Republicans, what is wrong with you?
- Thread starter Jim Craik
- Start date
Jim, You give partial information with the intent to mislead, your line "giving tax breaks to Multi-National Corporations" is only part of a statement. Giving tax "incentives" to attract Multi-National Corporations to come to the state and create more jobs, I would call that good for everyone in Wisconsin. More jobs mean more tax income. They haven't cut teachers pay, "collective bargaining". You will also see that i didn't say liar, liar, liar.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Damian,
It looks like the brave Wisconsin, Democratic Senators are coming home as heros, to a ticker tape parade!
And it appears that Walker and his gang may well get a parade as well. It's just that their parade will involve pitch forks, tar and feathers!
No one likes to be told "I told you so" so I won't
It looks like the brave Wisconsin, Democratic Senators are coming home as heros, to a ticker tape parade!
And it appears that Walker and his gang may well get a parade as well. It's just that their parade will involve pitch forks, tar and feathers!
No one likes to be told "I told you so" so I won't
Last edited:
Not quite sure I follow you here, Tom. Let's see....we give tax "incentives" to multinational corporations to set up shop in WI....hopefully to get more jobs in the state...with you so far. The part I fail to understand is why you think that to reduce the tax burden on foreigners (Multi-National means at least some portion of the businesses are owned by foreigners) and at the same time increase the financial burden on WI teachers and public employees (except for police and firefighters....again, I ask, where's the fairness in that????) could be good for those WI teachers and public employees, who are most certainly part of that "...everyone in Wisconsin". Good for the foreigners, yes, but good for those Wisconsinites (notice I didn't call them "cheeseheads") who certainly won't benefit from the new law?
We prioritize benefitting foreigners over our own citizens?
SHAME on the Republicans for putting Americans behind foreigners!!! Regardless of whether those businesses will create jobs or not, the chances are that VERY FEW of those who are currently in the "target group" for the new law will benefit from those jobs.
Typical Republican move, though, I must add.....always attempting to beneift the business owners and never caring about the underpaid workers (or, in the case of teachers, the underemployed).
So, Tom, care to explain how those public employees who no longer have the rights they have had for decades will benefit from the added financial burden? The Republicans, on the other hand, benefit from both...businesses (historically supported by Republicans) are going to benefit from the reduced taxes, the foreigners will languish in the glow of their reduced tax rate and take their "enhanced" profits home to their own countries, and the state government will have those tax reductions offset by the increased financial burdens placed on the public employees.
A sad "state" of affairs, indeed (no pun intended, but if I do say so I kinda like it :thumbsup: ) !
Cheers from Doug!!
Doug,
I have to say,,,, you are all wet..... You are missing the point. As I have read, the tax break that the BIPARTISAN Wiconsin legislature passed(yes the Dems voted for it too), will give the corporations,both home and foreign, something in the neighborhood of $85 to $160 per new job hire. What Wisconsin will get is two things. They will get all the NEW taxes from that NEW employee for the entire year and the years later that they stay employed. They will SAVE the unemployment money that would have been paid out to that individual. So lets see, the corporation get $160, the state gets on a $40K salary around $10,000 + unemploymnent compensation, which I am guessing is around $12,000 a year. That a real burden for those teachers(I can't see why it is a burden on them and not the police and firefighters though).
I'll throw one or two things out there, and you guys can argue over these. With the collective bargaining that they had, what is the average salary of a teacher who has some seniority or years of experience whether she is a good teacher or a bad teacher(since the unions won't let you fire them)? Second, can you think of any positive(read good) reasons why they wanted to do away with the collective barganing rights? if you have a hard time doing that, then call up a conservative talk show host and ask him or her(without getting nasty). Then see if it is such a bad thing. Of course you will have to look past the title of conservative and think of them as a person who has facts that you are looking for.(that's the hard part)
Most of you guys on this discussion are so busy arguing, rather than debating, and calling each other names, that you haven't bothered looking at the other persons point. And I mean really looking at it. One thing you have to remember, the governor got elected because of his election promises, not some ambiguous catch phrase. Regardless of all the polls and numbers, the people demonstrating from the various unions whom you have to assume voted against him are in the minority, because the majority(whether 1 or 10,0000) elected him.
I don't really want to be a part of this thread as it is rather hateful. So don't rant at me as I won't be a part of it. Repute the facts, as I have here, not the person.
Bill
I have to say,,,, you are all wet..... You are missing the point. As I have read, the tax break that the BIPARTISAN Wiconsin legislature passed(yes the Dems voted for it too), will give the corporations,both home and foreign, something in the neighborhood of $85 to $160 per new job hire. What Wisconsin will get is two things. They will get all the NEW taxes from that NEW employee for the entire year and the years later that they stay employed. They will SAVE the unemployment money that would have been paid out to that individual. So lets see, the corporation get $160, the state gets on a $40K salary around $10,000 + unemploymnent compensation, which I am guessing is around $12,000 a year. That a real burden for those teachers(I can't see why it is a burden on them and not the police and firefighters though).
I'll throw one or two things out there, and you guys can argue over these. With the collective bargaining that they had, what is the average salary of a teacher who has some seniority or years of experience whether she is a good teacher or a bad teacher(since the unions won't let you fire them)? Second, can you think of any positive(read good) reasons why they wanted to do away with the collective barganing rights? if you have a hard time doing that, then call up a conservative talk show host and ask him or her(without getting nasty). Then see if it is such a bad thing. Of course you will have to look past the title of conservative and think of them as a person who has facts that you are looking for.(that's the hard part)
Most of you guys on this discussion are so busy arguing, rather than debating, and calling each other names, that you haven't bothered looking at the other persons point. And I mean really looking at it. One thing you have to remember, the governor got elected because of his election promises, not some ambiguous catch phrase. Regardless of all the polls and numbers, the people demonstrating from the various unions whom you have to assume voted against him are in the minority, because the majority(whether 1 or 10,0000) elected him.
I don't really want to be a part of this thread as it is rather hateful. So don't rant at me as I won't be a part of it. Repute the facts, as I have here, not the person.
Bill
Last edited:
Doug, would you agree that offering tax incentives to attract business, thereby creating more jobs, reducing the tax burden on the state, and reducing the deficit? The incentives would benefit the workers (Americans) as well, and reduce unemployment. Asking the union teachers and union municiple workers to share the burden may not seem right to you, but they are where they are because of irresponsible promises by irresponsible politicians. The state is going broke, a starting point has to be estabished somewhere.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Code:
Code:
[CODE][CODE][CODE]Asking union members to share would be fine. The teachers said all along that the would take cuts in pay, and cuts in benefits.
Walker never really cared about the money, he was after the union because the donated to the "enemy"!
Tom, tax breaks to lure business to a state/city has long been a useful tactic, and done correctly I'm all for it.
But when you say "asking the teachers union and municipal workers to share the burden" would be fine if there was any sharing going on.
But Tom, no one else was SHARING!!!
The Police, Fire Fighters, Highway Patrol, Governor, legislature were not sharing!
This whole thing was an attack on people who make political contributions to causes the Walker did not like.
Fortunately most everyone but conservatives could see this for what it was!
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Tom,
I do want to thank you for sticking around to continue the discussion, even after things have tuned bad for the Right.
The guy who started this thread and most of the other big talking conservative have disappeared. When things seemed to be going their way, they were willing to post one rant after another, blame the left, call them names and accuse everyone!
Now that their house of cards has collapsed, even FORBES call this "one of the great political miss calculations of our time!
Where are Damian, Domtoni, Craig and the others now? Do they stay and answer questions, do they admit they were wrong, do they apologize? NO they crawl under a rock with Walker, Beck and Limbaugh!
Tom,
You are a stand up guy and I appreciate your style, thanks!
I do want to thank you for sticking around to continue the discussion, even after things have tuned bad for the Right.
The guy who started this thread and most of the other big talking conservative have disappeared. When things seemed to be going their way, they were willing to post one rant after another, blame the left, call them names and accuse everyone!
Now that their house of cards has collapsed, even FORBES call this "one of the great political miss calculations of our time!
Where are Damian, Domtoni, Craig and the others now? Do they stay and answer questions, do they admit they were wrong, do they apologize? NO they crawl under a rock with Walker, Beck and Limbaugh!
Tom,
You are a stand up guy and I appreciate your style, thanks!
Last edited:
Bill, my response is that I think it is you who is all wet.....you have truly missed the point. You've ignored the increased profits the foreign investors will take out of our country....it seems to me that will be far greater than the amounts generated by the "...$85 to $160 per new job hire". Of greater concern to me is that I feel there ought to be the opposite when it comes to granting foreign companies concessions....IMHO if they want to come to our country and take advantage of the potential for great financial gains here, they ought to pay every tax that we expect of our own citizens as well as a surcharge. We should NOT be giving away our markets and at the same time giving them an unfair advantage compared to the domestic companies attempting to do business in our country.
It is quite appealing to see you understand that it should not be just the teachers, that the police and firefighters should not be given any undue preference here, but it also extends to any business or government agency whose workers have democratically chosen to certify a union in the past. It's union busting, pure and simple, by governmental action, which ought to be unlawful (I'm not sure if it is or isn't, but IMHO it should be). Whether to recognize a union or not should be between the employer and its employees, here's a splendid example:
I worked for a cooperative in Kansas, and I was assigned to two different school districts. In one district the school board and the teachers were constantly at each others throats, the negotiation process was quite "angry" and it got worse year after year. In the other school district, the teachers (many of whom were union members) chose not to even negotiate with the school board. What was the difference? In the district where the school board treated the teachers with respect and considered them a priority in their planning and budgeting processes, the teachers were so happy that they chose to avoid the issue of collective bargaining altogether. In the other district, the school board was constantly attempting to find new ways to take advantage of the teachers, to deny them any sort of financial advancement, that sort of thing. Just because a group of employees has certified a union doesn't mean that they MUST engage in collective bargaining, and that one school district was a splendid example. They had no need to engage in collective bargaining because they felt their employers were treating them fairly, whereas the other district was a constant hotbed of unrest and turmoil. Which district do you think was more effective in education the students?
Bill, while I can't speak for WI, I can tell you that the average salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelor's degree in TX is in the range of $40K to $45K. Keep in mind that is not an annual salary, it is for only about 190 days of employment, + or -. There are a few, primarily administrators, who have longer contracts (I've known people who had contracts for 242 days of work), but those individuals get paid at the same DAILY rate as those with the 190 + or - days (it varies from state to state), so their annual income is greater (not to mention that they have advanced degrees or they would not be administrators). I've always stated that I was never dissatisfied with my pay, only the number of days I was employed.
As for the dismissal issue, well, unions have typically offered two services to their members. One is that the unions reps are very aware of the laws relating to contract employment and when administrators want to step on the rights of the teachers, the unions can often stop that. Not always, but at least they are available to sit in on conferences and advise the teacher as well as speak for the teacher. The other advantage unions have is that of collective bargaining, and whether your conservative orientation will admit it or not (not surprising that you won't, given that the unions typically work for the employees rather than management), it is historically proven that management will use every tactic imaginable to enhance their profit margins at the expense of the working class. In education, each school district is seen as a separate "business", and the union which has the most members in that school district (there are many teacher's unions) is the union that is given the right to advise the teachers in the collective bargaining process (the unions do not do the bargaining, the teachers do).
As for your assertion that teachers cannot be fired, that is blatantly untrue. Even if a teacher is a union member (which I was for only my first of 32 years in public education), they are subject to a 2 year period in which they can be non-renewed without cause and after that they are subject to non-renewal "for cause", which can mean MANY things, including a necessity for "reduction in force". All it takes is a diligient administrator who honestly documents the reasons for dismissal. The reason most people think that teachers cannot be fired is, quite frankly, because most of the "non-renewals" that are reversed upon appeal to state boards are based simply on incorrect assertions, or, more frequently, come about as a result of a disagreement between the teacher and the administrator, who attempts to get the teacher "non-renewed" simply because they didn't just follow his "orders" without question. I've seen it happen many times, and to teachers who have many years in education. In those cases, the union is not only a convenience, but it is a necessity, as they do have the knowledge to advise the teacher of effective strategies and avenues through which to fight back against unreasonable dismissal.
If you can't see the necessity for that, then I would respectfully submit that you are one of those who is in the "...there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see" category here.
As for your position that you'll drop a few insults and then just run off rather than staying to discuss the issue, well, that seems to be a bit cowardly to me, but perhaps you'd prefer to be called a troll (from urbandictionarydotcom):
1. troll:
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a (newsgroup) or (message board) with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
So, which are you, cowardly or trolling, Bill? You say not to attack the person, but neither option appears too defendable to me.....and of those who are on these political threads, if you've read them consistently (which I doubt) and completely (which I doubt, also), you'll know that I seldom attack the person.
Your hit and run tactics are quite consistent with the cowardly actions we've seen from the political party under discussion here, so quite frankly, I don't expect an answer from you....but if you do, I'm sure it will be filled with misrepresentation and inuendo, like the one to which I am replying. It would go a great distance toward providing some construct validity for you if you would get your facts straight.
No cheers for you from Doug!!
Doug,
I choose to OCASIONALY read the political discussions just to see what people are saying,,,, point wise. I don't think I threw any insults out to you other than the all wet line. It was not meant to be insulting. I was merely trying to get some points out there that I thought should be considered. You definitely have more information than I, which is evident from your background. It is true I haven't read all the responses, but what I have read is full of what I hate most about politics, in the name calling and what seems to be attacks on the personal level. This is why I rarely enter into these dicussions(if you want to call them that).
I will say your responses have not been in that vein. Yours have been more factual, and that is why I responded with what I thought was misinformation. Your reply shows me you are in command of your information, more than I am of mine, as you have experience vs. my observation and hearing.
I have to differ in the fact of the foreign investors. They may take their money and run with it to their home country. That is their prerogative, or they may keep some here and reinvest it to make their company grow and prosper. Penalizing them will keep them away from here,and that won't help unemployment at all. I believe that if we didn't have the tax structure we have for American corporations, that double taxes profits, that operate overseas, we would see much of those profits come home to work for their company and us. America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world I believe. But that is another matter.
Your response has given me more information to digest. As is the usual, most information heard out there is slanted toward the objective of the source. Some facts are conveniently left out. I try to not affiliate with one party or the other. Although I have to admit a little more leaning to the right.
If you could, if it hasn't been brought up before, could you address the retirement benefits(amounts,%, or any other way of presenting it, and who contributes) and whether or not the teachers pay social security, or are entitled to it. If the school board pays most or some of that, it comes from yours and my taxes, which if true does not seem fair to me. My retirement comes out of my salary and not from my employers. Rather than fan the flames with what I have heard, it would be better to hear from those who might actually know.
As to whether I am a coward or a troll, I will let you decide for yourself, as I can't control your thoughts. In my defense though, the things I put out there to be considered were to see what those(ones who support collective bargaining) had to say about it. It was not ever meant to inflame but to give a direction to the discussion. A psychology prof. of mine demonstrated to our class the difference of an open discussion(meandering as in a thread on any forum) and a directed discussion. I guess it was a little hard to see that given the intensity of the discussion.
Bill
I choose to OCASIONALY read the political discussions just to see what people are saying,,,, point wise. I don't think I threw any insults out to you other than the all wet line. It was not meant to be insulting. I was merely trying to get some points out there that I thought should be considered. You definitely have more information than I, which is evident from your background. It is true I haven't read all the responses, but what I have read is full of what I hate most about politics, in the name calling and what seems to be attacks on the personal level. This is why I rarely enter into these dicussions(if you want to call them that).
I will say your responses have not been in that vein. Yours have been more factual, and that is why I responded with what I thought was misinformation. Your reply shows me you are in command of your information, more than I am of mine, as you have experience vs. my observation and hearing.
I have to differ in the fact of the foreign investors. They may take their money and run with it to their home country. That is their prerogative, or they may keep some here and reinvest it to make their company grow and prosper. Penalizing them will keep them away from here,and that won't help unemployment at all. I believe that if we didn't have the tax structure we have for American corporations, that double taxes profits, that operate overseas, we would see much of those profits come home to work for their company and us. America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world I believe. But that is another matter.
Your response has given me more information to digest. As is the usual, most information heard out there is slanted toward the objective of the source. Some facts are conveniently left out. I try to not affiliate with one party or the other. Although I have to admit a little more leaning to the right.
If you could, if it hasn't been brought up before, could you address the retirement benefits(amounts,%, or any other way of presenting it, and who contributes) and whether or not the teachers pay social security, or are entitled to it. If the school board pays most or some of that, it comes from yours and my taxes, which if true does not seem fair to me. My retirement comes out of my salary and not from my employers. Rather than fan the flames with what I have heard, it would be better to hear from those who might actually know.
As to whether I am a coward or a troll, I will let you decide for yourself, as I can't control your thoughts. In my defense though, the things I put out there to be considered were to see what those(ones who support collective bargaining) had to say about it. It was not ever meant to inflame but to give a direction to the discussion. A psychology prof. of mine demonstrated to our class the difference of an open discussion(meandering as in a thread on any forum) and a directed discussion. I guess it was a little hard to see that given the intensity of the discussion.
Bill
You have proven yourself to be neither a coward nor a troll, Bill :thumbsup:....my apologies for having referred to you in such an unkind manner, I should think before I speak, perhaps I would :lipsrsealed: and avoid embarrasing myself.
I'll be glad to answer your questions regarding teacher retirements and Social Security...you hit me at a rather opportune moment, as I just went to the Social Security office this past Friday to get some information. Here's what I can tell you:
The answer to whether teachers pay into a state teacher's retirement fund or S/S or both depends partly on the state in which they are employed, but in my experience not completely. I worked as a teacher in Kansas for 4 years (1976 through 1980), then I moved to Texas. By the time I left Kansas I had enough quarters in S/S to be vested (16 years). When I went to work in Texas, where teachers are not required to contribute to the S/S program, I worked for a district which did not require S/S enrollment. From 1980, until my retirement in 12/2007, I worked for three districts, none of which required me to contribute to the S/S fund. Such is not the case for all Texas school districts, though, for some of them do contribute to both the Teacher's Retirement System of Texas (required of all public schools in the state of Texas) and also to S/S. What makes the difference is the school boards. Some of them are willing to make the additional investment in their teachers' futures, some are not (you'll hear more about this later when WEP is discussed). Just FYI, while I danced a happy dance when I heard in 1980 that I would not be contributing to the S/S fund, I did aggressively pursue concessions from the school boards in each of the 3 districts for which I worked to allow (perhaps as a fringe benefit), if not require, their teachers to participate in S/S. Not one of them would do so, reportedly due to the additional financial strain that would have placed on their budgets. Why did I do so? WEP....more to follow later.
When I retired in 2007, I had a total of 4 years' experience in Kansas and 28 years' experience in Texas. My retirement would have been based on the 28 years in Texas had I not "bought back" the 4 years credit I had for the years in Kansas at a cost of over $26K. My retirement under TRS without the 4 years from Kansas would have been in the range of $41.5K per year. With the 4 years from Kansas, it is in the range of $46.5K per year.
I'm 62 years old, so when I went to S/S to find out about benefits I was told that based on my quarters of contribution (which would not have included the 28 years in Texas, but would have included 14 years of substantial earnings in Kansas) would be $412/month if I were to apply for early retirement benefits now. Should I wait until age 66, when I am eligible for full retirement benefits, my monthly S/S check would be $547/month. However, b/c I worked for all those 28 years for school districts which did NOT allow (or, require) me to contribute to S/S, my monthly S/S benefit is reduced to from $412/month to $169/month now, and would be reduced from $547/month to $222/month if I wait until I turn 66 to apply for benefits. Why is that reduction? The "Windfall Elimination Provision" applies to me and to "some" of the teachers in Georgia (not sure why only "some of them", but perhaps it is like Texas, SOME of the school districts are gracious enough to invest in their employees' futures by allowing them to participate in the S/S program). Here's the zinger--if a teacher who WOULD be subject to the WEP reduction has 30 years of "substantial earnings" in the S/S program, the reduction is waived.
I was told that the maximum S/S benefit ANYONE can receive under S/S is about $2,190 (IIRC, and that may not be so at my age :shocked: ), so I should be happy. Am I.....yes, and no. I am happy with the retirement provided me by the Texas Retirement System of Texas....it far exceeds that which I would be eligible for under the S/S system. I am NOT at all happy with S/S and their "Windfall Elimination Provision", though. I had enough contributions to be eligible for $412/month at age 62, $547 at 66, and $722/month if I waited until I am 70 to apply. Those are contributions that the government has held in their accounts for all those years since I started working in 1964, monies which the government committed to me that they would hold in a safe manner and on which they would base my retirement benefit when I became eligible to receive the moneys. Why am I being "cheated" out of those figures I mentioned (fresh off the documentation that S/S gave me last Friday)? The answer, as I see it (you'll find out they have a different rationale), is: because I was fortunate enough to have engaged in enrollment in a different retirement plan all those 28 years I was in Texas (I did contribute to the S/S system for the 4 years I worked in Kansas, and they have given me credit for those earnings).
There was a benefit that I haven't mentioned....when you retire from the TRS, you have a number of options, one of which is to take your full annuity until you die, then it's over. However, the other 3 or 4 (depending on how many years of age are between you and your beneficiairy), allow you to leave all or part of your retirement to your beneficiary when you die, either for a limited (5 year or 10 year) period or for the remainder of their life. I was quite frankly suspicious when I became eligible under TRS for retirement and the 5 options were explained to me....it appeared that I could, for about a 20% reduction in my monthly annuity amount, elect for a retirement plan that would allow my beneficiary (which is my 27 year old daughter) to receive my REDUCED monthly annuity amount for the REST OF HER LIFE once I die. You'd never get that from S/S.
So, in MY CASE, the TRS gave me a retirement amount of about 150% what I would have gotten from S/S, AND that was at the reduced amount b/c I did choose to suffer the 20% reduction and ensure that my daughter would (hopefully) not have to ever worry about where her next meal would come from. I can't speak for the teachers from the other states, as I don't know what options are offered by their retirement plans, nor do I know how their retirement plans stack up to that of the TRS (although, we TRS members are constantly impressed with the financial gains the fund makes under the current team of TRS investors).
My concern is two-fold, though, in this issue in WI....if the teachers were promised something at the time they started their employment as a teacher, and used that promise to make a decision to endure the financial inequities that go with the limited amount of annual employment (never mind the demands of the job, that's something that can't be calculated), then to suddenly deprive them of the benefits (or, as in the case of the WI teachers, require substantially higher contributions that they were required to pay at first) at a late date in their career, seems like the equivalent of what Social Security has done to me. For those teachers in WI who may not (keep in mind I do not know about the WI retirement provisions) participate in S/S, it is a double whammy....they will be forced to contribute at a much higher rate than they were "promised" at the time they made the choice and started teaching PLUS they may well suffer further financial indignities forced upon them by the S/S Administration's "Windfall Elimination Provision".
They deserve better, plain and simple.
You may ask why I have such a bone to pick with Republicans....well, during the time when Tom Delay (who, sadly, represented the very same Texas district in which I reside) was Speaker of the House there was a bipartisan bill introduced to eliminate the WEP law. There were over 350 co-sponsors of the bill, both Republican and Democrat. That is about 77% of the House of Representatives. It looked like the unfair (IMHO) law might be overturned, but Tom Delay used the powers of the SOTH to keep the bill from ever coming out of committee to a vote on the floor, where it most assuredly would have passed. Yep, a highly placed Republican was single-handedly responsible for depriving me of a good part of my rightful entitlement under the S/S system in which I was FORCED to participate for a large part of my life. The current GOP seems to be so severely polarized to the far right that the entire party seems to be interested in tactics similar to those employed by "The Hammer" Tom Delay (a nickname he earned while keeping fellow Republicans in the party line as party whip).
So, there's good news and bad news for me, and unfortunately for the public employees of the state of WI and for other states with Governors and legislatures made up of predominantly far-right wing Republicans. The cat-fight in WI was strictly along party lines, the cat-fights in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives seem to be pretty much striclty along party lines. Nobody seems to be interested in the welfare of ALL of the constituents they represent, only in quashing the other party.
Here's the information on Social Security's "Windfall Elimination Provision":
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.pdf
A sad state of affairs, indeed :thumbsdown: !
Cheers to you, Bill, for returning to the "scene of the crime" and not :furious: me!
Doug
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Ron
Posted by Bill
Posted by Domtoni
************
I have read here on our fourm from several folks that Walker was just doing what he said he would do, they say he ran on union busting. Is that true?
********************
The following is from fact check.com
It sounds like Walker is trying to re-write history. He did not run on union busting!
I can understand why you would believe that he ran on union busting, because he has continually said that he did. But the facts are that he did not.
Does the fact that he lies to you change your opinion of Mr Walker?
Last edited:
Add this to the long line of republishinanagins: Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics? | The Blaze
AND THAT'S GLENN BECK OF ALL PEOPLE POSTING THIS! Uncovering the truth about that video. :laugh:
AND THAT'S GLENN BECK OF ALL PEOPLE POSTING THIS! Uncovering the truth about that video. :laugh:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Governer Walker of Wisconsin does not tell the truth.
He clames that he talked about curtailing collective bargaining in his inaugural address...........
I just read his inaugural address, it's just not there!
The only time he mentioned education at all, he said:
We will "provide a high quality education for our children".
This guy is now so desperate that he is lying about things that are easily checked!
Just Google it you'll see. This guy and his cronies are toast!
**********
Damian, you started this thread, what are your thoughts?
Domtoni, Craig, RonR and the others who defended this guy, how do you feel now?
He clames that he talked about curtailing collective bargaining in his inaugural address...........
I just read his inaugural address, it's just not there!
The only time he mentioned education at all, he said:
We will "provide a high quality education for our children".
This guy is now so desperate that he is lying about things that are easily checked!
Just Google it you'll see. This guy and his cronies are toast!
**********
Damian, you started this thread, what are your thoughts?
Domtoni, Craig, RonR and the others who defended this guy, how do you feel now?
Last edited:
To all you democrats or should I say Jones followers all I can say is put the cup down! I keep hearing that I started this thread and than backed out and that couldn't be farther from the truth. I did start a democrats whats wrong with you thread that this was a poor attempt at mimicking so stop showing all of your collective A$$'s by asking where did I go once I started this and that as I NEVER DID!!!!
Now all I keep hearing about is a few OVER PRIVILEGED TEACHERS WITH GT40's (lets just let that sink in for a few) crying that the poor under payed teachers (remember my GT40 comment) are being taken advantage of. Do any of you realize just how hypocritical you all sound? Oh and NO I DON'T THINK A TEACHER DESERVES ANYWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO AFFORD A GT40; EVER !!!!!!! unless you are a professor than just sit back and accept that you will not ever be wealthy as that is just not in the cards for the profession YOU CHOSE! Stop bleeding the rest of those us that did (another old saying comes to mind) just because you some of you chose to teach.
Now plenty of facts have been given to support both views and at this point it boils down to if you are a socialist sorry democrat (get your damn hands out of my pocket) or a republican (keep YOUR money) or some variation of the two. I am glad that MY orginal thread has sparked such a debate and you all are welcome for that and as there really isn't anything more to go over I just don't see the point in continuing. If and when some of you report something NEW or based in fact not fantasy facts (like obviously extremely biased and skewed polls) I would be more than happy to chime in. I do like the fact that I have slowly started to accuire a fan club of sorts though :heart:
Now all I keep hearing about is a few OVER PRIVILEGED TEACHERS WITH GT40's (lets just let that sink in for a few) crying that the poor under payed teachers (remember my GT40 comment) are being taken advantage of. Do any of you realize just how hypocritical you all sound? Oh and NO I DON'T THINK A TEACHER DESERVES ANYWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO AFFORD A GT40; EVER !!!!!!! unless you are a professor than just sit back and accept that you will not ever be wealthy as that is just not in the cards for the profession YOU CHOSE! Stop bleeding the rest of those us that did (another old saying comes to mind) just because you some of you chose to teach.
Now plenty of facts have been given to support both views and at this point it boils down to if you are a socialist sorry democrat (get your damn hands out of my pocket) or a republican (keep YOUR money) or some variation of the two. I am glad that MY orginal thread has sparked such a debate and you all are welcome for that and as there really isn't anything more to go over I just don't see the point in continuing. If and when some of you report something NEW or based in fact not fantasy facts (like obviously extremely biased and skewed polls) I would be more than happy to chime in. I do like the fact that I have slowly started to accuire a fan club of sorts though :heart:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Chris,
I got a chance to look at the NPR editing report. I don't now whether to laugh or cry.
It must be obvious to everyone by now, that virtually the entire conservative movement
has lost it's morality.
Say anything, do anything hurt anyone for short term personal gain. Can anyone tell me why people believe anything they say?
I got a chance to look at the NPR editing report. I don't now whether to laugh or cry.
It must be obvious to everyone by now, that virtually the entire conservative movement
has lost it's morality.
Say anything, do anything hurt anyone for short term personal gain. Can anyone tell me why people believe anything they say?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Damian,
You know perfectly well that you started this discussion about Wisconsin with your Democrats what is wrong with you..........I changed the title to better reflect the changing issues.
Forbes called the events in Wisconsin one of the great political miscalculation of our time. Walker has taken to lying about it, and they have invigorated liberals all over the country. I read that donations too liberal caused are up big time! The largest change is being seen in woman voters. This is good, because there are more women then men and a higher % of women vote, so it's all good! Thanks Damian!
Damian I'm sure you are still proud them but you are alone.
Damian are you saying Rassmusen and Forbes polls are skewed?
I think if a teacher really wants a GT 40 then they should be able to buy one. These are University graduate professionals who do an incredibly hard and incredibly important job. They should be paid well and treated with honor and RESPECT!
Damian, Charlie Sheen has a fan club but he is still nuts!
You know perfectly well that you started this discussion about Wisconsin with your Democrats what is wrong with you..........I changed the title to better reflect the changing issues.
Forbes called the events in Wisconsin one of the great political miscalculation of our time. Walker has taken to lying about it, and they have invigorated liberals all over the country. I read that donations too liberal caused are up big time! The largest change is being seen in woman voters. This is good, because there are more women then men and a higher % of women vote, so it's all good! Thanks Damian!
Damian I'm sure you are still proud them but you are alone.
Damian are you saying Rassmusen and Forbes polls are skewed?
I think if a teacher really wants a GT 40 then they should be able to buy one. These are University graduate professionals who do an incredibly hard and incredibly important job. They should be paid well and treated with honor and RESPECT!
Damian, Charlie Sheen has a fan club but he is still nuts!
Last edited:
If you have been under the impression that the GT40 listed in the information under my avatar is an actual replica, well, look again. It is a 1/24th size die cast model, a promotional offering from the manufacturers of WIX filters. So, I wouldn't suggest you develop a paranoid complex regarding the excessive afflunce of teachers, at least not quite yet. It is rather disheartening to a normal person, though, who realizes the manner in which the profession responsible for so much of the future of our society is held in such low regard. I see you are doing everything you can do to further that. Good for you.....pride goeth before a fall (a famous quote, but you probably wouldn't know anything about literature, would ya?).
Glad to see you're at least honest enough to admit that it's all about greed with you. Congratulations on at least being that honest with yourself, although if you were either intelligent enough or courageous enough to engage in further reflection, I'm sure you could find some more of that "honesty" in that muddled mind of yours. Of course, as we all know, greed is one of the 7 deadly sins.....by all means, please continue on your present course, all of us "socialist sorry democrats" support you wholeheartedly, believe me!
Why did we even think Damian might even be capable of an intelligent repsonse, Jim? We should have known that his past behavior is the best predictor of his future behavior.....he has consistently shown that he cannot offer any reasonable form of proof for the lies and inuendo he spews, so why would we expect any better from him this time? True to form, he just followed his previous pattern, no surprises there, to be sure.
Damian, there's a special place reserved for "...those who are so blind that they will not see" and whose lives are so filled with hatred for anyone who does not drink from the same glass of kool-aid as they do....I think we all know where it is :shocked: .
If you were capable or rational discussion, I'd invite you to respond, but we all know that's not a possibility from you, so I'll just (hopefully) bid you a fond farewell by saying.....
Cheers to Damian for showing his true self!!!!
Edit--Damian, if I don't respond to future rants by you, please understand that it's not that I don't want to do so, it's just that I can't see them because Charlie Sheen makes more sense than you and I fixed it this way:<TABLE id=post329705 class=tborder border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1>This message is hidden because trader is on your ignore list.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Doug
Last edited:
Similar threads
