He said "we thought about that", which could mean one of his advisers brought it up and he shot it down. It could also mean that he himself thought of it too. The point is he chose against it. I won't even go into the whole relativistic garbage of what the left does.
Well then, lucky for us the subject of executing protestors didn't come up. According to you, he *might* shoot that down. I would hate to bet my life on it, though.
quote
Again, he thinks he's talking to a big time donor and is humoring him. Do you not understand the concept of context? I don't think anyone would think "that would be outstanding" would convict him of corruption.
Not convict him of corruption? Don't bank on it. The correct answer would be, "that's nice of you, but I cannot accept personal gifts like that." So tell me, O sage one, what is the correct context for saying thanks to a bribe?
quote
You would complain about people nitpicking about anything Obama says and here you are doing it. Right any criticism of you must be someone else's shortcoming.
Even remotely saying that he thinks being taken to Cali for a vacation at the expense of a constituent is not only illegal but also against the ethics of his position.
It shows favoritism, possible evidence of bribery, and also shows that he has no true meaning of the word "un-influenced".
IP: Logged
12:27 PM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
It's amazing how much you guys are willing to scrape the floor looking for something to cry about. Wow...all expenses trip to California! Yeah! That would be outstanding! But geez....I don't see anywhere that anyone said he was going to even suggest to try to take that trip. And here in Wisconsin every elected official has to report when and where any trip is made and who pays for it. It's a matter of public record so yeah, he said that would be outstanding but it's just not possible to get away with it in this state. It's been tried quite a few times in the past.
Your argument doesn't hold any water.
As for the demonstrators, there are many things that get discussed in handling the crowd. If Governer Walker had tried to do something stupid then you'd have a point of contention and you'd be correct to complain about that. But you are complaining over a discussion of possibilities. So that means that when the United States talks about nuclear strikes and decides against it they are just as deplorable? ( neat analogy, huh? ) Happens every day. Get used to it.
You two really need a few different talking points. The ones you are using are really lame and good for a chuckle.
I have to go to work and help support some state employee's pension.
Mark the proud Wisconsinite that supports Governor Scott Walker whole heartedly!
[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited 03-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:09 PM
Ramsespride Member
Posts: 1979 From: Where i am is where i am. Registered: Feb 2010
Here is my offer to all the Republicans on here: If the bill is shot down and Walker ripped from his throne then i will gladly have each and every one of you over for a cookout and a nice homemade rootbeer soda for you each. If he isnt, then ill shut up and walk away from the fight with my head held high and a clear mind. Just remember- If the Union side wins that means that each and every second you have posted something to tear a supporter apart and call your neighbors moronic and infantile is wasted seconds that you can reflect upon as you die.
Here is my offer to all the Republicans on here: If the bill is shot down and Walker ripped from his throne then i will gladly have each and every one of you over for a cookout and a nice homemade rootbeer soda for you each. If he isnt, then ill shut up and walk away from the fight with my head held high and a clear mind. Just remember- If the Union side wins that means that each and every second you have posted something to tear a supporter apart and call your neighbors moronic and infantile is wasted seconds that you can reflect upon as you die.
Here is my problem with that.
Walker was elected in a legal election, by the people.
He has to do something legally wrong to be removed from office. And has to be convicted by a court, not by a mob of people.
If he is "ripped" from office I will never purchase another product made in Wisconsin in my life, and will push a car around before I drive through. I don't support a Union Dictatorship, and never will.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 03-03-2011).]
So, why are the protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc, good and the protesters in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. bad?
Note, it's a trick question...
It's not a trick question. The protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain are protesting the same thing that The protesters in Wisconsin are trying to put in place.
If you do not learn History you are doomed to repeat it.
So, why are the protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc, good and the protesters in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. bad?
Note, it's a trick question...
Phonedawgz, I see you're still posting in other threads, did you get my PM? Are you still following this thread you created?
Aren't the protestors in Libya, Egypt, etc. protesting for the right to a democratic government? Aren't the Democrats that ran away from the government figuratively spitting on the democratic process?
Two honest questions, anyone is welcome to answer with their viewpoints. Don't worry, I won't call you a prick if you don't side with me.
IP: Logged
02:14 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: Aren't the protestors in Libya, Egypt, etc. protesting for the right to a democratic government? Aren't the Democrats that ran away from the government figuratively spitting on the democratic process?
Two honest questions, anyone is welcome to answer with their viewpoints. Don't worry, I won't call you a prick if you don't side with me.
yes, yes they are and, on that front I would say ANY coordinated "party line" junk is "spitting on the democratic process" which is why the "founding fathers" warned against it
tho - I would also say that trying to squelch the right to assemble is wrong
the whole situation stinks. not one single elected offical in wisconsin should be allowed to serve another day.
It's not a trick question. The protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain are protesting the same thing that The protesters in Wisconsin are trying to put in place.
Brad
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-03-2011).]
No, it's like I asked someone what time it was and they replied by saying "It's half past asteroids and green ham".
That was definitely a moment for me... <-----
Then perhaps you need to re-read what I posted. I'm tired of repeating myself to people that are just waiting for me to say something that they can take out of context.
It's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to understand, or you want me to stay busy repeating myself. Which is it?
Originally posted by twofatguys: Then perhaps you need to re-read what I posted. I'm tired of repeating myself to people that are just waiting for me to say something that they can take out of context.
quote
Originally posted by twofatguys:
It's not a trick question. The protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain are protesting the same thing that The protesters in Wisconsin are trying to put in place.
That's just it. I've re-read your words several times.
The protesters in Wisconsin aren't trying to put anything in place; they're trying to stop having their right to collectively bargain stripped away. It seems you're trying to say the protesters in both places are working for opposite goals, and if that's the case what you seem to be saying is the Libyan et. al. protesters are trying to get their collective bargaining rights stripped away? That doesn't make any sense, on a literal or any other level. If anything, both sets of protesters are working toward similar goals: The WI protesters trying to keep the government from reducing their power, and the Libyan et. al. protesters trying to move more power to them (as a societal group) from the government. In other words, one is seeking to keep the status quo WRT power and the other is trying to get more power. In both cases the government either gains no power or in fact loses some. In principle they are both fighting for the same thing, just different aspects of it.
quote
Originally posted by twofatguys: It's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to understand, or you want me to stay busy repeating myself. Which is it?
It's none of those.
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
IP: Logged
04:42 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Then perhaps you need to re-read what I posted. I'm tired of repeating myself to people that are just waiting for me to say something that they can take out of context.
It's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to understand, or you want me to stay busy repeating myself. Which is it?
Brad
You can tell him what you think, and you can explain it to him, but you can't *understand* it for him.
What the union doesn't understand is that they are going to lose either way this goes. The state is so burderned with debt that it has to make cuts, that is what their governor is trying to do and is what the people, who voted him in, want him to do. The days of spending other people's money are over. The cuts will come in the form of certain public unions losing some of their collective bargaining rights and having to pay a little more for part of their own benefits, or the cuts will be in the elimination of their jobs. With the second choice they will have no jobs and will have to pay for their own benefits in full, which will be hard to do without a job. I guess they would rather have their jobs eliminated over this than to be a little more fiscally and personally responsible.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:55 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
I’m amazed that what happens to the teachers in Wisconsin is business of anyone who doesn’t live in the State. If the voter elect people to do the things they wish, that is democracy in action. Just as the Arizona illegal immigration issue was a matter best left to the State, so is Wisconsin’s teacher issue.
To me this is just another boogie man being blown way out of proportion to keep people divided and to distract them from the main issue. Unions have been blamed for all ills in the U.S. for a long time and now they are insignificant in the private sector and on life support in the public sector. Yet they are still being blamed for problems they didn’t create.
Middle management was another boogie man attacked and eliminated yet the problems persist only with upward mobility for many eliminated. Taxes on the rich were blamed and those were reduced and still the downward spiral continues.
The main problem is the concentration of wealth and power. That’s the cause of the uprisings in the middle east and the cause of most social turmoil throughout history. But don’t pay any attention to that, just be afraid of this boogie man and the next and stay divided.
You can tell him what you think, and you can explain it to him, but you can't *understand* it for him.
I love that line. I remember when you first used it on me, it got me riled up just as you wanted it to. The problem is, that seems to be the only thing you have to offer, trying to anger and goad others. The lack of civility, general rudeness and open hostility, innuendo and snide comments, all that you are, is all there is to fierobear. I guess the intent is to get people angry so that they're knocked off balance, then you go in for the copy-n-paste kill.
Oh fierobear, whatever shall we do with you? You're lovable in a stinky porcupine with rabies sort of way, ya know?
Obviously your baiting, etc, doesn't really work on me anymore. In order to respect your words I have to respect you, and having nothing on offer to earn that respect means your words don't have any value to me anymore.
The only power your words ever had was in the anger they provoked in others, not in their their content or meaning.
And that's too bad...
quote
Originally posted by twofatguys:
Mr. Jazz Man,
You are being a troll, and I am not buying into your game.
I answered your question, and you continue your game.
If this is how you wish to spend your time, then fine, go ahead, but I do not feel like playing it with you.
Brad
If you decide to re-write what you wrote so that I can honestly understand what you're trying to say I'd be happy to read it. You can do it via PM if you want.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:00 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You are being a troll, and I am not buying into your game.
I answered your question, and you continue your game.
If this is how you wish to spend your time, then fine, go ahead, but I do not feel like playing it with you.
Brad
For a guy who bitched up a storm because his precious eyes were scathed by a polictical thread that wasnt properly marked, he sure is spending a lot of time in here...
IP: Logged
05:02 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17104 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin's Senate Republicans voted Thursday to find their AWOL Democratic colleagues guilty of contempt and disorderly conduct, and order police to bring them back to work by force, if the missing senators did not return by late afternoon.
The 14 Democratic senators escaped to Illinois two weeks ago to avoid voting on Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to take away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most state workers. Their absence has blocked passage of the bill because at least one of them must be present to have a quorum.
The state constitution doesn't allow for senators to be arrested simply for not showing up. Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said the resolution passed Thursday morning allows police to take the Democrats into custody under Senate rules, not criminal or civil law, and only if they are in Wisconsin.
"I do believe senators are in Wisconsin," he said. "I know they are driving back and forth to their homes."
Senate Democrats disagreed with Fitzgerald about what's allowed under the chamber's rules. Sen. Chris Larson said they hadn't done anything illegal and couldn't be arrested.
"All fourteen of us remain in Illinois, very strong in our convictions," Sen. Jon Erpenbach said in a statement. "Issuing arrest warrants at 4 p.m. isn't going to solve the problem."
The resolution says the Democrats would be found guilty of contempt and disorderly conduct if they don't return by 4 p.m., after which the Senate would issue an order similar to an arrest warrant. The order would give the chamber's sergeant at arms the power to take any necessary steps, including police assistance, to bring the senators back.
Fitzgerald called on any Wisconsin citizens who see the senators to contact police. He argued the resolution is about restoring order to the Senate and not the issues surrounding the union bill, which has led to three weeks of demonstrations by tens of thousands of protesters.
The Wisconsin Professional Police Association, a union representing 11,000 law enforcement officials from across the state, released a statement from its director Jim Palmer slamming the action.
"The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to achieve a political objective is insanely wrong and Wisconsin sorely needs reasonable solutions and not potentially dangerous political theatrics," Palmer said.
Marquette University Law School professor Dan Blinka said no matter how it's described, the resolution calls for what amounts to an arrest that would have to be justified under the law. If it's found unconstitutional, any action taken by the senators after they were forced to return could be invalidated, Blinka said.
Howard Schweber, an associate political science and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said Senate Republicans can properly order police to enforce their rules, as long as they don't try to impose criminal sanctions on the Democrats.
"The resources of the executive branch can be called upon by the Legislature to enforce its rules," Schweber said. "I would suspect the Republicans have this one right. They probably are able to use police as a mechanism to enforce the rules of the Senate even though they would not be able to make failure to appear a crime."
A memo provided by private attorney Jim Troupis, who was hired by the Senate Republicans and often works with the GOP, said the state constitution gives them authority to act to compel attendance under its rules.
Fitzgerald also cited a Wednesday circuit court ruling in Oconto County that found Democratic Sen. Jim Holperin had violated his duty to attend Senate sessions, but that only the Senate had the right to enforce the rule that he be there. A citizen in Holperin's district, who was also represented by Troupis, brought the legal action.
The Senate has twice sent state patrol officers to look for some of the senators at their homes, but they left after not finding anyone there. Before the resolution passed, Fitzgerald said police could only try to persuade Democrats to return but not actually take them into custody.
Once the senators do return, Fitzgerald said they could face reprimand, censure or even expulsion.
IP: Logged
05:18 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Even remotely saying that he thinks being taken to Cali for a vacation at the expense of a constituent is not only illegal but also against the ethics of his position.
It shows favoritism, possible evidence of bribery, and also shows that he has no true meaning of the word "un-influenced".
Can't put my finger on what is worse, this or the teacher's union buying health insurance at a higher rate from a company they own, and leaving the WI taxpayers to pick up the tab. Guess the down right corruption of the latter is where the finger should be given. A good reason to take away their collective bargaining as far as bennies go.
IP: Logged
07:48 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Can't put my finger on what is worse, this or the teacher's union buying health insurance at a higher rate from a company they own, and leaving the WI taxpayers to pick up the tab. Guess the down right corruption of the latter is where the finger should be given. A good reason to take away their collective bargaining as far as bennies go.
So...WHERE is that stink really coming from?
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Considering CA may be voting on a multi-billion dollar 5 year tax increase, and not one penny cut from the teachers union, it has to be refreshing that WI is at least not just wanting to kick the can down the road on their way to Broaksville. Well at least the the majority who voted him and a bunch of other conservatives in.
IP: Logged
09:00 PM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
Collective bargaining is not a right......it is a privilige granted by the State to the unions. Now it's a privilige that has been abused and is going to be taken away from the unions by the same State that granted it. The public employee unions have bitten the hand that feeds them and the State of Wisconsin is now withdrawing it's hand.
IP: Logged
09:42 PM
Mar 4th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Considering CA may be voting on a multi-billion dollar 5 year tax increase, and not one penny cut from the teachers union, it has to be refreshing that WI is at least not just wanting to kick the can down the road on their way to Broaksville.
Yup. With a Democratic governor, it will be interesting to hear the lame excuses for why the state went bankrupt. I just wish I didn't have to be stuck here to live through it.
quote
Well at least the the majority who voted him and a bunch of other conservatives in.
And there's no sign that Democrats' hold on power will end in CA any time soon.
IP: Logged
12:48 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
It's amazing how much you guys are willing to scrape the floor looking for something to cry about. Wow...all expenses trip to California! Yeah! That would be outstanding! But geez....I don't see anywhere that anyone said he was going to even suggest to try to take that trip. And here in Wisconsin every elected official has to report when and where any trip is made and who pays for it. It's a matter of public record so yeah, he said that would be outstanding but it's just not possible to get away with it in this state. It's been tried quite a few times in the past.
Your arguement doesn't hold any water.
As for the demonstrators, there are many things that get discussed in handling the crowd. If Governer Walker had tried to do something stupid then you'd have a point of contention and you'd be correct to complain about that. But you are complaining over a discussion of possibilities. So that means that when the United States talks about nuclear strikes and decides against it they are just as deplorable? ( neat analogy, huh? ) Happens every day. Get used to it.
You two really need a few different talking points. The ones you are using are really lame and good for a chuckle.
I have to go to work and help support some state employee's pension.
Mark the proud Wisconsinite that supports Governor Scott Walker whole heartedly!
You don't consider getting a reward from a lobbyist to be corrupt?
EPIC
ETHICS
FAIL!!!!!
IP: Logged
01:57 AM
PFF
System Bot
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
Walker was elected in a legal election, by the people.
He has to do something legally wrong to be removed from office. And has to be convicted by a court, not by a mob of people.
If he is "ripped" from office I will never purchase another product made in Wisconsin in my life, and will push a car around before I drive through. I don't support a Union Dictatorship, and never will.
Brad
No, he would have to be found guilty of an ethics violation, by the state assembly - not a court. Fat chance in a Republican assembly, BTW.
Also BTW, collective bargaining is a right under the first amendment of the Constitution, the right to assemble.
[This message has been edited by ktthecarguy (edited 03-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:01 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
It's not a trick question. The protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain are protesting the same thing that The protesters in Wisconsin are trying to put in place.
If you do not learn History you are doomed to repeat it.
Brad
Collective bargaining is not a dictatorship. The part you are blissfully ignoring, is that in a bargain, either side can say "no". Including the state government side.
IP: Logged
02:03 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
Collective bargaining is not a right......it is a privilige granted by the State to the unions. Now it's a privilige that has been abused and is going to be taken away from the unions by the same State that granted it. The public employee unions have bitten the hand that feeds them and the State of Wisconsin is now withdrawing it's hand.
You don't consider getting a reward from a lobbyist to be corrupt?
EPIC
ETHICS
FAIL!!!!!
Why do you have to twist words to fit your agenda? I highly doubt anyone on this forum would think that a politician (R or D) receiving a bribe wouldn't be considered corrupt.
Firefox stated: "I don't see anywhere that anyone said he was going to even suggest to try to take that trip."
If you construe the phrase "That would be outstanding." as accepting the fake Koch's offer, then I guess we have different interpretations. (Which is fine, I just want you to at least see where we are coming from)
When I see the two words "WOULD BE" I think that he means "If it were possible, legal and ethical, an all expense-paid trip would be outstanding." In other words, I think he was using "would" in a hypothetical sense.
If you take the phrase to mean that he has accepted a bribe, then I guess we can just disagree, but I hope you at least see where I am coming from.
IP: Logged
02:12 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
Why do you have to twist words to fit your agenda? I highly doubt anyone on this forum would think that a politician (R or D) receiving a bribe wouldn't be considered corrupt.
Firefox stated: "I don't see anywhere that anyone said he was going to even suggest to try to take that trip."
If you construe the phrase "That would be outstanding." as accepting the fake Koch's offer, then I guess we have different interpretations. (Which is fine, I just want you to at least see where we are coming from)
When I see the two words "WOULD BE" I think that he means "If it were possible, legal and ethical, an all expense-paid trip would be outstanding." In other words, I think he was using "would" in a hypothetical sense.
If you take the phrase to mean that he has accepted a bribe, then I guess we can just disagree, but I hope you at least see where I am coming from.
To me, it looks like you and Firefox are the ones twisting words. To me, "that would be outstanding" means "great! I accept!" which is definately unethical. I don't see anywhere in those four words where he is qualifying his acceptance that only if it is legal and ethical would he go. Can you show me which of the four words expresses that qualification?
IP: Logged
02:27 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Collective bargaining is not a dictatorship. The part you are blissfully ignoring, is that in a bargain, either side can say "no". Including the state government side.
To me, it looks like you and Firefox are the ones twisting words. To me, "that would be outstanding" means "great! I accept!" which is definately unethical. I don't see anywhere in those four words where he is qualifying his acceptance that only if it is legal and ethical would he go. Can you show me which of the four words expresses that qualification?
I'm sorry that I give people the benefit of the doubt. He should have went on to say "That would be outstanding if it were legal and ethical." Unfortunately he didn't choose his words more carefully on a live telephone call with an impostor baiting him to say the wrong things.
But if we can charge him with bribery and the court would uphold this decision, then by all means, get him out of office. I hate a corrupt politician no matter what affiliation, but I don't see this as any proof that he is. (Again, we can disagree, not the end of the world. )
Honestly, if it were Obama that said "That would be outstanding." to the same offer, but never went on any trip or received any bribe, I would give him the benefit of the doubt too. (Of course this would never happen because everything he says is off a teleprompter cheap shot, I know)
Arguing over a politician's semantics (at 1:30 A.M.) what is wrong with me??!?!
edit to fix my italics.
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 03-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:45 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
I'm sorry that I give people the benefit of the doubt. He should have went on to say "That would be outstanding if it were legal and ethical." Unfortunately he didn't choose his words more carefully on a live telephone call with an impostor baiting him to say the wrong things.
But if we can charge him with bribery and the court would uphold this decision, then by all means, get him out of office. I hate a corrupt politician no matter what affiliation, but I don't see this as any proof that he is. (Again, we can disagree, not the end of the world. )
Honestly, if it were Obama that said "That would be outstanding." to the same offer, but never went on any trip or received any bribe, I would give him the benefit of the doubt too. (Of course this would never happen because everything he says is off a teleprompter cheap shot, I know)
Arguing over a politician's semantics (at 1:30 A.M.) what is wrong with me??!?!
edit to fix my italics.
I think you are giving Walker way too much credit. To me it didn't look like he was humoring a big-money donor, it looked like he was "spilling the beans". Sure, Murphy was a fake "Koch", but Walker didn't know that! Murphy(Koch) asked him some leading questions, and Walker was off and running! When Murphy(Koch) suggested planting some "troublemakers" amongst the demonstrators, Walker volunteered that he had considered it, but ultimately rejected it. I don't think that rises to the level of an impeachable offence, but it surely smells unethical, and is definately questionable behavior. An ethical person would have simply said, "that's just not right".
Your point about Obama, I would take in the other direction - if Obama said it, I would be requesting my representative to censure Obama for unethical behavior. I wouldn't tolerate it from ANY politician.
So, why are the protesters in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc, good and the protesters in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. bad?
Note, it's a trick question...
Phonedawgz, I see you're still posting in other threads, did you get my PM? Are you still following this thread you created?
No trick there. Protest is good--I like it. The disagreement comes from "what" the protesters want. And that "what", is a path (CB) to acquire Other People's Money.
<-----
cheap shot, I know)
