The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

He's a zero sum candidate. All told , the combined effect of Romney's campaign rests with the short attention spans of Americans. Long before that 'etch a sketch' remark became part of the vernacular George Will called him "The pretzel Candidate"
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']And Obama hasn't done anything of substance with his entire administration, except "killing" bin Laden, which according to Democrats, Obama did all by himself, like he's freakin' Rambo...[/QUOTE]

Obama has been pretty underwhelming I'd agree, but I wouldn't got as far to say that he's done nothing.

I think the health care law (if it gets upheld) is pretty substantial--even if it was far less than I'd liked as someone who supports having universal healthcare. But it will still cover a lot more people, and already made positive changes in terms of companies not being able to drop people for pre-existing conditions etc.

He ended combat in Iraq, and commiting to getting out of Afghanistan soon despite pressure from military leaders to stay longer.

Ending don't ask, don't tell is also a fairly decent accomplishment IMO.

Also some positive changes with consumer protection and putting more restrictions on credit card companies etc.
 
To which I'd add : Lilly Ledbetter, Embryonic Stem Cells , New START treaty , Chief Tech Officer , Pell Grant expansion minus the Middlemen within the student loan process ,. .

I could go on and on if you want, his accomplishments are numerous
 
I've gotta get some Mike Coffman off my chest. I'm sure you've all heard the original remarks and the subsequent "interview" where he declined to elaborate and regurgitated the same robotic response half a dozen times. Today he wrote an article in the Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20694265/mike-coffman-comment-was-inappropriate-boneheaded

Let me start off by saying , hes just another vacant innocuous career politician missing the two brain cells required to rub together to form a thought. Having said that this goes for every public figure: fuck your "Sorry"
Everyone over the age of 20 knows that even sincere apologies are only the start not the end. You didnt "Restore" The Presidents standing and you didnt "repair" your own dignity.
The truth is, we are all human and we all make mistakes. This was my mistake, and I'm not afraid to own up to it.
Click to expand...

Owning up to a mistake without doing anything about it doesn't make you more "human" buddy. You were Human when you made the mistake , human when you apologized , and an asshole human now that its over.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']I've gotta get some Mike Coffman off my chest. I'm sure you've all heard the original remarks and the subsequent "interview" where he declined to elaborate and regurgitated the same robotic response half a dozen times. Today he wrote an article in the Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20694265/mike-coffman-comment-was-inappropriate-boneheaded

Let me start off by saying , hes just another vacant innocuous career politician missing the two brain cells required to rub together to form a thought. Having said that this goes for every public figure: fuck your "Sorry"
Everyone over the age of 20 knows that even sincere apologies are only the start not the end. You didnt "Restore" The Presidents standing and you didnt "repair" your own dignity.


Owning up to a mistake without doing anything about it doesn't make you more "human" buddy. You were Human when you made the mistake , human when you apologized , and an asshole human now that its over.[/QUOTE]

I don't know this guy or his history, but that sounded alot more sincere then any other apology I've read in a long time.

What else do you want him to do?
 
It doesn't make snese, he claims he's always rejected the notion that Obama was anything but American, then he makes that comment. Makes me think that what he has publicly said and what her personally thinks are two different things, and he accidentally spoke his true feelings. Which also makes him a damn liar if that's the case. He probably just feels that going birther would be bad for his image, so he probably keeps it to himself or only talks about it to other like minded people in private.

Basically he slipped up and let his true feelings out, oops.
 
Yeah, that was far better than McCain's answer and the most decent apology I've ever seen from a Republican or any politician that I can recall. No half-assed "I'm sorry if you were offended" here. Although, I can see how it would've been better to have never said it to begin with. Then again, the Republican party is now the party of CRAZY so...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, that was far better than McCain's answer and the most decent apology I've ever seen from a Republican or any politician that I can recall. No half-assed "I'm sorry if you were offended" here. Although, I can see how it would've been better to have never said it to begin with. Then again, the Republican party is now the party of CRAZY so...[/QUOTE]

That's the truth. I hate those apologies like "sorry if you're a douche who can't take a joke"

If you give an apology like that then you're the douche
 
Seemingly sincere apology aside, I still think he's full of shit. That or he's suffering from dissociative identity disorder.
 
While it's great to listen to your kids' ideas, there's also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would've been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that's not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids' worldview."
Click to expand...

http://www.zimbio.com/Bristol+Palin...outb&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Z-Articles-1

Bristol Palin on Obama's change in stance regarding gay marriage #-o
 
any WI news yet? I don't know how to bring threads back from the graveyard so this seems as good a place as any
 
I don’t have any particular affinity for Scott Walker (in fact he killed a promising rail project I would have liked to see built) but I think recall pushers were very arrogant. I think this is the correct outcome.
 
Sucks to have people willingly sell themselves short but what did they think was going to happen? Most of the people rallying against him last year were those who voted Democrat anyway.
 
Exit polls had a preference for Obama. Thats bizarre. Who would vote for Obama AND Walker? They need to find one of these folks for an interview.

I consider Obama an extreme right winger, but most people that would vote for Walker do not.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
I consider Obama an extreme right winger, but most people that would vote for Walker do not.[/QUOTE]

I like your style old bean.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Exit polls had a preference for Obama. Thats bizarre. Who would vote for Obama AND Walker? They need to find one of these folks for an interview.

I consider Obama an extreme right winger, but most people that would vote for Walker do not.[/QUOTE]

Local Politics vs National Politics, they're two entirely separate beasts in the eyes of the voting public. There is zero correlation between how people vote for Governor vs how they vote for President, if anything there is a negative correlation. We had GOP Governors here in Connecticut for 2 decades, but no Republican Presidential candidate has even come close to winning here since George Bush in 1988.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ontrary-indicator-for-presidential-elections/
 
Well, let's put it in some perspective here. More people voted for Barrett than the number of people that signed the petition, polls said that 60% of registered voters think that recalls should only be instituted if the official commits a crime, and I think it was 16% of Obama supporters supported Walker.

Considering that people believe that Unions=bad is a tautology on both "sides" of the aisle, I'm not surprised at all about the results. This is like a larger version of that town in Colorado? that decided to shut off street lights after a certain time to save money. The result? The lights weren't turned off equitably and were only shut off in the non-nice parts of town with the crime rate escalating. They also cutoff funding for public park upkeep and road repair. It's fucking insane, but it looks like Wisconsin is the new Kansas.

As for being arrogant, I don't even know how one would quantify that considering the bullshit that Walker pulled by creating a deficit with corporate tax cuts and then blaming the teachers.

edit: Oh yeah, and Walker outspent Barrett 8:1 with more than half the money coming from out of state, so considering that, Barrett didn't do that bad considering he had already lost to him in the past.
 
Interesting that walker won with a bigger margin than when he was elected. Certainly doesn't bode well for union sentiment.

Maybe there is hope for the country after all.
 
I have to give republicans credit, they are a group of master manipulators. It's mind blowing what they can get the public to do and think. They've convinced are good number of people that Obama is a socialist, despite most people not even knowing wtf socialism is. They've managed to get people to turn on unions, despite the fact that unions were designed to help the very people now turning on them.

I can only wish that Democrats were that good at manipulating people.
 
They aren't turning them on (private sector) unions, they are turning them on (public sector) unions. You are right though, (private sector) unions are great for the people that are represented by them. Either way, I got to vote for my boy scotty two times in two years.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']They aren't turning them on (private sector) unions, they are turning them on (public sector) unions. You are right though, (private sector) unions are great for the people that are represented by them. Either way, I got to vote for my boy scotty two times in two years.[/QUOTE]

You live in Wisconsin, the joke is on you.
 
Eh, its not that bad. Four distinct seasons, lots of things to do outdoors. Nothing strikes me as that much different from when I lived in PA or in FL. (other than the heat not being like Florida and there isn't rain on a daily basis).
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']They aren't turning them on (private sector) unions, they are turning them on (public sector) unions. You are right though, (private sector) unions are great for the people that are represented by them. Either way, I got to vote for my boy scotty two times in two years.[/QUOTE]
How is it that private unions are ok, yet public ones are bad?

In Wisconsin's case, the teachers unions already agreed to almost all of the provisions except ending collective bargaining. We're talking pay freezes and reduced benefits. It's fucking bonkers how education is so important, yet we continually persist as a county in valuing those that give it, less and less.

I hope you're not planning on having kids because Walker is going to completely fuck over the school system now.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Interesting that walker won with a bigger margin than when he was elected. Certainly doesn't bode well for union sentiment.

Maybe there is hope for the country after all.[/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly. :applause:

Maybe just maybe...it was a good sign.
 
You know, in a way I'm almost glad it turned out this way. Now Walker will have a full term to muck things up and eventually show that shortsighted solutions to long term problems aren't the answer.
 
[quote name='dohdough']How is it that private unions are ok, yet public ones are bad?

In Wisconsin's case, the teachers unions already agreed to almost all of the provisions except ending collective bargaining. We're talking pay freezes and reduced benefits. It's fucking bonkers how education is so important, yet we continually persist as a county in valuing those that give it, less and less.

I hope you're not planning on having kids because Walker is going to completely fuck over the school system now.[/QUOTE]

Private unions = private owned, private money, and decisions can be made however the company wants it. If the union gets too outrageous in its demands for pay and benefits, the company runs itself out of business and ceases to make money (ie the city of Detroit).

Public unions = my tax money, and no competition. If the union says that they want x, y, and z and there just isn't the money then it just becomes a, "well I guess we'll strike and you can see how well the city functions without its police, fire department, and teachers".

You're right, they did agree to almost all of the provisions, ya know, after the law was passed and they saw the end of the money train. Then they saw that they could probably give a little here or there :roll:. Complaining about having to pay towards your own pension and healthcare isn't going to get you very far to anyone other than another teacher. Also, breaking collective bargaining allowed school districts to get their health insurance from companies other than just the teachers unions personal insurance (WEA) saving even more money. As crazy as it may seem, spending money =\= a better education.

I do plan on having kids, and would never put them into the failing public school system in the US. There are too many teachers that are in the high school version of "tenured" and no longer care about teaching, just about getting a few more years in and then collecting their pension that need to move out of the way for younger teachers with new ideas and a desire to shape new minds. If taking away collective bargaining rights removes the old "Teacher A has been there for 4 years and is the best teacher in the district, Teacher B has been there 20 years and is an awful teacher, budget cuts says we have to fire one teacher so sorry TA, we are keeping TB she has longer in the district" I'm all for it.

[quote name='nasum']You know, in a way I'm almost glad it turned out this way. Now Walker will have a full term to muck things up and eventually show that shortsighted solutions to long term problems aren't the answer.[/QUOTE]

Ya, because long term solutions on how to save districts money on pensions, healthcare costs, and budget costs is shortsighted.
 
The "lazy teachers living a life of luxury" frame from the right remains one of the most astounding things I come across in modern political discourse.
 
It isn't a long term solution. It's a band-aid at best. It will also likely result in very good teachers leaving to find a place where their skills will be better compensated. I have friends in Hudson that have started to look for homes in Woodbury and other eastern ring suburbs as of today.

A long term solution would be to budget X% of tax revenue with 4 year projections.

Of course let's not forget the increased administrative costs of negotiating with each individual employee as oppossed to a Union Steward dealing with all the negotiations for the group.
 
[quote name='nasum']It isn't a long term solution. It's a band-aid at best. It will also likely result in very good teachers leaving to find a place where their skills will be better compensated. I have friends in Hudson that have started to look for homes in Woodbury and other eastern ring suburbs as of today.

A long term solution would be to budget X% of tax revenue with 4 year projections.

Of course let's not forget the increased administrative costs of negotiating with each individual employee as oppossed to a Union Steward dealing with all the negotiations for the group.[/QUOTE]

They are still represented by the union.

[quote name='mykevermin']The "lazy teachers living a life of luxury" frame from the right remains one of the most astounding things I come across in modern political discourse.[/QUOTE]

It's not a life of luxury, but it is a good life. I have no problem with them living the lives that they have and the pay that they receive is fine by me.
 
Well, clearly you do not if you support cuts to their total compensation packages and their power to negotiate those packages. That's trying to have it both ways.
 
Teachers are not above the law in terms of compensation in regards to the rest of the economy. Paying towards their pension = money they get back. Paying more towards their healthcare = the economy blows and there just isn't the same amount of tax revenue that their used to be and they need to help out. Every other company has to do it, so why would the government be any different? Clearly I don't want anyone in any sector to have to make cut backs, but sadly the economy is something that goes up and down and compensation for all jobs follow the zigzag.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']there just isn't the same amount of tax revenue that their used to be[/quote]

That's not the sagging economy at work.

and they need to help out.
Click to expand...

The economy is in poor shape, we need people to pay their fair share? Say that around the wrong people and you'll be called "socialist."

Every other company has to do it, so why would the government be any different? Clearly I don't want anyone in any sector to have to make cut backs, but sadly the economy is something that goes up and down and compensation for all jobs follow the zigzag.
Click to expand...

Corporate taxes are the lowest they've been in decades, executive compensation packages literally more than ten times greater than they were 3 decades ago. So this talk of "cut backs" is misguided, because it overlooks cutbacks proportionate to benefits from economic growth (it's not teachers, it's not postal workers) - and it's related to a very simplistic perspective. That is: jobs that generate revenue directly deserve compensation, jobs that generate revenue indirectly earn too much. This framing casts jobs (such as teachers) that are not easily (if at all) quantifiable in terms of how much revenue they generate as those who soak up our resources. But clearly an uneducated populace would not be able to run a business, and therefore education is partially responsible for all our Wall Street participants, yes? But since they do not turn a profit in a way that is clearly understood or acknowledged by the public, they are on the chopping block. They "earn too much," to you, at their lavish salary of $55K per year (in WI).
 
It hasnt been certified yet, but the D's did appear to win one of the state senate seats back, so they now control the Senate by one vote. That should do a little bit to slow further damage from Walker. At the very least, there wont be further anti-democratic legislation able to get through. I reckon they'll be able to peel off someone for their future budgets of tax cuts for "job creators" and cuts to the poor to pay for it.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']It hasnt been certified yet, but the D's did appear to win one of the state senate seats back, so they now control the Senate by one vote. That should do a little bit to slow further damage from Walker. At the very least, there wont be further anti-democratic legislation able to get through. I reckon they'll be able to peel off someone for their future budgets of tax cuts for "job creators" and cuts to the poor to pay for it.[/QUOTE]


Yep the damage is just staggering..:roll:

"The state budget has been balanced. The unemployment rate has been dropping and is now below the national average. Property taxes are down. Fraudulent sick leave policies—which allowed employees to call in sick and then work the next shift for overtime pay—have been ended. The government has stopped forcibly collecting union dues from workers’ paychecks. Best of all, the myth that union bosses represent their members’ interests has been exposed as a lie. Now that union dues are voluntary, tens of thousands of union members have stopped paying them. Membership in the Wisconsin chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) has dropped by half. Membership in the state’s American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is down by over a third. Given unions’ influential role in most elections, the national implications of this trend are staggering."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...victory-spells-doom-for-public-sector-unions/

.
.
 
Last edited:
a) his numbers are bullshit
b) balancing the budget the way he does is incredibly destructive/causes suffering, and it is worse for the budget in anything other than the short term.
c) I want the government to collect union dues automatically
d) I want property taxes high
e) I want union membership high

That op-ed doesnt do a good job of selling it to me, sorry.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']a) his numbers are bullshit
b) balancing the budget the way he does is incredibly destructive/causes suffering, and it is worse for the budget in anything other than the short term.
c) I want the government to collect union dues automatically
d) I want property taxes high
e) I want union membership high

That op-ed doesnt do a good job of selling it to me, sorry.[/QUOTE]

a)You are refuting those numbers? Look them up.
b) that is a matter of perception just like your perception of damage. As far as anything but short term... what was the alternative... bankrupcy thus leaving no long term...just like many states and those with democrat governors were forced to make the same cuts and decisions....for the long run and not be short sighted because doing so would continue on a road that would only lead to more suffering and more damage. The choices are never easy but should NEVER be avoided. I saw and see what the states including mine that had to do these things as hard (short term suffering...suffering okay that is subjective) but in the long run very constructive and for the over all good and to ease long term suffering that would occur and more of it.
c)Cough I am speechless. really?
d)Cough I am speechless. really?
e) private unions or public unions? That is your opinion while mine is that public unions should be abolished

Your list actually drives me more to my opinions that this was a good thing...then changing my mind even slightly. You are not selling it to me.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Eh, its not that bad. Four distinct seasons, lots of things to do outdoors. Nothing strikes me as that much different from when I lived in PA or in FL. (other than the heat not being like Florida and there isn't rain on a daily basis).[/QUOTE]

I'd love to live in FL if there were any jobs there.

I couldn't live in WI - I like the outdoors but not that much.
 
Regarding the whole Walker situation, keep in mind that he instated these anti-union policies under the lie of "The state is broke!", while at the same time creating additional tax cuts for the rich. The premise was bullshit from the get-go, the rich benefit, and the poor and middle class get fucked over yet again. And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Walker's destructive policies. Hope the fucker gets his head blown off, honestly.
 
I'm all for unions when they're for safe working conditions, 8 hour days and things like that.

But when they're going for no-premium health care (even in retirement), guaranteed rate of return on their pension, and guaranteed raises each year regardless of personal or company performance, I think they're over reaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top