parties can not compete with the money being tossed around in the Romney campaign and must get permission to spend it.. I really don't fear the take over of the Entertainment industry.. Defense can get out of hand, we really don't need 100 bombs pointed at Iran, when one will take it out, but I have not gotten the notion our Defense wants to point their bombs at us (yet).. Big oil now that is a force that is dragging us under, not allowing us to find new solutions to get rid of our dependency on it is a killer. Still I will take 1-million from Morgan Freeman, and 1 or 2 million from any other actor or director of Hollywood and the 10-thousand or 20-thousand from Labor Unions which need alot more of them accumulated together to pull in decent money.. I just can't take the 100 million plus from a handful of one percenters.. Who are not all Oil and Defense anymore. My husband said the surplus of these donations should be required to be spent on paying down the deficit.. Me, I think there should be made a cap on what a campaign can raise, and how much one person can spend.. but, then I also think both parties should be destroyed and a whole lot of very radical other beliefs about politics in general.

So what is so sinister about Morgan Freeman besides he is a democrat and a great movie actor?.. What sort of payback do you think he is after? How does his one-million dollar contribution compare to the Koch Brothers 10-million and pledge to go as high as 100-million dollar? How does his one-million dollar contribution compare to the Sheldon Adelson 10-million and pledge of 100+-million (plus as in limitless) dollars.. (Federally charged with bribery of foreign politician in China to get out of Casino financial mess) You wish to state Morgan Freeman 1 million as questionable?? It is peanuts and far less sinister, both in the reputation of who is contributing, as well as the amount contributed.. So Seattle, what were the very shady and questionable amounts donated to Obama in 2008?

Well, I have mixed emotions about Obama-care, and Romney-care, so that crowning achievement was a wash.. I guess I was talking about MA being above the national curve on unemployment and far below the national curve on unemployment when he left.. But, i do have to admit some of my dislike for Romney is his being a MA governor, and I lived in MA during the Dukakis rule, and cringed when he ran for President. It was said that many in MA supported him too. (He too was scary). packsaddle - LOL.. OK this is how I really feel.. In truth, I always liked a little Republican and a little Democrat mix, so one could balance out the other. The Democrat free to create whatever social program they want scares me.. I lived in MA, I hated being taxed for all their social programs, I moved to NH to get away from a lot of it. I voted for both Bush Senior & Junior. With Bush Sr., I voted against Dukakis as he was Governor of MA while I lived there and I could stand the man's social programs.. I also loved Reagan. But I have voted Democrat also, and I always used to like an offset in Congress.. It slowed both sides down, but until this congress it did not grind things to a halt. But the new Republican party will work with no one, and it's desire to hold the country hostage with filibusters is insane.. And my vote for George W. Bush was proved to be a mistake.. They have become so right-wing, so conservative they now are scary.. Then add the republicans choice for President, his dodginess, his lies, how he is raising his campaign funds and from whom.. The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson who is up on Federal charges for bribing politicians in China to pull his casino out of financial ruin. The final one I heard about was brief, and may be a false rumor.. That was about someone else who made his millions in coal who contributed and was promised a seat on the environmental board if Romney wins. With or without disclosure, these billionaires like to sing.. But voting down disclosure stinks to high heaven also. The Republican states (including NH) putting in new voter ID laws, with one Governor stating its sole purpose is to reduce the ability of democrats who are Latino, black or poor from voting, not to stop voter fraud (which no one has proved is anything but minuscule) I guess I just see this whole country as vunerable, and I look at how Bane bought and sucked dry the vulnerable companies in order to profit while not only firing the employees but stealing their pensions. With the Republicans I feel those corporate vultures buzzing around our head..

Well, I will take personal take on the world.. If you can make up your mind on a presidential candidate on his rhetoric, shows the sad state of the voters in this country.. Romney hasnt said much except Im not Obama.. For me, I dont like the multi-billionaires who have bought and paid for Romney .. I dont like his game of dodge as he tries to treat everyone as a horse with blinders on and the reins pulled tight.. Dont look at my time as governor (where he failed), Dont look at the Olympics (where the taxpayers paid $1.5 Billion to bail out Mitt.).. Dont ask for my tax Returns.. And yes I left Bane in 1999 (although when it was questioned running for Governor that I was no longer a resident of MA I stated my continuing business link to Bane, returning for board meetings and working over the phone..).. And dont look at the fact I started the ball rolling for the company to outsource before 1999.. Just look at jobs created before and after 1999, but dont look at jobs lost before and after 1999.. So if I need to choose between four more years of Obama even if he cant get Congress to work with him, and I fear policies changes if the President & Congress were all Democratic.. I fear more a sleazy greedy business man at the help, bought by 7 other sleazy rich guys, and I would definitely fear what they would do if the President & Congress all became Republican. Obama - may not have gotten as much done in the last 4 years I would have hoped.. Some of his decisions I disliked.. But I know from 4 years he does have the best interests of the country at heart. Romney - Shows self-interest (or the interest for his social class only), Lies and dodginess... Now lets see what either of them have to say about how to get the country out of the mess it is in.. The mess the last Republican president put us in, the mess the Republican filibustering practices have had a heavy hand in as well as the President. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Welcome, jump into any topic you have interest in.. We have a few young adults (16-30) who we enjoy having for their fresh perspective on the opinions of the rest of us old fogies. Sometimes we listen to you guys better then we listen to each other and sometimes not.