Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Wisconsin Recall (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47032)

pointman 06-06-2012 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866377)
Nonsense. Unions haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades.

You falsely characterizing the current crop of Wisconsin school teachers, firefighters and police as physically violent is purposely disingenuous and nasty on your part.

Or you just don't know what "thugs" really means when you use the term "union thugs"?

:rolleyes:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._to_media.html

Riot 06-06-2012 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman (Post 866479)

Yes - those people could be called union "thugs", during that action, couldn't they?

But what does that have to do with non-violent Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and police men?

Nothing.

I suppose the point that I was making, that unions are no longer rooted in violence and intimidation, was simply too nuanced for you to grasp? Or, because one union in one action in 2011 was violent, you want to use that to disprove the simple truth that unions today are not violent?

Danzig 06-06-2012 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman (Post 866479)

those are probably thugs, not union members. you know, like every time there was an assault with occupy, it was never occupy members...

Riot 06-06-2012 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 866478)
Quotes from the "news" will be fine too, I am sure they have direct quotes from the budgets for you to believe what they are feeding you as opposed to opinion and rhetoric.

Act 10. Read it. The whole thing. You can read newspaper quotes about it, too.

I'm just shocked to see you admit you haven't the first clue about why the Wisconsin recalls occurred, and what happened to start them - the votes, the laws that were passed.

You've heard of the Ryan Budget, right?

Riot 06-06-2012 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 866494)
those are probably thugs, not union members. you know, like every time there was an assault with occupy, it was never occupy members...

Yes - because there were 20 black bloc anarchists at a public protest breaking windows, we can blame an international occupy movement for being violent.

Because there was an incidence of union violence in 2011 in Washington State, we can call Milwaukee teachers "union thugs".

Bigotry. It lives. Proudly.

There was an illegal hispanic that voted once. That makes them all illegal voters. There were 4 felons that voted in the 2008 presidential election. That makes all felons illegal voters. And we know that illegals and felons vote for Obama. Because "they all do".

Coach Pants 06-06-2012 03:20 PM

You should know, hypocrite.

Riot 06-06-2012 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 866498)
You should know, hypocrite.

I admit I tend to think all self-professed anarchists are remarkably stupid. But that's based upon personal experience. Not assumption.

Alabama Stakes 06-06-2012 03:25 PM

funny thing about wisconsin
 
i went to a wedding in door county. was there for a week. people we met at the wedding sent 2 packers seahawks playoff tickets, a couple years back in that snow game on the frozen tundra. a must see venue. while there, other than the players on the field, I saw one person who wasn't white. he was a big native american cat with a license plate that said chief. you woulda thought it was Maine. just sayin'

pointman 06-06-2012 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866377)
Nonsense. Unions haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades.

You falsely characterizing the current crop of Wisconsin school teachers, firefighters and police as physically violent is purposely disingenuous and nasty on your part.

Or you just don't know what "thugs" really means when you use the term "union thugs"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866488)
Yes - those people could be called union "thugs", during that action, couldn't they?

But what does that have to do with non-violent Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and police men?

Nothing.

I suppose the point that I was making, that unions are no longer rooted in violence and intimidation, was simply too nuanced for you to grasp? Or, because one union in one action in 2011 was violent, you want to use that to disprove the simple truth that unions today are not violent?

The Queen of changing parameters. You said plainly that Unions have not bashed people over the heads with violence for decades. That is a patently false statement. You then proceeded to unfairly attack another poster for even suggesting Unions use thug tactics to accomplish their goals.

I suppose as usual you read only the part you want but ignore the inconvenient truth, the same game plan as your beloved President. 9,000 reported acts of violence since 1975 is no small number particularly when the actual number is over 10 times that. Indeed, one violent act is intolerable IMO. You never read about it because it is ignored by the liberal media that you swear by.

Here is an example of what happens when someone tries to hire non-union workers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nasty...ry?id=14572790

Union's haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades? Maybe in the United Fantasyland of Riot, but in the United States of America the Union tactic of using violence and destruction of property to send their message is alive and well.

OldDog 06-06-2012 03:34 PM

It was inevitable...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4

Riot 06-06-2012 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman (Post 866507)
The Queen of changing parameters. You said plainly that Unions have not bashed people over the heads with violence for decades. That is a patently false statement.

Yes. I agree. As I already said in the response to your post. We can call the union members you posted about "thugs".

Except my statement was made in a discussion regarding the nonsense of characterizing Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and policemen as "union thugs".

Which is absurd. Do you agree with that? That calling Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and policemen violent union thugs is incorrect?

Nuance. It's too complicated for some.

pointman 06-06-2012 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866509)
Yes. I agree. Except that statement was made in a discussion regarding characterizing Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and policemen "union thugs".

Which is absurd. Do you agree with that? That calling Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and policemen violent thugs is incorrect?

Nuance. It's too complicated for some.

The truth is apparently too complicated for you.

Riot 06-06-2012 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDog (Post 866508)

LOL - I saw that last night, it's great :tro:

Danzig 06-06-2012 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman (Post 866507)
The Queen of changing parameters. You said plainly that Unions have not bashed people over the heads with violence for decades. That is a patently false statement. You then proceeded to unfairly attack another poster for even suggesting Unions use thug tactics to accomplish their goals.

I suppose as usual you read only the part you want but ignore the inconvenient truth, the same game plan as your beloved President. 9,000 reported acts of violence since 1975 is no small number particularly when the actual number is over 10 times that. Indeed, one violent act is intolerable IMO. You never read about it because it is ignored by the liberal media that you swear by.

Here is an example of what happens when someone tries to hire non-union workers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nasty...ry?id=14572790

Union's haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades? Maybe in the United Fantasyland of Riot, but in the United States of America the Union tactic of using violence and destruction of property to send their message is alive and well.

my husband joined the union here 15 years ago because he didn't want to deal with all the bs if he didn't.
matter of fact, they had a strike here back in the mid 70's. people, including family members, still don't speak to each other to this day over that strike. that was 40 years ago, and people still get called 'scab' (and worse) for having crossed the picket line. and there was, and is, still talk of how certain folks 'better not drive across the levee at night'. the meaning there is they won't make it unscathed, but would be run off the road into the ouachita river.

Riot 06-06-2012 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman (Post 866511)
The truth is apparently too complicated for you.

Do you think calling Wisconsin schoolteachers "union thugs" is accurate or even remotely fair? Yes or no? It's bullshiat, and you know it.

Calling kindergarten teachers "union thugs" is the deliberate ALEC language created to make neighbors justify taking pensions and raises out of the hands of their kids kindergarten teachers, their next-door neighbors.

"Hate those "union thugs", folks!" "Those freeloaders deserve to have their pensions and salaries cut!"

It's pathetic and sad to see people falsely calling Wisconsin public employees "union thugs".

Especially when during my entire lifetime, the word about teachers has been that they are, "woefully underpaid and overworked for the benefit they bring to our children and our society". But hey! Wisconsin is broke. Massive deficit. But still gotta give tax cuts to Walker's cronies to "create jobs" and "be a good business environment".

So have to get the money from somewhere ... hey! The evil union thugs! We'll take their money! They don't deserve their pensions!



Clip-Clop 06-06-2012 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866496)
Act 10. Read it. The whole thing. You can read newspaper quotes about it, too.

I'm just shocked to see you admit you haven't the first clue about why the Wisconsin recalls occurred, and what happened to start them - the votes, the laws that were passed.

You've heard of the Ryan Budget, right?

Act 10 PDF search for tax cuts...no matches found.

"66.0518 Defined benefit pension plans. A local
governmental unit, as defined in s. 66.0131 (1) (a), may
not establish a defined benefit pension plan for its
employees unless the plan requires the employees to pay
half of all actuarially required contributions for funding
benefits under the plan and prohibits the local governmental
unit from paying on behalf of an employee any of
the employee’s share of the actuarially required contributions."
-seems reasonable, no?

search for wealthy...no matches found.

search for income...all results are for State income or reference incomes levels relative to poverty levels and the benefits available to those folks.

Unable to find any mention of cuts for the wealthy in there.

Riot 06-06-2012 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 866518)
Act 10 PDF search for tax cuts...no matches found.

Think really hard about this concept of "somebody has to pay for the tax cuts". Go back to when the Wisconsin state senate passed the union busting bill. Read the newspapers around that time. Wisconsin was in a massive deficit. Who got the tax cuts? Who got income cut to pay for it? What was in Act 10?

You say that simply doesn't exist. Open your eyes.

Pretending it doesn't exist unless you find one legal document that has actual language that says, "we will cut taxes for the rich by taking pension money" is laughably obtuse.

The actuality is present in both the Walker's Wisconsin budget bill, and the Ryan budget.

Clip-Clop 06-06-2012 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866520)
Think really hard about this concept of "somebody has to pay for the tax cuts". Go back to when the Wisconsin state senate passed the union busting bill. Read the newspapers around that time. Wisconsin was in a massive deficit. Who got the tax cuts? Who got income cut to pay for it?

You say that doesn't exist. Open your eyes.

Pretending it doesn't exist unless you find one legal document that has actual language that says, "we will cut taxes for the rich by taking pension money" is laughably obtuse.

But you say that it is written.

Proof or dismissal. Your rules.

Riot 06-06-2012 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 866521)
But you say that it is written.

Proof or dismissal. Your rules.

Yes. Read the Walker Budget. Who got tax cuts? Who paid for it? This budget already exists. It's right there for you. It caused the recalls. Again - you pretending it doesn't exist unless you find one legal document that has actual language that says in one sentence, "we will cut taxes for the rich by taking pension money" is laughably obtuse. Let alone naive.

Read the budgets. Who got tax cuts in Wisconsin under this budget? Who gets income cuts (via pension and benefit cuts) to make up the difference? It's not that hard for most people to see. It's the reason for the Wisconsin recalls.

Read the Ryan budget. Who gets tax cuts? Who pays for it?

Coach Pants 06-06-2012 03:57 PM

Read the United States Tax Code. Trollololoooolololol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XZGHOxnCto

Clip-Clop 06-06-2012 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866524)
Yes. Read the Walker Budget. Who got tax cuts? Who paid for it? This budget already exists. It's right there for you. It caused the recalls. Again - you pretending it doesn't exist unless you find one legal document that has actual language that says in one sentence, "we will cut taxes for the rich by taking pension money" is laughably obtuse. Let alone naive.

Read the budgets. Who got tax cuts in Wisconsin under this budget? Who gets income cuts (via pension and benefit cuts) to make up the difference? It's not that hard for most people to see. It's the reason for the Wisconsin recalls.

Read the Ryan budget. Who gets tax cuts? Who pays for it?

You read the budgets and post the language to defend your side, that is how this works. I do not say word number 245,032 in War & Peace is "the" and you say prove it and my response is go count it. I need to prove it or be dismissed.
You are dismissed due to an inability to ever prove your argument with any written word other than "ALEC", "Koch bros." or your own opinion.

Clip-Clop 06-06-2012 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 866527)
Read the United States Tax Code. Trollololoooolololol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XZGHOxnCto

If you look for it you will see it very clearly, just start looking.

Riot 06-06-2012 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 866533)
You read the budgets and post the language to defend your side, that is how this works.

Yes. In the Walker budget - a budget under a massive deficit - public employees got their pensions and benefits cut, and a certain segment of the population got tax cuts. That is all imaginary. You deny it even occurred (although we just had, you know, two sets of recall elections over it).

And the two are completely unassociated.

You are right. It didn't occur. Even though that money, no longer taken out of union dues, goes into ... what fund?

Coach Pants 06-06-2012 04:14 PM

How about this as a conclusion to the thread? You lost. TROLLOLOLOLOL! :L:

http://youtu.be/gkfVdrtLcRs

bigrun 06-06-2012 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 866333)
while most republicans never hope for failure regardless of who is in charge and do not cheer for bad news.


are you schittin me!..you were j/k right?

Clip-Clop 06-06-2012 04:16 PM

dismissed.

Riot 06-06-2012 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 866537)
How about this as a conclusion to the thread? You lost. TROLLOLOLOLOL! :L:

http://youtu.be/gkfVdrtLcRs

Lost? That Scott Walker cut union pensions and benefits to put that money into his budget and that paid for tax cuts for the wealthy?

Yeah. Don't think so.

Riot 06-06-2012 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 866540)
dismissed.

Let's get this straight: You deny that Gov. Scott Walker cut union contributions? And that money saved by the state goes into making up Walker's budget deficit? And that Walker also gave tax cuts out of that very budget?

:D :tro:

Rudeboyelvis 06-06-2012 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 866537)
How about this as a conclusion to the thread? You lost. TROLLOLOLOLOL! :L:

http://youtu.be/gkfVdrtLcRs

:tro::tro::tro:

This needs to be the official DT response to Riot when she finally spins out of control and hits the wall after 3 pages of her psychotically trying to defending her indefensible position.

Somebody just throw down the Trolololo guy x10 hours link and no one else responds.


Steve's bandwith budget will appreciate the savings, I'm certain

Riot 06-06-2012 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 866608)
:tro::tro::tro:

This needs to be the official DT response to Riot when she finally spins out of control and hits the wall after 3 pages of her psychotically trying to defending her indefensible position.

Somebody just to throw down the Trolololo guy x10 hours link and no one else responds.


Steve's bandwith budget will appreciate the savings, I'm certain

Hey, as long as we can do that with our resident looney conspiracy theorists, too, works for me :tro:

pointman 06-06-2012 08:59 PM

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop...VdrtLcRs&gl=US

Rudeboyelvis 06-06-2012 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman (Post 866614)

:tro:

Better yet - let's just link this image:


Riot 06-06-2012 09:23 PM

Sometimes, you just have to consider the source ... :rolleyes:


Rudeboyelvis 06-06-2012 09:34 PM


Riot 06-06-2012 09:41 PM

Dear American Voters:

Your participation in elections is no longer needed. From now on, the Fortune 500 will simply choose directly whom they wish to run the country.

Quote:

(CBS News) Outside groups spent at least $33 million the Wisconsin recall race - at least six times the money groups spent the first time Republican Scott Walker and Democrat Tom Barrett squared off just two years ago.

Mike McCabe, who tracks campaign spending for the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign predicts that when all the donations have been reported, the candidates and independent groups will have spent between $75 and $80 million on this race.

By comparison, in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial race featuring the same two candidates, the total spending was $37.4 million, according to Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC), an independent campaign funding watchdog. And there was only $6 million in spending by outside groups, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

The spike in outside spending began last year, in the first round of recall elections, when 9 of the 33 Wisconsin state senators fought for their jobs. Outside groups spent $44 million.

With three weeks to go, as of May 21, the last disclosure deadline before recall election day, Walker had raised $30.5 million, while Tom Barrett had raised $3.9 million, according to public disclosure reports tallied by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

The reason Walker could exceed the state's legal limit on donations of $10,000 per donor is due to a 1987 loophole (pushed by a former state legislator who later ran afoul of the law) providing an exception for any incumbent targeted by a recall.

As a result, Walker received-seven-figure donations from 3 of the nation's top 10 Super PAC donors as well as from Wisconsin's richest woman.

Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Aldeson, who have given millions to super PACs, each gave walker $250,000. Wyoming investor Foster Friess, who bankrolled Rick Santorum's presidential campaign, gave $100,000.

The donors bankrolling the 2012 super PACs

Wisconsin billionaire Diane Hendricks gave Walker $500,000. Henrdicks is head of the nation's largest roofing and siding company ABC Supply. She is worth $2.2 billion and she ranks #188 on the Forbes 400.

Of $33.2 million spent by outside groups, according to WDC, $24.7 million from independent expenditure groups and $8.5 million from advocacy groups that run what are euphemistically called issue ads.

The top outside groups for Walker were:

Right Direction Wisconsin, created by the Republican Governor's Association (RGA), which gave $8.7 million.

Billionaire David Koch, one of the main backers of Americans for Prosperity. He gave $1 million to the RGA.

Americans For Prosperity, a conservative group linked to David and his brother Charles Koch, spent $3 million. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for prosperity told CBS News that beyond airing ads, his group sent 75 trained staffers into Wisconsin to knock on doors for Walker.

"They're on their way back to states like Florida and Michigan and Colorado and Ohio, and they're going to keep doing the same grassroots work, educating folks on President Obama's disastrous economic record and what folks can do about it," Phillips said in an interview.

"I think it was genuinely a big test case for can you take on the biggest special interest group - government unions - in one of their core states, Wisconsin, and win with a free market message? And Governor Walker proved that you can," he said.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce), spent $2 million for Walker.

The anti-union Center for Union Facts spent $1 million, the National Rifle Association spent $800,000, and the Tea Party Express spent $400,000.

The top outside groups for Barrett was Greater Wisconsin Political Expenditure Fund, which is a consortium of Democratic Party groups, which spent a combined $7.3 million.

AFSCME, the union that represents government workers, spent at least $4.3 million, while the AFL-CIO raised $1.25 million and the teachers union, the NEA, spent $1.1 million. The SEIU spent $920,000.

wiphan 06-07-2012 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 866539)
are you schittin me!..you were j/k right?

Love to see reactions especially from Riot.

wiphan 06-07-2012 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 866543)
Let's get this straight: You deny that Gov. Scott Walker cut union contributions? And that money saved by the state goes into making up Walker's budget deficit? And that Walker also gave tax cuts out of that very budget?

:D :tro:

Did Walker cut the union contributions or did he give the union members a choice whether they wanted to be part of the union or not? I thought as a democrat you would be all for giving the people the freedom to choose. Did Walker eliminate a monopoly of WEAC on Health Insurance again giving the school districts the right to choose?

Clip-Clop 06-07-2012 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 866671)
Did Walker cut the union contributions or did he give the union members a choice whether they wanted to be part of the union or not? I thought as a democrat you would be all for giving the people the freedom to choose. Did Walker eliminate a monopoly of WEAC on Health Insurance again giving the school districts the right to choose?

Go look it up...it is in Act 10, no wait it isn't...it is in the Walker budget...no wait it isn't...it is in the RYAN budget that's where all the decisions for Wisconsin are made.

You are naive.

wiphan 06-07-2012 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 866681)
Go look it up...it is in Act 10, no wait it isn't...it is in the Walker budget...no wait it isn't...it is in the RYAN budget that's where all the decisions for Wisconsin are made.

You are naive.

Now I get it. The Path to Prosperity a budget proposal by Paul Ryan that has not been passed is the root cause of the destruction of the Unions in WI and now we will be forced to obey the large corporations and the Koch Brothers (who are not even in the top 50 of political donors in America) and the bill will provide Tax cuts to the wealthiest americans and corporations. Makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that one up

Did Riot move to WI to be part of the Solidarity singers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro6Qf...ature=youtu.be

Clip-Clop 06-07-2012 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 866732)
Now I get it. The Path to Prosperity a budget proposal by Paul Ryan that has not been passed is the root cause of the destruction of the Unions in WI and now we will be forced to obey the large corporations and the Koch Brothers (who are not even in the top 50 of political donors in America) and the bill will provide Tax cuts to the wealthiest americans and corporations. Makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that one up

Did Riot move to WI to be part of the Solidarity singers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro6Qf...ature=youtu.be

It was the cliffs notes version of the last 3 pages or so. Happy to help.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.