It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Transcript from Ed Schultz, he doesn't pull any punches about Walker.
From here
... The prank phone call exposed Walker and really ripped the scab off the republicans and their corporate puppet masters. Keep in mind, in the last election cycle, the Koch brothers gave $1 million to the republican governors association which funneled another $65,000 to Walker. But here's the big number, then the republican governor's association turned and spent $3.4 million attacking Walker's democratic opponent. That kind of money is big shakes to a guy like Walker who wants power, but it's really chicken feed to the Koch boys. The real story is what Governor Walker can do for energy companies like Koch industries.
(from the Walker tapes):
Fake Koch: "What we're thinking about the crowd's is, was planting some troublemakers."
Walker: "You know, the only problem with - because we thought about that - the problem - or my only gut reaction to that would be right now the lawmakers I talked to have just completely had it with them. The public is not really fond of this. The teacher's union did some polling of focus groups and found out that the public turned on them the minute they closed school down for a couple days. The guys left are largely from out of state. And I keep dismissing it in all my press conferences saying they're mostly from out of state. My only fear would be, if there was a ruckus caused, is that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has got to settle all these to avowed all these problems. People can protest, this is Madison, let them protest."
This is shocking. The governor of Wisconsin just admitted he considered putting troublemakers in the crowd to cause a ruckus. He thought about it. He considered it. What's that say about his character? The only thing that stopped Walker from having his people whip up trouble was a political calculation that violence may hurt him in the arena of public opinion, and he wasn't ready to do that. He wasn't concerned about hurting the 60's liberals in Madison.
[...]
It definitely strengthens my resolve in the fact that he shows he has no character. His integrity is in question. He's not been honest with the Wisonsinites, and it shows what we've been saying the whole time, it's not about the budget, it's a fabricated budget crisis and the only thing he wants to do is bust unions. He's really the puppet of the Koch brothers.
Video of the show
Originally posted by kynaccrue
I usually don't post my opinions, but here it is.
I think from the context of the whole thing, it just seems that Walker is simply speaking that way as to avoid pissing a major conservative contributor off. It's like how a salesman would speak to a customer. He simply wants to sell his idea to a person who he think could help him achieve it. This is perhaps also why Walker did most of the speaking. He wants to prove that it is right to do this. That does not mean that Walker is for sale or is paid off, just that he would want to avoid bringing any surprises that might endanger what he wants to accomplish. Also, there are those who attribute his "thinking" about planting trouble makers to him having a flawed character. I would argue that the best way to politely change someone's mind is to first agree with them and then show them the flaws of their reasoning. This is something that not only politicians, but everyone intelligent human being should do.
like some of the other posts said, this whole thing actually restored some of my faith in politicians. Its not everyday you get someone who does exactly what he says he was going to do. Also, in the conversation Walker said he wants to keep private unions out of this whole thing. His beef is solely with public unions which make it hard for states of balance its budget. There are those who say that Walker created this deficit just to kill public unions and I think that this is false. As you all know, inflation is rising and it would make it harder for small business to stay open. The tax cut would give an edge to those businesses to keep them open. So we have here a governor who is trying to take from the glut of the public sector and give some of it back to Main st. which is think really is the correct thing to do.
I say all this despite the fact that my parents are both public sector employees and most of the time I hate republicans with a passion. If there are more politicians like Walker I might actually use my vote for a change.edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarificationedit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarify more
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How quickly the liberals have forgotten the whole prank ACORN sting where they caught the ACORN worker helping to set up a prostitution biz. LOL
Originally posted by filosophia
-Simple, if you think unions are bad, you'd support Walker
-No, I don't think welfare should exist at all, but it does, so you might as well use it, it is your tax dollars after all, better you have it then anyone else
-despite all evidence? Like what the 40 hour work week? Minimum wage? All socialist ideals, why should I care about that?
The thread is about how Koch "owns" the Governor which clearly he doesn't.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by Realtruth
Again I think some individuals on this thread may be confused as to what "One Party Consent" is.
One party consent means that the person being called, and recorded needs to be notified and aware of the taping.
Originally posted by Realtruth
Again I think some individuals on this thread may be confused as to what "One Party Consent" is.
One party consent means that the person being called, and recorded needs to be notified and aware of the taping.
Actually, you are the one that is misunderstanding the term "one party consent".
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
You don't need the other parties consent, as you are already "one party" involved in the conversation. Otherwise, it would be called "two party consent" or "all consent".
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Unions have long been a tool of communist subversion. Period. End of story.
The difference about ACRON is it wasn't high level staff - and I also believe they agreed it wasn't right.
Very different from Walker and his supporters who don't believe anything he did was wrong!
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If that is so, then what was the big issue of them doing this prankster video of the ACORN employee??? Forget already?
Originally posted by inforeal
I thought it was a joke but it's on every news site!
This apperently is a REAL story. They actually may have busted this puppetedit on 23-2-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Daughter2
Look at these comments which support Walkers and how they speak about Unions. These people HATE Unions. They use words like communism-thugs, ect.
So when you say it's about the money - is it really or is it about your hatred of the unions?
Originally posted by inkyminds
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How quickly the liberals have forgotten the whole prank ACORN sting where they caught the ACORN worker helping to set up a prostitution biz. LOL
How does that relate to the topic at hand?
Are you trying to deflect?edit on 25-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by inkyminds
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Unions have long been a tool of communist subversion. Period. End of story.
Thank you for such a concise example of the kinds of one-line posts this thread attracts to deflect from some clearly damning information for the rich controllers of Governor Walker.edit on 25-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by inkyminds
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If that is so, then what was the big issue of them doing this prankster video of the ACORN employee??? Forget already?
You are comparing an incident where James O’Keefe was arrested by the FBI (those liberals) for aiding and abetting a wire tap operation that violated state and federal law. He entered a politicians office and helped to install secret wire taps for a third party to listen in on.
This instance does not violate any wire tap laws, as it isnt a wire tap. it's a taped phone call, taped by one of the callers.
Not comparable at all.
Originally posted by filosophia
-Simple, if you think unions are bad, you'd support Walker
-No, I don't think welfare should exist at all, but it does, so you might as well use it, it is your tax dollars after all, better you have it then anyone else
-despite all evidence? Like what the 40 hour work week? Minimum wage? All socialist ideals, why should I care about that?
The thread is about how Koch "owns" the Governor which clearly he doesn't.
Originally posted by inkyminds
Originally posted by kynaccrue
What I'm saying is that first of all, I don't think Walker is potentially ethically compromised. Second, even if he was ethically compromised, I would support him until he does not do what I want him to do. This is the most you can ask of ANY politician.
Right. So you don't mind him potentially being 'ethically compromised', because he's on your side. So ethics are less important to you than a specific political goal.
.. a state tax cut for business, may attract more business from neighboring states. Plus while you are right in that many rich people will benefit from the tax cut, the bottom line is that this will also give struggling small businesses the help they need to stay in business.
It will? Can you point me to some evidence suggesting that?
I don't think the governor should cut people's jobs and he said he isn't going to do that as long as the PUBLIC unions give up the collective bargaining rights. Because he knows that the second the state runs somewhat of a surplus, the unions are going to eat it all up.
The state ALREADY HAD a surplus, and the GOVERNOR ate it up by giving it away! To rich people!!
Sure, right now they are agreeing with cuts in pay and benefits but thats only because they know for a fact that as long as they have the collective bargaining rights, they can get it all back any time they want to.
They could? How?
Government workers already get much more than privately employed workers when they do much less.
Again, I'm going to ask for documentation of that.
So you can attribute THAT to unions running out of control.
How have these specific unions in Wisconsin 'run out of control?' Again, and I apologize for being such a stickler for facts, but I'm going to ask for some kind of reference.
edit on 25-2-2011 by inkyminds because: spelling errors