Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by TalonStrike, May 25, 2012.
So....did anyone watch the debate?
Let me ask you a question...
Assume an American company - one whose State of Registry is say Delaware - is owned by oh... some foreign or US citizen supporters of China and this company wishes to use its Free Speech to fund some political agenda or for that matter some really rich supporter of China's Manifest Destiny who likewise wants to fund a particular candidate who would be favorably disposed to China's interests.... Would it not be a good Idea to learn Chinese?... Mandarin maybe.
One can infer from this statement of Moonbeam's that we'd be speaking Chinese long before - in context - an organized Constitutional Amendment ratification process could occur.
and that article is wrong.
written by a partisan hack.
Fact - Wisconsin gain 30,000+ jobs last year.
Your article did not disprove that.
All Barrett could say is "Rockstar" "John Doe" & "Divided the state".
On an endless loop.
Nope, still no reason to speak Chinese. I worked for Panasonic, never learned Japanese. I even went to Japan for factory training on some of their robotics...the only Japanese I learned was enough to get around in their country. Had I not gone to Japan, I would not have learned any Japanese.
Ah, he is saying we will never be speaking Chinese. On that, I agree with him.
Thanks. Any union shills watch it to give the alternative view?
michal: and that article is wrong.
M: Your opinion has no affect on reality. You have the conservative brain defect really bad.
m: written by a partisan hack.
M: Your opinion again, the site I gave and the one you gave were the same site.
m: Fact - Wisconsin gain 30,000+ jobs last year.
M: There is no proof of that.
m: Your article did not disprove that.
M: I don't have to disprove it. It has been judged by folk who are independent and studied the facts to be a mostly false claim:
A union 'shill' would have a built in bias, No? And besides the alternative view to the OP's question would be "who wills lose"...
My view is that the folks who support Walker will support him regardless of the facts presented and those who oppose will oppose him... So it boils down to the folks who ride the fence and they usually are smart enough to figure out the BS from the Wheat...
The big money can say all they want if the facts don't support that it will be wasted money.
The facts about the numbers being tossed about by Walker is clear... using a 3% sample of companies and extrapolating from that is not nearly as accurate as the data supplied by all the companies... so back up to a clearly relevant period and see what actually happened since his office taking occurred...
The BLS seems to think Wisconsin is pretty low among the States in Job Creation... So... use hard data and not the weak data that Walker uses.
wow. no one watched the debate? are we all debated out after the endless series of republican debates? my guess is that walker will be tossed out. people are just in that kind of mood it seems. given the chance, anyone and everyone up for a recall would get the boot. doesn't matter who it is. might be mean spirited public? might be irritation with politicians in general? might be the "try something, anything different" mood. people just seem to have a sour attitude. thats not good for any politician currently in office. people are sick of the bs. sick of the money. sick of the nit picking. sick of the childish behavior. sick of the bully ads.
he's damaged goods. he's already a loser. he appears weak. too defensive. whiny.
Yeah... my guess is that he will lose by a pretty hefty margin.
not long to go till we find out...
Of course they will. A union shill is anti-Walker....and therefor (at this point) pro Barrett. Hence my request to see what an anti-Walker, pro-Barrett union shill says about the debate.
Did you watch the debate? If so, give your views on it.
I showed you proof.
You are just showing how brain dead you are.
Even your link says jobs were created last year. Political fact had to do olmypic sized gymnatics to reach a mostly false conclusion.
"While the 2011 numbers are not yet "official," they are real numbers submitted by the state to the BLS"
The REAL numbers they are talking about are the job GAIN numbers.
every current poll shows otherwise.
then again democrates managed to get the courts to throw out voter id, so they are able to bring in all there out of state paid hacks to vote.
I know. You read Newton and you know apples fall up. How do you tie your shoes?
Those real numbers were are not vetted, subject to change, and early released, to give Walker some small basis on which to make a largely false claim. The fact that they are real numbers is why Walker's claim of their significance was ruled only mostly false instead of totally false. But I understand how mostly false appeals to the conservative brain defect that doesn't process fact but looks for rationalizations. You have convinced yourself you can think because of your defective inability to reason, but to folk who can analyze data, you look like a lunatic.
Saw it on C-span. I usually watch such things on C-span where I'm left without anyone to tell me what they just said and what that means.
I felt that Walker showed much better than Barrett in demeanor and presenting his case.
Barrett seemed a very poor choice and I found my self not really absorbing much of what he did say...
I understand a bit about the numbers well... quite a bit. I know that Walker can use what he did use because they are there. IF the hard numbers were also available and he chose the soft ones to make his case I'd chuckle at him... I may still do so when hard numbers are determined but that will be after the vote. I'd have used those very same numbers if I wanted to counter the job loss versus gain argument... ya can't prove it wrong yet.
I do have a sorta smile about his claim of 250,000 before he was elected. I can't imagine how he could have made that claim given the situation in Wisconsin... He also mentioned smaller government which sorta implies job loss. AND I'd have said IF there is a job loss some of that is do to making government less expensive for the taxpayer....
Ya mean the conservatives are too dumb to do what the democrats can do?...
Guess maybe they're more law abiding and especially when it comes to election stuff. No true Conservative would seek to remove an eligible voter for any reason... Disenfranchisement is a word the Conservatives don't even have in their spell checker.
I agree on the promise of so many jobs when he knew he would be cutting a lot of government jobs. A foolish thing to promise.
Thanks for your insight, I did not see the debate. Most people whose comments I have read (here and other places) say the same as you. It is not a surprise to me (after hearing this) that the Unions backed someone else...someone who had a chance to win.
Yup! They are numbers! The whole point is they are NOT vetted and final. Walker nor anyone else have those 'hard numbers' yet so he can use them.... but, do they convince? Folks smart enough know what they mean ought not be swayed by them... However, can they swing 60,000? ...I doubt it. Is there a history of big swings after vetting or not extrapolating? Not that much probably... least ways not in Wisconsin. Heck there is only about 2.8m in the workforce... lots of cheese though.
The story is pretty simple. Radical right interests, like the Koch brothers - who were Walker's biggest donors IIRC - have agendas against the public interest, like polluting.
They find whores who will serve their agenda, and pay for them to get elected.
Walker did just that. Part of that agenda to get elected is to prevent the other side from getting elected - not by winning fairly in a democratic election, but by undermining democracy; not only by using an advantage on money to buy public opinion, but to suppress Democratic voters - there's a national campaign to do that Walker is on board with - but also to cut the funding for Democrats, which means attacking unions.
And that's what Walker has done - in a stealth agenda he hid in the election.
This is almost as ugly as politics gets, short of violence.
And it's about that simple. This is why Walker has been caught talking about his 'divide and conquer' plan to attack unions, caught talking about the war on unions to who he thought was a Koch brother. He's an unashamed servent of the corrupt wealthiest interests against the people, cutting money for them so the wealthy get more.
He's a radical and he was elected on a false platform, and deserves to be the first Wisconsin governor removed from office by the people, overcoming his ad campaign.
Koch Brothers again! AAHHH!!! THE BOGEY MAN IS HERE!!! RUN!!!!!!!
I laugh each time a lib invokes the Koch Brothers. It proves the person is not thinking rationally. Why not blame the illuminati or the Xenu? They are just as likely to be the bogey man.
Google "Koch Brothers Walker Wisconsin" to see how far off and isolated your opinion is about how much influence the Koch Bros. have in that State and what the Koch Bros. are doing to have it all their way in Wisconsin.
It's all there if you care to take your Rove colored glasses off and get real about it.
When you say it proves something, what do you mean. I see no proof at all other than somebody who says he is right because he just said he is. You laugh because you have a need. You feel insignificant, some how, and laugh to bluster and pump up your ego, no, to create a bit of that good old feeling of superiority? Ah yes, mentioning the Cock brothers, see how others can play, in a thread where their money has been given in great quantity, has to be like bringing the tooth fairy into the argument, when your need is to belittle the other side because, well you know, because of your emotional insecurity.
You work for the Bogey Man.
I suspect Walker will win 55-45. If he finishes what he started and restricts all public-sector unions, instead of only a few, he'll get my vote when he has to run for re-election. If not, I'll be voting for whomever runs against him at the time.
I won't be voting for either him or Barrett in this recall election, though.
Notice the crickets your post was met with despite the fact that you:
1. Actually live in the state
2. Expressed rationally the viewpoint I suspect a majority of your fellow citizens share.
Your last sentence sums up succinctly the problem I have with public sector unions period. It is something that even unions and pro union pols seemingly understood until 1958 when the camel managed to get its nose under the tent.
I would suggest to you that this is but the first step to what you seek. In politics you rarely get everything you want in a single step, candidate, or election. There is also a lot of education that needs to take place for people to really understand the implicit conflict of interest that public employee collective bargaining represents. To use that much overused Chinese quotation "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".
You have more faith in government than I, apparently.
No one will hold his feet to the fire on this issue.