Walker is not following your advise, his tactic is an scorched earth one. In the short run, he may likely succeed, in the long run he will not care that he will sink the republicans on the next election.
Rasmussen was dead last among comparable pollsters. Dead last.
Utterly and completely discredited. Cease flogging that expired equine.
Since when did polls matter.
The Messiah ushered in an era of change.
Now those who won can proclaim,“Elections have Consequences”
Shove it down their throats like the health care bill was shoved down mine.
There’s always 2012.
The Health Care Bill was voted in with a supermajority. The only thing being shoved down your throat are the talking points that you substitute for thinking.
And that has to be carefully done. Shove too hard, too long, and they travel all the way down and out the rectum, spattering an innocent message board.
But in this case you have David Koch donating heavily enough to Walker to be given phone access to him despite claims that Walker wasn’t talking to anyone as revealed by The Buffalo Beast. You also have David Koch and his brother donating millions to anti-union causes. That’s potential evidence of bias in the other direction. You have private citizens paying millions of dollars to elect union hostile politicians who in turn take away collective bargaining rights. I dare say that the bias is at a wash here, though I would personally give more weight to the unions, who represent groups of workers vs. the Koch brothers who represent themselves at this point. A large group of people is simply more of the public than two people.
Also it would seem that the Wisconsin government is rather anti-union at present which I would think means that negotiating with the unions would be easier for them without needing to take away collective bargaining rights. This would be evidenced by the Wisconsin public unions agreeing to all but the removal of collective bargaining rights. Simply put, negotiators need to grow a pair and not simply cave to the unions.
That’s my thoughts at least. Do you agree or disagree?
Not in America, Mr. Pinko Commie Trotskypants! Money talks everywhere, but in America it votes.
Which got me wondering, the whole thing about two guys against a bunch of other people. Suppose you were working from the bottom up, including any and all sources of income. Lets say on one end to the balance you have the Kochs, and all their holdings, making roughly 22.3 godzillabucks. How many Americans could you pile on the other side before they balanced out. In other words, the Koch Brothers themselves have more money than (unknown number) Americans? What is the largest number of Americans you could add before you would exceed their personal wealth? What? A million? Ten? Twenty?
As I pointed out in another thread:
As well, I get instantly wary when I hear “productivity” being bandied about. I’m sure the average sweatshop is very productive, very low labor costs, high output. An enterprise with empowered, valued, and healthy workers, probably not so much.
First voice of reason I’ve heard here.
But…
Arbitration among public employees is a conflict of the public’s interest.
Well, that certainly settles that! How many of these fundamental dogma have you to deliver? Perhaps we could have them all at once, save some time? And shouldn’t they be preceded with “It is Written”? Really pretty much the only way a simple, unsupported declarative sentence could be thought to have some weight as an argument.
Dogma how? How is stating that allowing politicians to buy votes with taxpayer money why also allowing confiscated union dues to be used to bribe same said politicians bad business considered “dogma”?
Do you even know what the word means?
'luci knows more about everything than you, kid.
How about a cite to back up any of your crazy claims? A cite that can stand up to scrutiny? Otherwise, what he is saying is that your statements amount to a bare assertion fallacy.
IOW, you can’t be taken seriously.
ETA:Care to respond to my previous statement? I don’t think you can.
I am sure if you have any evidence of bribery you will be contacting your local prosecutors office.
If you object to public sector unions using treasury funds for campaign ads and other lobbying purposes, then you would have no problem with a ban on lobbying by corporations that receive government contracts?
Of course the only way to do so since Citizens United would appear to be a constitutional amendment.
So, anyway, none of you guys ever met anywhere before, either in cyber or meat space? So your arrival here in rougly the same time frame is sheer coincidence? Is there some reason you can’t tell us?
Why are you so paranoid?
Because three singularly stupid, uninformed and angry posters zeroing in on the same day is unlikely. Although uninformed stupidity is sort of the prerequisite to gain entry to the right nowadays.
Four.
Why would anyone promote squelching any private citizen’s first amendment rights?
Not so paranoid as those who find informed discussion something that must be disrupted by any means necessary.