/dev/null Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Ann Althouse . Wait, so the Progressives want to protest by buying gasoline from Exxon-Mobil or BP and spewing out greenhouse gasses and contribute to Global Warming®? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Ding! My HotPocket is ready... Too long of a post, trim it down a little more and people will actually read it... You are getting better! Keep up the good work... Yeah, once again we see how worthless the "this post is too long" argument is. Only this time....it was egregiously misapplied...to a 4 sentence post?? But still, it's yet another example of: when you can't beat the content, TRY to beat the messenger, or talk about the process. Not gonna happen. Back to the content: why would Republicans not want everybody to make good money? More people making good money, means less tax burden for those making good money now. And more likely than not, more people making good money means even more money for those making good money now. Democrats are for only certain people making good money, and taxing money from others in order to artificially make that happen. Many Republicans are for ALL people making good money, or as many as possible, as that means that the tax rate can be cut for ALL people, while the revenue taken in, is still higher than it would have been had we simply raised taxes. Too many Democrats look at the economy as a "zero sum"...meaning you have to take from one place to give in another. This is flat out wrong, and ignorance-based. Some Republicans, correctly, understand that economics is NOT a zero sum game. After all: who did Yahoo take from when it first got started? Answer: nobody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Yeah, once again we see how worthless the "this post is too long" argument is. Only this time....it was egregiously misapplied...to a 4 sentence post?? But still, it's yet another example of: when you can't beat the content, TRY to beat the messenger, or talk about the process. Not gonna happen. Back to the content: why would Republicans not want everybody to make good money? More people making good money, means less tax burden for those making good money now. And more likely than not, more people making good money means even more money for those making good money now. Democrats are for only certain people making good money, and taxing money from others in order to artificially make that happen. Many Republicans are for ALL people making good money, or as many as possible, as that means that the tax rate can be cut for ALL people, while the revenue taken in, is still higher than it would have been had we simply raised taxes. Too many Democrats look at the economy as a "zero sum"...meaning you have to take from one place to give in another. This is flat out wrong, and ignorance-based. Some Republicans, correctly, understand that economics is NOT a zero sum game. After all: who did Yahoo take from when it first got started? Answer: nobody. I see you are back to form. Even you are not this stupid. Think for a minute.... I guess the joke got past you... Lighten up Francis. You can't be seriously this dumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I see you are back to form. Even you are not this stupid. Think for a minute.... I guess the joke got past you... Lighten up Francis. You can't be seriously this dumb? Oh yeah...the "Republicans want to keep people from making good money"....that was a hysterical...joke. You should think about Vegas with this act... Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I see you are back to form. Even you are not this stupid. Think for a minute.... You can't be seriously this dumb? My policy towards EII, is to ignore him since he adds little to any thread. ("thats good advice" - Jimmy Dugan ) However, I do wish to thank him for a good laugh this morning. You see, when you are calling someone stupid, it would help your point if you used correct grammar. "You can't seriously be this dumb ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 My policy towards EII, is to ignore him since he adds little to any thread. ("thats good advice" - Jimmy Dugan ) However, I do wish to thank him for a good laugh this morning. You see, when you are calling someone stupid, it would help your point if you used correct grammar. "You can't seriously be this dumb ? . Ooops... Not worried about grammar on the board... Should I? I probably should when correcting somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Wisconsin ripples? Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in Tuesday’s recall vote is yielding dividends for another Midwestern Republican governor. A group that sought to force a recall of Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder said Thursday it’s calling it quits, citing a lack of support and the chilly political climate in the wake of the Wisconsin vote. Michigan Rising, an independent group that had set a goal of gathering 1 million signatures on petitions to force a recall vote on Mr. Snyder, said Thursday it will stop its recall campaign immediately. The organization’s leaders said in a web post that as of June 4 it had collected only 2,079 names on 655 petitions, well short of a target of 200,000 signatures by June 1. “It has become abundantly clear that Michigan Rising was not going accomplish its goal of recalling Governor Snyder,” Michigan Rising’s communications director Bruce Fealk said in a statement. “The results in Wisconsin crystallized how difficult a task it is to recall a sitting governor, even when the unions and the Democratic Party play a significant role in the effort.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Wisconsin ripples? Don't like how the election turned out? Recall 'em! Congrats to Walker for being the first Guv to survive a recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 FTA: The second harbinger was the plunge in public-employee union membership. The most important of Walker’s reforms, the change Big Labor had fought most bitterly, was ending the automatic withholding of union dues. That made union membership a matter of choice, not compulsion — and tens of thousands of government workers chose to toss their union cards. More than one-third of the Wisconsin members of the American Federation of Teachers quit, reported The Wall Street Journal. At the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the state’s largest unions, the hemorrhaging was worse: AFSCME’s Wisconsin rolls shrank by more than 34,000 over the past year, a 55 percent nose-dive. Did government workers tear up their union cards solely because the union had lost its right to bargain collectively on their behalf? That’s doubtful: Even under the new law, unions still negotiate over salaries. More likely, public-sector employees ditched their unions for the same reasons so many employees in the private sector — which is now less than 7 percent unionized — have done so: Many never wanted to join a union in the first place. Others were repelled by the authoritarian, belligerent, and left-wing political culture that entrenched unionism so often embodies Boston Globe . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Others were repelled by the authoritarian, belligerent, and left-wing political culture that entrenched unionism so often embodies. This is one thing the left will never figure out. People get sick of belligerent, authoritarian left-wing fools who are more interested in keeping their little fiefdoms and imposing what they think is best for people than actually doing the jobs that they are paid to do. Unions stopped being about the workers a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Obama: I skipped WI battle because I have responsibilities. The dude literally flew OVER the state from one fundraiser to another WHILE THE ELECTION WAS TAKING PLACE. It's amazes me that ANY liberal or progressive would tolerate THIS level of stupidity, because you MUST be stupid to spew this crap. Embarrassing drops to new depths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Obama: I skipped WI battle because I have responsibilities. The dude literally flew OVER the state from one fundraiser to another WHILE THE ELECTION WAS TAKING PLACE. It's amazes me that ANY liberal or progressive would tolerate THIS level of stupidity, because you MUST be stupid to spew this crap. Embarrassing drops to new depths. Maybe he doesn't believe in the recall... I didn't... Yet, both Obama and I would not argue if a republican 'bagging douche gets thrown out on his ear... Why waste the money, just wait till the next election. As executive, the prez sees over the federal model... Why can't WI at least follow that? There is collective bargaining... Unless the WI model is severely broken, there is no need to wipe it out completetly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Obama: I skipped WI battle because I have responsibilities. The dude literally flew OVER the state from one fundraiser to another WHILE THE ELECTION WAS TAKING PLACE. It's amazes me that ANY liberal or progressive would tolerate THIS level of stupidity, because you MUST be stupid to spew this crap. Embarrassing drops to new depths. Clearly, Obama understood that Barrett had no shot like the rest of us. It would have been a waste of time for him and actually would have hurt his support in that state. Remember, exit polls showed him beating Romney there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) He was too busy to make a public statement supporting Barrett? Sorry but with Barrett losing and Barry's lack of support, I can't see how that helps Barry, regardless of what the exit polls say, which don't take into account the outcome of the recall. Edited June 12, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 He was too busy to make a public statement supporting Barrett? Sorry but with Barrett losing and Barry's lack of support, I can't see how that helps Barry, regardless of what the exit polls say, which don't take into account the outcome of the recall. I've read a lot of people in Wisconsin are pissed that Obama didn't show his support. Many of these people are debating whether they want to support Obama during the next election. Sure, they'll probably still vote for him, but I'm getting the sense that he won't have as many citizen volunteers as he did in the previous election. I think this quote from the article is hilarious: “My suspicion is that all across this country, governors who are dealing with tough budgets have to make tough decisions,” he said. “But one of the lessons learned is that it is better to make them with people than against people." Ummm, Walker won the recall, and if he would've worked WITH everyone, then the changes would have never been put in place. If anything, this is showing governors that they can make the difficult decisions and that the people support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Ooops... Not worried about grammar on the board... Should I? I probably should when correcting somebody. You are obviously not worried about content either...as you are now ducking me in this thread. Got any more hysterical jokes for us? That....aren't distinguishable as jokes...until you tell us they are? Clearly, Obama understood that Barrett had no shot like the rest of us. It would have been a waste of time for him and actually would have hurt his support in that state. Remember, exit polls showed him beating Romney there. This is half right. Obama knew, hell we all knew, that Barrett was a lost cause. In fact, when this whole Wisconsin nonsense started, I correctly predicted that the government labor unions were playing with nuclear weapons, never mind fire, and that their best course would be to make massive concessions, ride out the storm, and know that when good economic times return, they could return to demanding largess. Instead they chose....poorly. The did the exact opposite, and now they have given away their prized possessions and best weapons: public good will and an implied doom for any politician who would dare challenge them. They lost the PR battle with their televised a-hole behavior, and, a politician just stood up to them and kicked their asses, providing an example for all others. They got NOTHING in return. This was a massively stupid choice, to the point that collective bargaining wasn't even a viable campaign issue by the time the election happened. Now, it's open season on them, in every state, except California. Also, as I predicted word for word. Look no farther than New York I don't know about whether Obama being there would have helped or hurt. Right now he's got a bigger "out of touch" problem than Romeny does. See "the private sector is fine". He has been nothing other than "campaigner in chief" his whole presidency...so why stop now? At least if he showed up, the unions would know, the far left would know, that he was there for them. Now? It's ? Given Obama's "gin up the base/divide and conquer" strategy elsewhere, I don't see how not showing up in Wisconsin fits with that. Unfortunately, I do see how it fits with the "Obama is too good to be associated with FAIL" thinking that is clouding the left's ability to make sound political decisions. As far as the exit polls: I doubt exit polls that had Barrett winning, or Walker only up by 2....can be trusted to have Obama up by 7. Up by 2 or so, I could believe, but up by 7 is retarded. Period. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that those polls weren't seriously flawed. Edited June 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Maybe he doesn't believe in the recall... I didn't... Yet, both Obama and I would not argue if a republican 'bagging douche gets thrown out on his ear... Why waste the money, just wait till the next election. As executive, the prez sees over the federal model... Why can't WI at least follow that? There is collective bargaining... Unless the WI model is severely broken, there is no need to wipe it out completetly. Let's try this one more time and see if you can spot the unbelievably embarrassing statement by the president. Obama leaves one fundraiser, flies OVER Wisconsin DURING THE ELECTION to go to another fundraiser, and when asked why he did that, his answer was "I'm busy." He could say "I don't believe in recalls" or he could say "Republicans are 'bagging douches." But no. He's busy. How the hell do you accept and defend this stupidity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Let's try this one more time and see if you can spot the unbelievably embarrassing statement by the president. Obama leaves one fundraiser, flies OVER Wisconsin DURING THE ELECTION to go to another fundraiser, and when asked why he did that, his answer was "I'm busy." He could say "I don't believe in recalls" or he could say "Republicans are 'bagging douches." But no. He's busy. How the hell do you accept and defend this stupidity? I was flipping through stations and on CNN, John King was laughing at what an absurd excuse it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Let's try this one more time and see if you can spot the unbelievably embarrassing statement by the president. Obama leaves one fundraiser, flies OVER Wisconsin DURING THE ELECTION to go to another fundraiser, and when asked why he did that, his answer was "I'm busy." He could say "I don't believe in recalls" or he could say "Republicans are 'bagging douches." But no. He's busy. How the hell do you accept and defend this stupidity? And he visited California I don't know how many times to get mucho dinero from SF and LA. Edited June 13, 2012 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 And he visited California I don't know how many times to get mucho dinero from SF and LA. He's sucked a lot of money out of this state that we could really use to spend on a campaign that won't even be close here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts