Not in the county you live in, a VERY conservative place.
I thought the Steelers were your team :shrug:
The hypocrisies by the liberals is just astounding.
- Thread starter Equity Trader
- Start date
Not in the county you live in, a VERY conservative place.
I thought the Steelers were your team :shrug:
Let's be clear once again !
The Tea Party, the MODERN DAY TEA PARTY was started by Ron Paul, you know, the Good Dr., War Vet, the One who kicked the Shit out of Judy Giuliani in the debates !
Mayor Judy
Let's STOP !!!!! Pretending
That the Tea Party, Really the Snapple Tea Party...
was started when Santelli blew a shit gasket and the Looney Right jumped on board.
Numerous times I have posted this yet the Fake Tea Partiers, the 9/12'ers, The Palinistas, Beckensteins.... still drink the Kool Aide. Beck is a TOOL ! There are very few true Conservatives now that represent what the partys original intent was as well as the Dems, the line has become blurred into one disgusting money sucking monster.
If you Kool Aide drinkers think that one of the loud mouths who stand in front of the camera and yell "Lame Stream Media" over and over again represents you, Good Luck!
THE REVOLUTION IS NOW !
DON'T BE A PASSENGER
The Tea Party, the MODERN DAY TEA PARTY was started by Ron Paul, you know, the Good Dr., War Vet, the One who kicked the Shit out of Judy Giuliani in the debates !
Mayor Judy
Let's STOP !!!!! Pretending
That the Tea Party, Really the Snapple Tea Party...
was started when Santelli blew a shit gasket and the Looney Right jumped on board.
Numerous times I have posted this yet the Fake Tea Partiers, the 9/12'ers, The Palinistas, Beckensteins.... still drink the Kool Aide. Beck is a TOOL ! There are very few true Conservatives now that represent what the partys original intent was as well as the Dems, the line has become blurred into one disgusting money sucking monster.
If you Kool Aide drinkers think that one of the loud mouths who stand in front of the camera and yell "Lame Stream Media" over and over again represents you, Good Luck!
THE REVOLUTION IS NOW !
DON'T BE A PASSENGER
Yes indeed ! :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Unfortunately in this Goat Screw, there are, were educated and informed "Ron Paul Supporters" and I am sure there was some clever editing for this clip :shrug:
In the past few years I have managed to convert many people into following, investigating.... other options in the Political DOTFA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
List of U.S. executive branch czarsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This is a list. For the background of "czar" as a political term, see Czar (political term).
In the United States, the informal political term "czar" or "tsar" is employed in media and popular usage to refer to high-level officials who oversee a particular policy. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar", but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title.
The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933?1945), during which eleven unique positions (or twelve if one were to count "Economic Czar" and "Economic Czar of World War II as separate) were so described. The term was revived, mostly by the press, to describe officials in the Nixon and Ford administrations and continues today.
Contents [hide]
1 By administration
2 List of executive branch czars
3 See also
4 References
[edit] By administrationThe list is subjective and imprecise, since frequently individuals or offices might be referred to by the nickname "czar" by some publication or a political opponent, yet the actual governmental official, a majority of publications and others do not use the term. For example, some[who?] consider czars to be only those officials who are appointed by the president without Senate confirmation.
Summary table - Number of czars per administration President's name In office Number of
czar titles Number of
appointees Appointees not
confirmed by Senate
Franklin Roosevelt 1933?1945 11 19 17
Harry Truman 1945?1953 6 6 5
Dwight Eisenhower 1953?1961 1 1 0
Lyndon Johnson 1963?1969 3 3 1
Richard Nixon 1969?1974 3 5 5
Gerald Ford 1974?1977 2 2 2
Jimmy Carter 1977?1981 2 3 2
Ronald Reagan 1981?1989 1 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989?1993 2 3 0
Bill Clinton 1993?2001 8 11 7
George W. Bush 2001?2009 33 49 28
Barack Obama 2009? 37 41 32
The point, Dummy, is that they attribute it to Obama and found a way to make it something it is not. Those are your people, brutha. Hope you are as proud to identify with them as I am proud to not.
TRENCH, I was in Wisconsin for about a year, working there everday, met a lot of great people, I saw the same housing boom growing around Janesville that I saw in Columbus when I moved up. The tide is turning it would seem to me, I know for a fact that it is NOT the union's fault that GM went under, but I also know the unions burden is TOO heavy for the taxpayer and for the IMPORT competition that is building here in the states now.
I hear that a handful of UAW's are indeed rolling.......
Up and down the highway to Fairfax to keep that big union paycheck rollin in
As Bob Dylan sang, " The Times They Are a Changing "
I do not work union and was farm raised, not afraid of an honest day's work and happy to make an honest day's pay, not a greedy bone in my body and will not compromise my integrity and honesty for the almighty dollar. Don't expect many here or anywhere to understand that, and that is OK. We are headed to a hole in the ground in the long run, why be in a hurry to get there with a full day's auction of STUFF left behind:shrug: Just to make the man with the gavel a big payday:nono:
as T Jeffereson said:
"the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave."
Geno, we could do an entire thread on what caused GM's woes and it was a shame to see the Janesville GM plant shutdown after 90 years of operation, but not a big surprise given the age of the plant and the vehicles they were producing - Suburbans, Tahoes & Yukons.TRENCH, I was in Wisconsin for about a year, working there everday, met a lot of great people, I saw the same housing boom growing around Janesville that I saw in Columbus when I moved up. The tide is turning it would seem to me, I know for a fact that it is NOT the union's fault that GM went under, but I also know the unions burden is TOO heavy for the taxpayer and for the IMPORT competition that is building here in the states now.
I do not work union and was farm raised, not afraid of an honest day's work and happy to make an honest day's pay, not a greedy bone in my body and will not compromise my integrity and honesty for the almighty dollar. Don't expect many here or anywhere to understand that, and that is OK. We are headed to a hole in the ground in the long run, why be in a hurry to get there with a full day's auction of STUFF left behind:shrug: Just to make the man with the gavel a big payday:nono:
Btw... I think the personal traits you listed are all fine qualities. In spite of what a couple guys on this site would have you believe, I've worked since I was 16 years old and I pride myself on my work ethic as well. But like you, I have no place for greed in my life and I've never believed the pursuit of the almighty dollar is life's ultimate goal.
He was also asked before taking office if he would forgo the Governor's mansion, like many other incumbants were doing in states with budget crisis'. He said absolutely not......it is a perk of being the governor.
That "perk" costs taxpayers $265,000 per year.
So, just like any other businessman you know.......when "we" have to tighten our belts in trying times......."we" means you.
He's as big a fraud as any of them.
:sadwave:
I wonder if Walker is planning on paying more for his insurance benefits to help balance the budget? Maybe he is - that would be a fair gesture, don't you think?
Of course. He's in that boat.
Small toll to pay to pass into the grounds he's headed, though.
I can't begin to imagine how lined his pockets are getting over the next several years.
Chad/YYZ
Would like your opinions on issue since you both have a hat in the ring on issue.
Lets raise your pay grade to governor and your in walker's shoes.
How do you fight the out of control spending/debt (or pass it on might be another option).
From what I've read he has three options--
Have employees pay increased portion of benefits
Lay off 5,500 state employees
Raise taxes
What is your call--if you have another solution would be glad to hear it.
Would like your opinions on issue since you both have a hat in the ring on issue.
Lets raise your pay grade to governor and your in walker's shoes.
How do you fight the out of control spending/debt (or pass it on might be another option).
From what I've read he has three options--
Have employees pay increased portion of benefits
Lay off 5,500 state employees
Raise taxes
What is your call--if you have another solution would be glad to hear it.
I love how our right leaning friends here would have us believe that the Wisconsin state budget shortfall is a direct result of "out of control spending" by our former Democrat Governor, as if the recession we've been in for the past 3 years has had no impact on state revenues. The fact is that Gov. Doyle made significant budget cuts ($2.2 Billion) over the past two years. Wisconsin's not alone - 44 other states are facing state budget shortfalls as well.
States Continue to Feel Recession?s Impact
By Elizabeth McNichol, Phil Oliff and Nicholas Johnson
Updated February 10, 2011
As governors across the country prepare their budget proposals for the coming year, they continue to face a daunting fiscal challenge. The worst recession since the 1930s has caused the steepest decline in state tax receipts on record. State tax collections, adjusted for inflation, are now 12 percent below pre-recession levels,[1] while the need for state-funded services has not declined. As a result, even after making very deep spending cuts over the last several years, states continue to face large budget gaps.
To date some 45 states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2012, which begins July 1, 2011 in most states. These come on top of the large shortfalls that states closed in fiscal years 2009 through 2011. States will continue to struggle to find the revenue needed to support critical public services for a number of years, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
Happy to. I don't share the thought that he only has three options. He has another one, that is specific, to the point, and addresses DIRECTLY what HE SAID was needed for the financial issues of the state, and now refuses to accept. Why? I think we all really know why, but to your question:
#1. I would not have cut taxes for those he cut them for when the budget is in such a shortfall. That is losing money quickly and dramatically for the state under a hypothetical and VERY ARGUABLE (to be nice) ecomomic theory that has been proven wrong at least as often as right. Which I don't think can be argued, but go ahead...
#2. The first option you mentioned has been agreed to by the union. So take that, and move on. If you don't, you're not being truthful, and you're being exposed as a front for the people who paid to put you in office. I still say this is mainly political, and not economic.
That took two minutes, gave you two solid things that could have been done, one that is still on the table that HE ASKED FOR.
Anything else? :shrug:
So that would be option 1
--Continue with what he's now doing?
-as far as being political or economical I'd expect you can find state budget deficit on google.
however would agree --stopping the expansion of gov and debt--appeared to be "we the peoples" biggy in past election --so is certainly trying to abide by campaign pledge. It certainly is diff path to --"Era of Responsibilty"
--Continue with what he's now doing?
-as far as being political or economical I'd expect you can find state budget deficit on google.
however would agree --stopping the expansion of gov and debt--appeared to be "we the peoples" biggy in past election --so is certainly trying to abide by campaign pledge. It certainly is diff path to --"Era of Responsibilty"
