Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WI Gov. Walker GOES ROGUEFollow

#27 Apr 10 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Default
***
2,826 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Of course, if he'd have campaigned on giant corporate tax breaks, destroying unions and restricting abortions, would he have been elected in the first place?


He's a Republican, I can't imagine what he could have campaigned on if not at least 2 of those 3 things. I'm assuming he got elected some time in 2010 when there was a lot of disillusionment in Obama and any Republican who wasn't a baby-eating hellspawn could get elected.
#28 Apr 10 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
But they didn't think he'd actually do it.
#29 Apr 10 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,149 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
WI Gov. Walker GOES ROGUE
Red Leader standing by.


Red Doctor, standing by.


Red Warrior needs food, badly!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#30 Apr 10 2012 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
See, our political system doesn't allow us to re-elect new reps every week. So when you elect that state rep to a 2 yar term, you're kind of saying "I'm happy with whatever this guy passes for the next 2 years" (or however long state rep terms are in Wisconsin). I realize this is a hard concept to digest, but it's at the heart of a representative democracy.

That notwithstanding, I hardly doubt that the majority of the population disagrees with the governor's political views. Most states have recall requirements that require a far smaller percentage to initiate a recall. That said, until the recall election, and he is signing into las the bills that the democratically elected state house/senate passes.


I'm not really sure you have a point that is relevant to me. The people complaining (whether they represent the majority of the state's population or not) are upset because these bills were passed by a republican controlled congress and signed by a republican governor, and in at least 2 cases, the bills in question directly negated previous legislation. I happen to think the items pointed out in the article suck and that the Gov. and his congress are probably sh*theads, but I'm not a resident of the state, so I really couldn't care less atm.


Of course my point is relevant to you, you just don't want to admit that it is. Your argument is that the laws of the country should never change, because at some point those laws were written by a properly elected governing body. Well guess what, it doesn't work that way. The whim of the people is constantly changing. If the people of the state want different laws, they can replace the governor and senate/house in the next elections and they can get their new laws.

But saying that pasing laws which overturn old laws is somehow underhanded or wrong might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums. And I've seen a couple of Varus' posts.
#31 Apr 10 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Have fun using "OMG who cares" to close that 14 point gender gap, Gbaji Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Apr 10 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Have fun using "OMG who cares" to close that 14 point gender gap, Gbaji Smiley: laugh

In a state that has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984?

OMG who cares?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#33 Apr 10 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, the gap is national.

OMG who cares? Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Apr 10 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, the gap is national.

OMG who cares? Smiley: grin

I cared enough to post it twice!

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 6:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Apr 10 2012 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Good thing their votes only count for 3/5ths of a white property holder's vote.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#36 Apr 10 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
But saying that pasing laws which overturn old laws is somehow underhanded or wrong might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums. And I've seen a couple of Varus' posts.


It's not the overturning of laws I disagree with. It's the passing of inferior laws as replacements that I disagree with. I never said it wasn't perfectly legal to do so, but that doesn't make it stink any less. Got it, champ?
#37 Apr 10 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
If Texas doesn''t get around to seceding can we get WI to?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#38 Apr 10 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
But saying that pasing laws which overturn old laws is somehow underhanded or wrong might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums. And I've seen a couple of Varus' posts.


It's not the overturning of laws I disagree with. It's the passing of inferior laws as replacements that I disagree with. I never said it wasn't perfectly legal to do so, but that doesn't make it stink any less. Got it, champ?


That's pretty darn subjective though, isn't it? I mean, I get why *you* might think those replacements are inferior, but that doesn't make them so. Doubly so given that most of these are simply rolling back or eliminating changes to the law made in 2008/2009 by the Dems. Those laws were broadly considered by many in the state to be overreaches. It's at least partly because of the opposition to those things that the GOP gained power in the state.

Point being, whether you personally agree or not, the citizens of the state voted for the GOP to do exactly what they're doing: Eliminating law that the Dems passed that they people didn't agree with. I think it's somewhat absurd to pretend to be surprised when they do exactly that which they were voted into office to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Apr 10 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Point being, whether you personally agree or not, the citizens of the state voted for the GOP to do exactly what they're doing: Eliminating law that the Dems passed that they people didn't agree with.

I suppose that theory will be tested this summer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Apr 10 2012 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
Point being, whether you personally agree or not, the citizens of the state voted for the GOP to do exactly what they're doing: Eliminating law that the Dems passed that they people didn't agree with. I think it's somewhat absurd to pretend to be surprised when they do exactly that which they were voted into office to do.t


I seriously doubt that this is the reason why anyone voted for them. Just saying. Forseeable side-effect, maybe. Icing on top for some idiots? Probably. But I have trouble believing that this was what motivated them. And I'm sure most of their female supporters didn't expect a repeal of the EPL.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Apr 10 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Criminy wrote:
Walker wrote:
“You could argue that money is more important for men,” he told Goldberg. “I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”


Oh Walker... Smiley: laugh

I am curious how Romney will handle this situation and whether he will support Walker or distance himself. Should be funny if he supports Walker and still wants a shot at presidency.



Good lord. In what year does Mr. Walker reside?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#42 Apr 11 2012 at 2:03 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Do I have to go back to posts from you guys in 2009 when you all stood in lockstep insisting that no one was arguing for taxpayer funded abortion?


I know this isn't really the point, but I don't have an issue with tax money paying for abortions. It's a legal and sometimes necessary medical procedure, so I don't see why it's NOT covered by taxpayer funded plans like Medicare/caid.
#43 Apr 11 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
BrownDuck wrote:

I'm not really sure you have a point that is relevant to me.

Not a slippery duck.






____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#44 Apr 11 2012 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Build a bridge out of him.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Apr 11 2012 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
I know this isn't really the point, but I don't have an issue with tax money paying for abortions. It's a legal and sometimes necessary medical procedure, so I don't see why it's NOT covered by taxpayer funded plans like Medicare/caid.

It's a red herring anyway. The article itself agrees that it's keeping in line with the healthcare law and that the actual point of debate is the measure requiring private face-to-face meetings with physicians.

Gbaji is just grabbing at the low hanging fruit and pretending he scored points.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Apr 11 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Build a bridge out of him.

No slip no trip rubber-ducky-sticky strips.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#47 Apr 11 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Walker's a douche, who knew?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#48 Apr 11 2012 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Belkira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do I have to go back to posts from you guys in 2009 when you all stood in lockstep insisting that no one was arguing for taxpayer funded abortion?


I know this isn't really the point, but I don't have an issue with tax money paying for abortions. It's a legal and sometimes necessary medical procedure, so I don't see why it's NOT covered by taxpayer funded plans like Medicare/caid.

Because a woman's role in society is to make babies. That's why they get married, after all...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#49 Apr 11 2012 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
Because a woman's role in society is to make babies. That's why they get married, after all...
Don't be absurd. Sandwiches aren't going to make themselves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Apr 11 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Because a woman's role in society is to make babies. That's why they get married, after all...
Don't be absurd. Sandwiches aren't going to make themselves.

...and you guys till haven't figured out how to give yourselves blowjobs.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Apr 11 2012 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Because a woman's role in society is to make babies. That's why they get married, after all...
Don't be absurd. Sandwiches aren't going to make themselves.

...and you guys till haven't figured out how to give yourselves blowjobs.
You don't need a woman to get a ******* though.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 667 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (667)