Scott Walker Declared Winner by Fox News/CNN/MSNBC.

reply to post by Eurisko2012
I'd like to add to the history by pointing out that we got Clinton because Ross Perot ran and split the conservative vote. Then, on the off year election, the republicans took both the House and the Senate, for the first time in 50? years. Clinton, being somewhat less of an egomaniac than the messiah, worked with the repubs in Congress.

It's humurous watching Clinton now sabotaging the messiah's regime.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I'd like to add to the history by pointing out that we got Clinton because Ross Perot ran and split the conservative vote. Then, on the off year election, the republicans took both the House and the Senate, for the first time in 50? years. Clinton, being somewhat less of an egomaniac than the messiah, worked with the repubs in Congress.

It's humurous watching Clinton now sabotaging the messiah's regime.

It's payback time.

Obama called Bill Clinton a racist in 2008.

reply to post by Eurisko2012



It's more than that, it's about his legacy. Clinton was the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to two terms. He wants to keep that legacy.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I'd like to add to the history by pointing out that we got Clinton because Ross Perot ran and split the conservative vote. Then, on the off year election, the republicans took both the House and the Senate, for the first time in 50? years. Clinton, being somewhat less of an egomaniac than the messiah, worked with the repubs in Congress.

It's humurous watching Clinton now sabotaging the messiah's regime.

I would like to add math to your "history."
Ross Perot was voted for by 38% Republicans and 38%Democrats.
So I am curious how he split the vote.
Oh, that is off topic. Your whole post is off topic but it adds just enough crap to rile up the righties and my correcting you I am sure will be moderated for being off topic. Only one way traffic here.

If not, love to see your math.

On Topic....

I can see why the vote went the way it did just from the old white MEN in my union. They all complain all day about how the union is screwing them just to take their money. They all want out of the union and to pocket that money.

Why don't they leave?
Out of all the shops in this city that do what we do, mine is the only one that is union.
Seriously, why don't they leave?

Oh, cuz they get paid twice what anyone else at any other shop does doing the same job.
It is only the 45+ white men that do this and it is all day every day.

People are stupid.

Originally posted by Beanskinner
All Hail the Corporation!

Romney/Walmart 2012!

Exactly! Sad day for democracy given that Walker's campaign funding came from rich sonars and was 1200% more than the competition.

People are sheep and easily brainwashed.

Originally posted by CantSay

Originally posted by Beanskinner
All Hail the Corporation!

Romney/Walmart 2012!

Exactly! Sad day for democracy given that Walker's campaign funding came from rich sonars and was 1200% more than the competition.

People are sheep and easily brainwashed.

So Obama only won because he spent more money than McCain right?

reply to post by habitforming
Clinton won by 49% of the vote only, that bothers him.

More importantly, you say "shop". I'm assuming you are a private union = sheet metal worker's, electrian's, plumber's? I respect the trade unions, very different from the public unions. My ex-husband was a sheet metal worker. Your unions have education, and standards, and unions that have and should maintain high quality.

People need to understand that there's a difference between state workers and private unions.

Originally posted by Happy1
People need to understand that there's a difference between state workers and private unions.

Precisely, if a private union and their employer disagree on contractual issues and there is a labor stoppage then they are the ones suffering the financial harships and business ill-will in the supply chain. If a public union decides to strike their 'employer' is the taxpayer and the taxpyaers have no recourse to deal with the situation other than gutless politicians who are more concerned with reelection and have no skin in the game. It is easier for the politician to cave and let wages and benefits bloat to unsustainable levels than do the right thing and keep public union compensation inline with the taxpayer's.

Originally posted by CantSay

Originally posted by Beanskinner
All Hail the Corporation!

Romney/Walmart 2012!

Exactly! Sad day for democracy given that Walker's campaign funding came from rich sonars and was 1200% more than the competition.

People are sheep and easily brainwashed.

Please stop with the "we were totally outspent" argument. Deny ignorance and actually take a look at how much union money was put into this recall election. I think you will find the result eye opening. It's not hard to find the numbers, but I'd rather you find them than accuse me of making them up. Careful about looking for the truth though, it might not agree with your preconceptions.

Dig a little deeper than what the MSM does and you will find your answer. Just because the unions didn't directly donate to the Barrett campaign doesn't mean they didn't put a LOT of money into fighting Walker.

The one's that really think they lost because of being out spent are probably the same one's that think they can recall Walker again next year. So, no point in arguing with them, they live in their own, delusional world.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by habitforming

 

Clinton won by 49% of the vote only, that bothers him.

Cool story. Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote is what I addressed and that is a total fantasy. I am not sure what your reply is supposed to be telling me.

More importantly, you say "shop". I'm assuming you are a private union = sheet metal worker's, electrian's, plumber's? I respect the trade unions, very different from the public unions.

Ah, this argument. You assume something, try to make a point, cast me as ignorant and out of touch. Now can you tell me what difference it makes if it is a public or private union with regard to what I actually posted?
You did understand what I wrote, did you not? So I guess you are telling me that people being stupid does not happen in public unions?

Read my post again and really try.

My ex-husband was a sheet metal worker. Your unions have education, and standards, and unions that have and should maintain high quality.

What? My unions have education and standards? You do not even need to be able to read to work in my union. Plenty of high school dropouts that have learned nothing since. Are you suggesting a sheet metal worker gets more education that a high school science teacher?

What?????????

People need to understand that there's a difference between state workers and private unions.

There are lots of differences but none of them apply to the point I was making. I can only assume that is why your post does not even attempt to address it.

Let me try to give you another example of why stupid people will vote against their best interests.

"Dave" today was asking me what the initiation fee is for our Union now because it was only $18 dollars when he joined and he heard it went way up.

YUP! It is $190.00 dollars now. One lumps sum from your first check to join the union.
So Dave says "Are you kidding? # that. I would have told them to go # themselves. Wegmans tried that # and I walked right out of there."

OK, Dave where am I going to go and make this kind of money doing this if I walk out of here?

"NOWHERE."
So when you walked out on Wegmans, what happened?
"I was on welfare for 3 years looking for full time work before I finally got lucky and came here."

Tell me how this would be any different in a public union, please?
See, Dave hates the union and if he could he would vote it out of existence. Dave also knows that without the union he takes home HALF AS MUCH MONEY doing the same job.

So can anyone tell me why Dave is not a complete moron?
Can you tell me how public vs. private unions makes difference HERE?

I am confused by the argument here.
Democrats as upset because out of state billionaires spent money on this election.
Republicans are saying it is all fair game because of the Union money spent on the election.

Huh?

I thought the RIGHT side of Wisconsin's entire gloating premise was "You libs cannot come into our state and try to tell us what we want." But it is ok for out of state billionaires to come into the state and tell you what you want?

Unions made up of people that live in that state spent money on an election in that state.
A few very rich men from other states spent money on an election in that state.

Hmmmmm...who might have a better idea of what is better for the people of Wisconsin?
Oh, I know all Republicans think that it is ok because the Koch brothers are not trying to get richer, they are trying to help us all be as rich as them.

If my union rep told me to vote one way and some rich guy from Vegas told me to vote another way.....I would ignore both but one of them would get a good "mind your own #ing business." Which one would it be if it were you?

reply to post by habitforming


bob votes for Dave! go Dave,,,

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by habitforming

 

bob votes for Dave! go Dave,,,

Well, considering what I asked was for a justification why and you present none, I feel my theory that Dave is still a moron and anyone blindly supporting him apparently is as well.

Dave is still in my union for a reason.

reply to post by habitforming


Dave was the welder right?
$190.00 dollars now.
did it include Welding Rods?? cause if,,never mind,,

In the Words of Jimmy Hoffa,, why do i think of Nichlson?,,
Fitzy,,ya always gotta give them something,, cause if a dont,,
the will turn on ya.

probably,,something like that,,

make a good book,,
sorry too any authors out there.

Originally posted by afeent1
The one's that really think they lost because of being out spent are probably the same one's that think they can recall Walker again next year. So, no point in arguing with them, they live in their own, delusional world.

Actually,those who want to recall Walker again,are those who had no problems,stiffing the taxpayers of Wisconsin,with great benefits,great pensions,and no cost healthcare. Whats a few million dollars more to waste,out of the Taxpayers, who don't belong to a Public Union ? The entitlement mentality,will always be alive and well..........as long as someone is willing to give,more then they can afford. Jim Doyle destroyed this State,in the 8 years,he had control of it. Walker made improvements,and tough decisions,in 2.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by habitforming

 

Dave was the welder right?
$190.00 dollars now.
did it include Welding Rods?? cause if,,never mind,,

In the Words of Jimmy Hoffa,, why do i think of Nichlson?,,
Fitzy,,ya always gotta give them something,, cause if a dont,,
the will turn on ya.

probably,,something like that,,

make a good book,,
sorry too any authors out there.

edit on 8-6-2012 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

So you have no clue why you would fight to earn less money?
You are not even trying to answer my question.
Dave is not a welder.

Originally posted by habitforming
I am confused by the argument here.
Democrats as upset because out of state billionaires spent money on this election.
Republicans are saying it is all fair game because of the Union money spent on the election.

Huh?

I thought the RIGHT side of Wisconsin's entire gloating premise was "You libs cannot come into our state and try to tell us what we want." But it is ok for out of state billionaires to come into the state and tell you what you want?

Unions made up of people that live in that state spent money on an election in that state.
A few very rich men from other states spent money on an election in that state.

....

I merely suggest that there wasn't much of a discrepancy in the monies spent by each side. Truthfully, it was all money poorly spent. Many on the Democratic side continue to spew the false allegation that there was a huge discrepancy in the monies spent by both sides. If you look at all the groups involved with the Wisconsin recall, you will find it pretty even, with an advantage to the Walker side, but not the 6 or 8 to 1 ratio claimed by some. You didn't lose due to being outspent, you lost due to being out of touch with what Wisconsin voters want.

Neither side would ever complain if they won an election and spent the most money.....don't try to sound so Idealistic. If the anti Walker side had won and outspent the Walker side, do you think they would be claiming it was only because they outspent the other side, not because of their message ? See how silly that sounds.

The money from Unions weren't, for the most part, money from Wisconsin Unions, but rather national groups. There goes your argument about only one side from outside of Wisconsin influencing the local election there. Both Sides poured lots of money into Wisconsin from the outside, are you denying that?

reply to post by pavil


Kudos to you...



Des

Originally posted by pavil

Both Sides poured lots of money into Wisconsin from the outside, are you denying that?

edit on 10-6-2012 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Yes I am.
Sorry if I am not going to just take your word for it.
Show me the money.