Question for Disparagers, etc.

[skeptic]

While at least some of the strident voices appearing here seem to at least actually be involved, and contributing something, it seems obvious that the most disparaging and unhappy ones are not.

 

So, what, other than trying to force a minority view on the majority through questionable tactics and PC opinions, what have you done to improve your community (assuming you feel forcing minority views as improving things)? What have any of the mostly puppet litigants done to improve their own lot, or that of those with whom they share their town and its resources?

 

 

 

[JoeBob]

Pot: "Kettle, you are black!"

[scoutingagain]

What do you consider the minority view?

 

SA

[GernBlansten]

Well, that depends on who's in power at the moment.

[skeptic]

"What do you consider the minority view?"

 

That should be obvious; but it is of course the diatribes on 2 of the 3 G's. And yes, they are very definitely minority views, unless there is a definition of majority that is new and improved.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What are the "questionable tactics" referred to?

 

And how does holding "PC opinions" constitute trying to "force a minority view"? Are people with minority opinions not supposed to talk about them?

[OldGreyEagle]

During the Bush years, there were constant demostrations about various postions of the Bush Administration and when asked about such demonstration Bush invariably said, isnt great to live in a country that values the right of free speech. When the Tea Parties were held, someone had to be blamed for settign them up, because the mere unwashed masses could never organize such things. No one questioned the peace demonstrators, or at least I didnt hear/see it. When the democrats were the minority, I know I heard about the right of the minority to be heard and be respected. I know I see a whole lot of comments about this is how it works when you win, you lord it over the losers. Well, it has not been balanced. OK, maybe it wasnt balanced for the liberals during the past 8 years, but lets not pretend that what conservatives do now is any different than what the liberals did during the Bush years in regards to carping and jumping on the flimsiest excuse for ridicule.

 

When does it stop? When do we not attack the side in office for being in power and work for the the general overall good? Funny, I felt like I was writing the set up for a joke while typing this paragraph, I wonder if its possible?

[Beavah]

but lets not pretend that what conservatives do now is any different than what the liberals did during the Bush years in regards to carping and jumping on the flimsiest excuse for ridicule.

 

Nah, not in da first 100 days, and not in the midst of two wars and a depression.

 

The carpin' to my mind is way too shrill and unpatriotic given the challenges. Smacks of carin' more about a silly political party than about the country. Or carin' more about latent racism they haven't gotten over than anything.

 

I honestly don't know what this thread is about, but I will say that I admire my fellow Americans who can speak their mind thoughtfully and respectfully, and then roll up their sleeves and help the other guy get the job done for the nation.

 

Can't say as I have much use for the rest, liberal or conservative. Though I have less use for da liberals .

 

Right now, though, I wish someone would put da Republican Party out of its misery. They need to dump a lot of their folks and start fresh, or da rest of us conservatives need to go out and start a new party.

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic]

The intent was to try and get an answer from the carpers as to what they actually do or have done to better the communities in which they live, and in which Scouting constantly contributes service. It really was not intended to refer to politics and the two party issues. But, it could, in that the "sore losers" seem to have no alternate ideas, just whining that they do not like what is being done. Their blinders during the past 8 years must have suddenly fallen off.

 

Frankly, I really did not expect any real answer to my intended question, as I do not see the litigants and their supporters doing anything of particular good for the community at large, other than things that are specific to their own needs and issues.

 

Still, perhaps I have missed something.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I didn't expect you to clarify your question, skeptic; you weren't really asking, what you were doing was disparaging, as JoeBob pointed out with his reply.

 

I'd like to know how the BSA's e.g. litigation over the Cradle of Liberty building is supposed to "help the community"

[skeptic]

"I'd like to know how the BSA's e.g. litigation over the Cradle of Liberty building is supposed to "help the community"

 

Perhaps by allowing continuation of a positive program in the city, and keeping a substantial piece of land from turning into a weed field, and becoming run down. That is almost certainly what will happen should the city take it over, given their budget and the economy as a whole. Of course none of that matters to a few individuals, as has continued to be pretty clear.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Perhaps by allowing continuation of a positive program in the city,

 

None of their programs require them to be headquartered in that building.

 

and keeping a substantial piece of land from turning into a weed field, and becoming run down.

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

Right, the BSA is actually providing a SERVICE by renting a public building for $1/year instead of paying market rates of $200,000/year, because as we all know, cities never bother to take care of valuable public property that generates income.

 

This still doesn't explain or justify why the BSA is suing the city. That's costing the taxpayers money, but the BSA doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

[CalicoPenn]

Here, in a nutshell, is what the concern boils down to - in my opinion:

 

"as I do not see the litigants and their supporters doing anything of particular good for the community at large, other than things that are specific to their own needs and issues."

 

Well this is true of just about any and every group. I'd say almost to a one, every group and individual, their supporters, and litigants, does things that are specific to their own needs and issues. The problem is that we can't agree - note I said can't, not don't or won't - on what is good for the community at large. And I said "can't" because in any population over 10, consensus is hard to reach - and the larger the population, the harder it is.

 

For instance, there are folks out in my community, and in neighboring communities, that are advocating for trap, neuter and release of feral cats. They are well-intentioned folks who care about cats and think this is what's best for the community to keep the feral cat issue under control. I, on the other hand, would prefer that truly native species of birds and animals take precedence and therefore think the TNR folks are daft, that we should be trapping and euthanizing if the cats can't be adopted to prevent the continuing decline of our migratory bird species. From my perspective, and of the folks I know and tend to hang out with, this position is correct and best for the community and the TNR folks have a position that is detrimental to the community. Form the TNR folks perspective, my position is nonsense because they care more about cats than birds. They really hate it when I suggest they're wasting their money on food on the hoof for the local coyote population.

 

Same is true here - folks on both sides of "the GGG issues" truly believe they are doing what is best for both their community and for the BSA. And we'll usually disagree with the other side.

 

[Lisabob]

As I think I've mentioned before, I'm a liberal Democrat. I'm proud of that fact. Of course I think my party has the right answers more often than not! I was delighted to see Obama win the presidency and am extremely happy to have what I consider to be an articulate and thoughtful voice speaking for my country again. I was relieved to see Palin return to Alaska rather than setting up shop in the White House. Of course I realize that my views tend to be minority views in scouting circles. So be it, I can live with that. In fact I try to keep my political views out of my scouting most of the time, because I think we scouters have a lot of common ground to build upon. But when asked, I am perfectly willing to explain and defend my views to other scouters. Of course I expect from them the same courtesy I give them, when they air their political views.

 

All that said, in my day job, I teach political science and most semesters, I teach American government. I have students from all walks of life and all political backgrounds. I tell them at least once a week that I do not CARE what their political views are, nor do I expect them to parrot my views. I care deeply that they have views of their own and that they have thought about why they believe whatever they do, and that it is based on some shred of evidence that they understand and can articulate. And you know, the vast majority - from the LaRouchies to the socialists to the "Fair tax" folks and the libertarians to the occasional Marijuana Party kids to most of the Dems and Reps - seem to accept that approach pretty well. In fact, the only folks I ever have a hard time with are the super-dogmatic Democrats and Republicans who are "right" because "they're right!" Or because "my parents said so!" Or because "the other side is stupid!"

 

The glory of this country, to me, is that people can voice their opinions, whatever they are. But along with that, if you want others to take you seriously, you have to be able to explain your views. And you have to accept that most people, rather than being "true believers," are somewhere in the eclectic and messy middle. And you have to stop demonizing people who have an honest disagreement with you.

 

We here in this forum are probably the exceptions to the norm. Most of us probably seek out the politics forum because we have deep-seated political beliefs in favor of (or at least, opposed to) one side or another. Might be good to remember that most Americans care more about moderation than we political junkie types do.

 

 

 

[skeptic]

Merlyn:

 

The scouts built the building, and have maintained it for all these years. The city reneged on its contract. $200,000 will go a long way to drive program in "that" part of the city. Proximity to the customer is always helpful. And yes, public properties are notorious for being run down, especially if they cannot find a lessee because of a down economy.

 

As far as service goes, we are not talking about service by maintaining the property; we are talking about actual man/boy hours rendered by 100's of scouts and scouters for all types of community entities such as parks, schools, and special events. Add in the aid given to other charitable private groups, and it is huge. In our small council, the Eagle projects alone account for over 60,000 hours of service.

 

What serves the common good more? Trying to force your opinions on others and suing if you disagree; or simply compromising and letting positive groups function as they see fit?

 

I realize that this means nothing to you. So, I will stop "rattling your cage" and go back to ignoring you for a while.