This displays a breathtaking ignorance of what’s been happening here for the last two years, and a pretty total contempt for Wisconsin voters.
If there was ever an election that wasn’t bought, this was it. The story of Walker and the Democratic opposition have been nearly the entirety of the news since his first budget (yeah, WI is THAT boring a state). Almost no one here is ignorant of the people or the issues involved. What happened is that the people of Wisconsin decided that Walker’s actions, even if they disagreed with them, did not merit the extraordinary process of removing him from office before his normal term.
I generally agree with that. I did not sign the recall petition. I did vote against Walker yesterday, because I decided to treat the election like any other and I voted Democrat because I favor their policies. Many people also voted as they would in a “normal” election – which is one reason Walker won – as he also won the 2010 election against the same opponent under normal circumstances. Another reason he won, which I think the exit polls bear out, is that many people voted for Walker over process issues, not policy ones. IOW, they didn’t think it was fair or reasonable to prematurely throw him out of office for governing, even bad governing, over policy disputes and not any specific malfeasance.
Maybe, if we’re lucky, he’ll be indicted and we’ll get rid of him for cause. I doubt anyone will have a problem with that.
You have developed an unfortunate tendency to replace argument with slander.
You know this how? You have read Democrat position papers that reflect this strategy? No, you haven’t, you are projecting malign motives based on nothing more substantial than your own prejudices. Bless your heart, you mean ill.
And by the way, what happens when the fish are gone?
If the remainder of your post is true, then why did the Republicans spend so much money on the election? It seems to me they brought a pistol to a spoon fight.
Except Republicans are against education for all but the wealthy, so they don’t teach a man to fish, or EVEN give the man the fish. Utter serfdom is the goal.
You mean like pell grants? Or unemployment insurance that allow people out of work to keep their houses and not become homeless? Or food stamps that allow the very poor to eat?
What exactly are Democrats advocating that is about giving fish? Welfare? Specifically what drives your vision of the Democratic party?
Not at all. In fact, in my opinion Democrats have the goal of utter serfdom, since they promulgate programs that increase dependency on government handouts. Republican programs tend to foster self-reliance.
Yes, that is what they claim, and what you echo with complete confidence. We are social animals, Bricker, we rely upon each other. One monkey is a dead monkey.
Orang-utans are self reliant, just about the only time they ever see another orang-utan is when they make baby orang-utans. Ants, bees, monkeys and humans are social animals, it is the key to their success.
I can get bland, self-assured Republican talking points anywhere, Bricker.
What, they should starve until their education is complete?
Really, the problem is nobody ever accepts that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Americans don’t like investing into long-term projects with intangible results like education or preventative healthcare. We only step up when immediate results are needed because most of us aside from the most heartless aren’t willing to let people die in the streets, and because immediate results are so expensive we resent it even then. Even that alternative to taxes that conservatives like to tout, private charity, only usually provides immediate aid instead of long-term assistance.
Talk all you like about giving a fish versus teaching to fish. People won’t pay for teaching, but they will for giving. It’s dumb and irrational, but it’s also true.
I don’t agree. I am on the board of a pro-life organization that provides assistance to pregnant women, with the idea that we might steer away someone who is considering abortion because of a lack of resources to care for the child. We offer baby clothes, furniture, and food, which are indeed giving rather than teaching… but we also offer vocational and technical training opportunities, if such are needed. Our idea is that the best way we can be pro-life is to make that option a possible one.
No. That’s what you see, I don’t doubt. But in fact, humans are not ants or bees, and the liberal attempts to make our society work like an ant or bee colony is utterly misguided.
Not at all. I want them to eat until their bellies are full – full with fish they learned how to catch, with dignity, instead of standing there as supplicants, with hands out, asking for largess from the government.
Pell Grants – yes. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Pell Grants need to be tied to results.
