PDA

View Full Version : Seems Walker Lost Repiglican Majority IN Wisc.!!!!



Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 11:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Democrat Declares Victory in Wisconsin Senate Race That Could Flip Majority Control</span>—By Andy Kroll

| Wed Jun. 6, 2012 6:45 AM PDT

In the 21st senate district in southeastern Wisconsin, Democrat John Lehman declared victory late Tuesday night in the recall election of Republican state Sen. Van Wanggard. With all precincts reporting, Lehman led Wanggard by just 779 votes.

The race matters because a Lehman win would hand Democrats control of the state senate for the first time since Gov. Scott Walker took office in January 2011. It would also mean Democrats and labor unions avoided a clean sweep in Tuesday's six recall elections in Wisconsin.

"Tonight, the citizens of Racine County voted for checks and balances in our state legislature," Lehman said in a statement. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in the state senate."

Wanggard has yet to concede. His campaign manager released a statement Wednesday morning that said: "We owe it to all of Senator Wanggaard's supporters and the voters of Wisconsin to thoroughly examine the election and its results and act accordingly once we have all of the information."

The Wanggard-Lehman recall battle was similar to the marquee race on Tuesday's recall ticket, the Scott Walker-Tom Barrett election. Just as Walker and Barrett squared off for the first time in the 2010 gubernatorial election, Wanggard defeated Lehman in a 2010 state senate race. Now it appears that Lehman has got his revenge for that loss.

There could be a recount in the Wanggard-Lehman race with the final, unofficial result so close. In Wisconsin, if a race's margin of victory is 0.5 percent or less, it triggers a taxpayer-funded recount. If it's between 0.5 percent and 2 percent, a candidate can demand a recount at a discounted price.






</div></div>

BRAVO! If this holds true, at the very least, Walker will not be able to continue to operate his dictatorship, against the laws and rules of the Wisconsin State.

While it is devastating to see that the Middle Class, and their rights to organize and unionize, lost last night, and that a crook like Walker, was bought to serve as a puppet, by crooked CEO billionaires, still remains in office, yet there are some very good results from the recall election, if this win by a Democrat holds....

Walker and the Republicans will have lost the majority vote!

Additionally, the win by this obvious crook, Walker, serves as an example that the Citizens United Decision by the Radical Activist, RW Fascist Republican Supreme Court, aka, The RATS, has created what amounts to a Republican created, corrupt Billionaires auction, rather than an election, and enough out of state money and power to void our one vote, one person, hallmark of democracy, trumped by millions of dollars at the disposal of crooks, used to promote their lies and propaganda non stop on the airwaves.

This is going to be a wake up call for Democrats, which I believe, in the end, will help us to win the Presidential election.

Additionally, the exit polling shows that President Obama is stioll, by a very healthy margin, the preference for president among Wisconsin voters.

AND, the polls also show that there were quite a few, a very large percentage, who voted against the recall, in general, on principle, rather than for Walker and his policies.

Unless there is anyone who believes that the amount of money spent, by the candidates, has no impact on winning elections, it's pretty obvious, this was not at all an even playing field; three million, spent by the Dem, VS. over thirty million, available to Walker, again, the vast majority of it provided by out of state billionaires, not by Wisconsins, and again, thanks to the fascist decision of the RW Supreme Court Fascist RATS, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and SCALIA.

The Wisconsin Recall election, IMO, will bring to the nation's attention, the following obvious facts:

That Republican Fascism has arrived.

That Republican/Fascist policies are a real and present danger to our country, an existing threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That Republican policies threaten all of our citizens, every election, all of our collective freedoms, our rights, our liberty, and in fact, threaten the very essence of the principles, and promises, which our Consitution and our country were founded upon, and will insure that this reality, exampled in the Wisconsin Recall Election, will provide proof of the threat, far more clearly for voters across our nation.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 11:49 AM
AND, the polls also show that there were quite a few, a very large percentage, who voted against the recall, in general, on principle, rather than for Walker and his policies.

That should not be missed, and good point.

What, some 60% said recalls should only be used in the case of criminal conduct (something close to that) and another 10% said they should NEVER be used.

Still as to the Senate majority in Democrats' hands, that is up for grabs again in November (although Obama's lead there may mean a problem for the GOP on the ballot, if it holds up).

And perhaps they'll recount the vote for Lehman's seat, even though they cannot get the state to put up that cash since the margin isn't low enough. I've heard they're discussing raising the money privately. (Calling Mr.s Koch!)

eg8r
06-06-2012, 11:59 AM
I don't necessarily argue about the "good point" as you refer to it but then again that just shows us another example of Dems, according to the people responding to the poll you are referring to, abusing the system.

eg8r

llotter
06-06-2012, 12:04 PM
I think there is some gerrymandered Republicans coming into that district for the Nov. election so that Dem seat will likely be lost. And the senate will not even be in session before then.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AND, the polls also show that there were quite a few, a very large percentage, who voted against the recall, in general, on principle, rather than for Walker and his policies.

That should not be missed, and good point.

What, some 60% said recalls should only be used in the case of criminal conduct (something close to that) and another 10% said they should NEVER be used.

Still as to the Senate majority in Democrats' hands, that is up for grabs again in November (although Obama's lead there may mean a problem for the GOP on the ballot, if it holds up).

And perhaps they'll recount the vote for Lehman's seat, even though they cannot get the state to put up that cash since the margin isn't low enough. I've heard they're discussing raising the money privately. (Calling Mr.s Koch!) </div></div>

LOL /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Good one.

I am not familiar with Wisconsin Governors elections. Do you happen to know how many more years Kock Brothers have bought for Walker?

Oh, and BTW, I studied Walker this morning, as he was looking into the camera, for quite a while, and you were right the first time, not only is he cross-eyed, but one eye is actually larger, not the whole eyeball, but the actual size of the colored part of his eye, larger in one eye than in the other.

He is one weird looking dude!

Regardless, I am proud of all those Wisconsin citizens who stood up for workers rights, and sorry that they did not get the guy they really wanted, to run against Walker....and I do believe that if this investigation into Walker's possible criminal behavior, had not been held up, we might be celebrating Walkers recall today.

There are still quite a number of Recall Elections in front of us.

I have no doubt, we'll have our day.



G.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think there is some gerrymandered Republicans coming into that district for the Nov. election so that Dem seat will likely be lost. And the senate will not even be in session before then. </div></div>

You are correct on the first one, probably, and I think the latter point is true as well.

Still, it does block further legislative efforts through to that date, and also, into the lame duck session if there is one after the election prior to seating the newly elected or re-elected members of the leg, which I presume is in January. About 6 months of that to go.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 12:15 PM
I am not familiar with Wisconsin Governors elections. Do you happen to know how many more years Kock Brothers have bought for Walker?

Only a couple of states have less than a 4-year term for governor (even Arkansas amended their practice, where Clinton had most of his multiple terms set at 2 years), and WI is not one of the few holdouts. So Walker is in his second year, with two more to come.

you were right the first time, not only is he cross-eyed, but one eye is actually larger, not the whole eyeball, but the actual size of the colored part of his eye, larger in one eye than in the other.

He is one w[ei]rd looking dude!

That was my impression (not just a attack for attack's sake), although in OTHER photo angles, I couldn't see it so much.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't necessarily argue about the "good point" as you refer to it but then again that just shows us another example of Dems, according to the people responding to the poll you are referring to, abusing the system.

eg8r </div></div>

You now have put forth two opposite views on what constitutes abuse, several times now.

Before, you said if it wasn't illegal, it wasn't abuse. Have you changed your mind on that standard?

Also, given that heavy split against doing it for politics as opposed to criminality, if this one poll is accurate enough to reflect reality there, isn't it surprising in the previous recall effort of the senators, the Dems won all but one of them?

There are two more wild cards in this situation.

One is the potential criminal charges against Walker, as his now several indicted and/or 'turned' (state's witnesses) subordinates' trials and plea bargains may go right up the food chain. And the other is that the people may just have decide that Walker made this bed, and should lie in it (that is, not have someone else divide the blame for these results in the wake of the changes Walker put in place as of the next gubernatorial election).

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not familiar with Wisconsin Governors elections. Do you happen to know how many more years Kock Brothers have bought for Walker?

Only a couple of states have less than a 4-year term for governor (even Arkansas amended their practice, where Clinton had most of his multiple terms set at 2 years), and WI is not one of the few holdouts. So Walker is in his second year, with two more to come.

you were right the first time, not only is he cross-eyed, but one eye is actually larger, not the whole eyeball, but the actual size of the colored part of his eye, larger in one eye than in the other.

He is one w[ei]rd looking dude! <span style="color: #CC0000">Thanks... </span>

That was my impression (not just a attack for attack's sake), although in OTHER photo angles, I couldn't see it so much. </div></div>


It's not as obvious unless he is looking directly into the camera.

G.

Two more years, huh?

LOL, that's plenty long enough for him to be indicted!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 12:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't necessarily argue about the "good point" as you refer to it but then again that just shows us another example of Dems, according to the people responding to the poll you are referring to, abusing the system.

eg8r </div></div>

There is absolutely no proof of Dems abusing the system.

There is proof, however, that Walker took actions that were against state laws.


Another stretching of the facts?

G.

eg8r
06-06-2012, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two more years, huh?

LOL, that's plenty long enough for him to be indicted!
</div></div>LOL, should be plenty of time. If he is guilty then toss the book at him.

eg8r

eg8r
06-06-2012, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Before, you said if it wasn't illegal, it wasn't abuse. Have you changed your mind on that standard?
</div></div>No I haven't changed my mind. What I have done, and you clearly don't understand, is set the argument up as if what you were saying was true then here is yet another example of Dems doing what you accuse the Reps of doing...abusing their position.

eg8r

eg8r
06-06-2012, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is absolutely no proof of Dems abusing the system.
</div></div>You obviously are clueless yet again as to what sofla and I are talking about.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is absolutely no proof of Dems abusing the system.
</div></div>You obviously are clueless yet again as to what sofla and I are talking about.

eg8r </div></div>

No, you are obviously clueless as to your own lack of reading ability, even over what you yourself, have written.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No I haven't changed my mind. What I have done, and you clearly don't understand,


<span style="color: #CC0000"> LMAO! Choice! Apparently you believe that ONLY you are capable of reading what you write, but that is the fault of ther reader, in this case, both Sofla and myself! BWA HA HA HA...if that isn't typical EgH8tr

</span>
is set the argument up as if what you were saying was true then here is yet another example of Dems doing what you accuse the Reps of doing...abusing their position.

eg8r
</div></div>

Then here is what you originally wrote, contradicting yourself, as Sofla tried to point out to you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't necessarily argue about the "good point" as you refer to it but then again that just shows us another example of Dems, according to the people responding to the poll you are referring to, abusing the system.

eg8r
</div></div>

In what way do you think that Dems abused their position?

It was not ONLY Democrats who signed up to get enough signatures for the Recall, you fool, and the Recall, was perfectly legal, according to state laws.

The fact that many Wisconsins were against using the recall, without proof of criminal actions by the Governor, does not in any way mean that the recall itself, represented any abuse of power, by the Dems.

The abuse of power demonstrated by Walker, however, who did NOT follow the laws on the day he took the original vote, taking it without everyone present, and able to speak about it, and against the Wisconsin laws. Walker abused HIS power, and there is a very good chance that he broke the laws in Wisc. on other occasions.

So how the hell could it be that the Dems abused their position?

You are making no sense at all, but the troublesome part of it is that you refuse to take any responsibility, for writing a boatload of nonsensical posts, and then you consistantly accuse the readers of not understanding! Good one. It's everyone else's fault, for not being onto your BS, when you take a post, and twist it into total nonsense.


Stealthly SETTING up arguments, is not actually considered an effort for communication, but then, that is never your goal.

Now, instead of resorting to your usual childish insults, do provide factual information which proves that Dems in Wisconsin, abused their power?

I'm waiting.

G.

eg8r
06-06-2012, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In what way do you think that Dems abused their position?
</div></div>I grow weary dumbing this down for you every time you feel the need to open the hole in your face. The exit polls or the people polled that voted had something like 60% saying the recall shouldn't have happened due to the reasons behind the recall. That is quite a high percentage. It sure wasn't the Reps calling for this recall, so if we are to believe sofla's views of the Reps abusing the position this would be another example of Dems abusing the position.

I am not sure I can dumb it down much more before you will need to bow out.

eg8r

Sev
06-06-2012, 05:06 PM
36% of union workers voted for Walker.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In what way do you think that Dems abused their position?
</div></div>I grow weary dumbing this down for you every time you feel the need to open the hole in your face. The exit polls or the people polled that voted had something like 60% saying the recall shouldn't have happened due to the reasons behind the recall. That is quite a high percentage. It sure wasn't the Reps calling for this recall, so if we are to believe sofla's views of the Reps abusing the position this would be another example of Dems abusing the position.

I am not sure I can dumb it down much more before you will need to bow out.

eg8r </div></div>

Except for the fact that the GOP did indeed try to muster a recall on Democratic state officials themselves.

You must have forgotten about that. I think they got the required number of signatures, and a recall vote was indeed taken on those Democrats they targeted. (They all won.)

And I haven't agreed mounting these recall efforts were any kind of abuse, nor was that the point you raised.

Which was, and please check above, a statement about the Democratic state senators leaving the state to prevent a vote.

That is irregular and somewhat of an abuse, as I said, but one that did not threaten the functioning of the state government, as it was on one issue, and for a limited period of time.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 07:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In what way do you think that Dems abused their position?
</div></div>I grow weary dumbing this down for you every time you feel the need to open the hole in your face. The exit polls or the people polled that voted had something like 60% saying the recall shouldn't have happened due to the reasons behind the recall.

<span style="color: #CC0000">No that is not what they said, they said they thought a recall should only be for abuse of office.

Whether or not Walker abused his office, is a matter of opinion. Many, many people in Wisconsin believe he did, including those who are currently investigating some of his former abuses, and those who believe that his taped discussion with a man he thought was one of the Koch Brothers, was cause enough for him to be indicted, because he admitted in that conversation that he had considered calling in thugs, and putting the citizens of his state at physical risk for violence.

Of course, we all know, had he done so, he would have claimed that the trouble makers, were sent in by Democrats.

</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #990000">Some of us recall past Repubiocan campaign illegal behavior, even if you do not.

G. </span>

That is quite a high percentage. It sure wasn't the Reps calling for this recall, so if we are to believe sofla's views of the Reps abusing the position this would be another example of Dems abusing the position.

I am not sure I can dumb it down much more before you will need to bow out.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Again, you fail to be specific.</span> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this would be another example of Dems abusing the position.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">This? This what? </span>


<span style="color: #CC0000">
Why would I need to bow out, when you are the one who is obviously so thoroughly uninformed about what happened in Wisconsin, and why and how it happened.

G.</span>

eg8r
06-07-2012, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for the fact that the GOP did indeed try to muster a recall on Democratic state officials themselves.

You must have forgotten about that.
</div></div>LOL, I guess you are not catching on quite that quick either. You have made the statement, or something along the same lines, that it is only the Reps that are abusing their position. Why would I mention this example if I am pointing out that Dems also abuse their position? Come on man, drop the defense garbage because it is clouding your cognitive skills.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I haven't agreed mounting these recall efforts were any kind of abuse, nor was that the point you raised.
</div></div>And why would you? You are so deep in defense you couldn't admit it if you wanted to. I am merely saying that according to the people polled that said the recall should not happen felt it was abuse. You thought it was a good point that those people "did not vote for Walker" and I merely pointing out that they also stated the recall was wrongly being used which is clearly an abuse. No one in their right mind will believe Reps were behind this so that leaves the Dems as far as any group with any sort of power to get something like this off the ground.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which was, and please check above, a statement about the Democratic state senators leaving the state to prevent a vote.
</div></div>Initial example of Dems abusing their power. The voters ccalling out the Dems for abusing the system with respect to this recall was example number 2.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 08:44 AM
It must not be such an abuse that they always vote no out of disgust with the tactic. Because they voted yes to recall last year, for all but one of the GOP senators (although none of the Democratic senators).

I suggest it is more recall FATIGUE. Because they seemed fine with it last year. Or at least not so disgusted as to vote against what the Democrats did, mainly.

Most likely, it was simply the fact that Walker could get a year's head start on this one (seeing the hand-writing on the wall), during which lead time he, by a quirk in the WI law, could raise unlimited money from individuals, and use that for an ad campaign puffing himself and attacking the Dems for that past year.

The Democrat candidate wasn't picked and couldn't do his campaign until 4 weeks ago, and then was constrained to a rather low individual donation limit for the entire time of this 4-week fund raising time.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2012, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It must not be such an abuse that they always vote no out of disgust with the tactic. Because they voted yes to recall last year, for all but one of the GOP senators (although none of the Democratic senators).

I suggest it is more recall FATIGUE. Because they seemed fine with it last year. Or at least not so disgusted as to vote against what the Democrats did, mainly.

Most likely, it was simply the fact that Walker could get a year's head start on this one (seeing the hand-writing on the wall), during which lead time he, by a quirk in the WI law, could raise unlimited money from individuals, and use that for an ad campaign puffing himself and attacking the Dems for that past year.

The Democrat candidate wasn't picked and couldn't do his campaign until 4 weeks ago, and then was constrained to a rather low individual donation limit for the entire time of this 4-week fund raising time.

</div></div>

Very true.

Most reasonable people realize that.

I find that those types of posters, who jump onto forum boards, just as an outlet for their nastiness, and rudeness, or to spew the Limpballs line of the day, for their Party, are usually misinformed and unaware of current events.

Most of the reasonable op-ed folks, have written about exactly what you reference, voter fatique, disgust with divided politics, and buckets of money, spent by Walker, for months upon months.

Only an idiot would even try to agrue that eight to one spending, compliments of out of state secret billionaire doners, flooding the airwaves with lies and false claims of success, ie. revenues, jobs, (you name it, Walker lied about it) twenty four hours a day, for months upon months, didn't influence the resuts of the recall.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
G.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 09:39 AM
Here's an example of the disparity in fund-raising capability.

The top 3, or maybe top 4, Walker donors EACH exceeded the TOTAL cash Barrett raised himself. Why? Because there was no limit on what they could give until the beginning of the recall time, and a year to pony up that unlimited cash. When Barrett began, his donors were strictly limited, and he had four weeks, not a year of unlimited donation potential.

What is so hard to understand about that disparity, and why it existed?

eg8r
06-07-2012, 09:48 AM
Why do you call the lefties of Wi ignorant dummies who hate Walker but decide to vote for him because he raised so much money?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2012, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's an example of the disparity in fund-raising capability.

The top 3, or maybe top 4, Walker donors EACH exceeded the TOTAL cash Barrett raised himself. Why? Because there was no limit on what they could give until the beginning of the recall time, and a year to pony up that unlimited cash. When Barrett began, his donors were strictly limited, and he had four weeks, not a year of unlimited donation potential.

What is so hard to understand about that disparity, and why it existed? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is so hard to understand about that disparity, and why it existed? </div></div>

Nothing! Anyone with half a brain should be able to follow it, and with any common sense, should agree with the basic premise, as well.

Some people only post to irritate others, and their game is to re-write the meaning of the other poster's general drift. Then when their own bastardization of the language, prompts others to attempt to explain what they, themselves have written, these RWers want to tell you that you don't understand what you yourself wrote!!!!

Wears out intelligent posters, particularly when we have to read laughable RW responses, while they are yapping that the logical, informed poster, can't READ! Is Slow! Is too OLD!

Eventually he stoops to saying that he knows better what you meant, in your post, then you do!


Then he's going to explain to you, what you meant, while he insults your obvious stupidity, over his own inability, or sheer obstinant refusal, to comprehend your own second attempt to explain to him why he is wrong about what you wrote!

Half the time it is only an intentional, nasty, rude waste of time because the real goal is to skew what you wrote, and then insult you because your too stupid to grasp his bastardized version, of what you wrote!

Some will do absolutely anything, in order to skew the entire thread into some irrational, self-serving BS, it's all about a pitiful attempt to assuage their own low self-esteem, which is linked to their own egomania.

But, that's what Republicans do. That's all they listen to on the RW hate stations, so they can no longer communicate like rational adults, nor do they value anyone else who atempts to do so.

They're like angry, frustrated, little mini-Limpballs, stuck in their daily tantrums, day after day, throwing up all over everyone in their midst.

They need a nap! LOL, if you know what I mean. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif



G.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 10:47 AM
Is Slow! Is too OLD!

That's what they said about the venerable Celtics, and look how they are kicking the Heat's butts (sadly, but I'll admit the truth)!

But you have it right, IMO. Agitation for agitation's sake, with some tribalism loyalties involved as well.

I think many alleged conservatives act out of an inferiority complex. "How to argue with liberals and WIN!!!" is a frequent book title that's a perennial favorite. As opposed to having your sorry ass kicked to the curb, which is what such books are supposed to cure.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2012, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is Slow! Is too OLD!

That's what they said about the venerable Celtics, and look how they are kicking the Heat's butts (sadly, but I'll admit the truth)!

But you have it right, IMO. Agitation for agitation's sake, with some tribalism loyalties involved as well.

I think many alleged conservatives act out of an inferiority complex. "How to argue with liberals and WIN!!!" is a frequent book title that's a perennial favorite. As opposed to having your sorry ass kicked to the curb, which is what such books are supposed to cure. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Sev
06-08-2012, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's an example of the disparity in fund-raising capability.

The top 3, or maybe top 4, Walker donors EACH exceeded the TOTAL cash Barrett raised himself. Why? Because there was no limit on what they could give until the beginning of the recall time, and a year to pony up that unlimited cash. When Barrett began, his donors were strictly limited, and he had four weeks, not a year of unlimited donation potential.

What is so hard to understand about that disparity, and why it existed? </div></div>

However if Obama managed to raise his 1 billion in donations and Romney only manage to raise a few hundred million nobody would be talking about disparity. They would marvel at Obama's campaign skills. Not the disparity in campaign donations.

By the way I thought I saw something the other day about Romney currently out raising Obama.

eg8r
06-08-2012, 08:20 AM
Screw the money, these lefty idiots told us Obama won on hope and change and that the American people were tired of the way the Reps were running Washington. They failed to use their current excuse back then and tell us the only reason why Obama won was because he raised the most money. Obama raised more money in 08, $750 million, than all the candidates in 04 combined. He was raped with Wall St money and foreign money but the idiot lefties think he won on hope and change and Walker won on corporate money. These idiots crap me up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Screw the money, these lefty idiots told us Obama won on hope and change and that the American people were tired of the way the Reps were running Washington. They failed to use their current excuse back then and tell us the only reason why Obama won was because he raised the most money. Obama raised more money in 08, $750 million, than all the candidates in 04 combined. He was raped with Wall St money and foreign money but the idiot lefties think he won on hope and change and Walker won on corporate money. These idiots crap me up.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO, well, we do know that he didn't win because liberals on the Supreme Court, broke with settled law, and appointed him president, after his opponent won the popular vote, don't we?

The idiots are those who were on here for eight years, telling us how brilliant George W. Bush was, how we were terrorist lovers, because we were saying that Bush was lying to us, and he was spending and borrowing us into a debt hole, and growing government, and how dumb we were because we were writing those things, while trying to tell us that Valarie Plame, was just a secretary!

BWA HA HA HA...still claiming that one, to this day! But, NOW, those same insulting jerks, and all of the blind support they had for W., even voting for him twice, after he had spent us to 7.6 trillion dollars in deficits, and after the truth about how he lied us into Iraq, was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt..AND after he run his campaign on "No Nation Buiding," smaller government! Deregulation of the markets! And the ownership society!....all of it either disastrous, or out and out lies.

But, you kept on attacking us for posting our proof, and voted for him twice. NOW, he's among the worst rated President's in history. Now, you're telling us you didn't approve of his spending at all. Didn't stop you from voting for him AGAIN after he ran up 7.6 trillion dollars of debts, though, did it?



I Guess we know who won that argument.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 09:54 AM
However if Obama managed to raise his 1 billion in donations and Romney only manage to raise a few hundred million nobody would be talking about disparity. They would marvel at Obama's campaign skills. Not the disparity in campaign donations.

By the way I thought I saw something the other day about Romney currently out raising Obama.

If the fund raising disparity was with both sides under the same rules, that would be a different thing. That was not the case in Wisconsin.

The last cycle showed Romney's campaign PLUS the RNC's fundraising exceeded Obama's PLUS the DNC's. Headline writers are often deceptive.

eg8r
06-08-2012, 06:57 PM
I love it when you get backed into a corner and recognize that you have nothing intelligent left to bring to the conversation...you start changing the subject. LOL, happens every time.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Screw the money, these lefty idiots told us Obama won on hope and change and that the American people were tired of the way the Reps were running Washington. They failed to use their current excuse back then and tell us the only reason why Obama won was because he raised the most money. Obama raised more money in 08, $750 million, than all the candidates in 04 combined. He was raped with Wall St money and foreign money but the idiot lefties think he won on hope and change and Walker won on corporate money. These idiots crap me up.

eg8r </div></div>

I'm guessing you are indeed crapped up! Certainly your point is, anyway.

Everyone knew that W had so ruined the GOP brand that whomever the Dems put up was likely to win. Self-identified GOPrs had declined down to the 30% level of the population, and they ran scared, claimed they were 'independents' and they'd NEVER supported that guy, always saw right through him (even though for some reason, they'd voted twice for him).

After a dispirited primary contest, McCain was brought back from a previously dead position in the race, as nobody's idea of a great candidate, just the last man standing. He was so hated by the base that some prominent righties like Limbaugh and Coulter said they'd vote Democratic rather than vote their party's nominee if McCain was the nominee (before he was the nominee, of course). Coulter said she would vote for HILLARY! if McCain were the nominee.

O's fundraising certainly helped make for a semi-landslide victory (2-1 in the electoral college, and a huge percentage difference in the popular vote considering we'd been a 50-50 range electorate in the previous couple of races), but his victory had already been assured by the dynamic I laid out above.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2012, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Screw the money, these lefty idiots told us Obama won on hope and change and that the American people were tired of the way the Reps were running Washington. They failed to use their current excuse back then and tell us the only reason why Obama won was because he raised the most money. Obama raised more money in 08, $750 million, than all the candidates in 04 combined. He was raped with Wall St money and foreign money but the idiot lefties think he won on hope and change and Walker won on corporate money. These idiots crap me up.

eg8r </div></div>

I'm guessing you are indeed crapped up! Certainly your point is, anyway.

Everyone knew that W had so ruined the GOP brand that whomever the Dems put up was likely to win. Self-identified GOPrs had declined down to the 30% level of the population, and they ran scared, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>claimed they were 'independents' and they'd NEVER supported that guy, always saw right through him (even though for some reason, they'd voted twice for him).</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Describes every rightie on this forum! </span> </span>

After a dispirited primary contest, McCain was brought back from a previously dead position in the race, as nobody's idea of a great candidate, just the last man standing. He was so hated by the base that some prominent righties like Limbaugh and Coulter said they'd vote Democratic rather than vote their party's nominee if McCain was the nominee (before he was the nominee, of course). Coulter said she would vote for HILLARY! if McCain were the nominee.

O's fundraising certainly helped make for a semi-landslide victory (2-1 in the electoral college, and a huge percentage difference in the popular vote considering we'd been a 50-50 range electorate in the previous couple of races), but his victory had already been assured by the dynamic I laid out above. </div></div>

eg8r
06-10-2012, 01:42 AM
LOL, I love seeing all the excuses you keep making. Walker raises a ton of money and that can be the only reason he won. Obama raises more money than anyone in history and he wins because people were tired of the GOP. LOL, you must be watching way too much comedy central for your defense.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 10:49 AM
WHEN did the people of Wisconsin decide they didn't like any recalls? Surely not when they RECALLED 3 of 4 GOP senators in the first round of recalls.

Could it be as of when Gov. Walker carpet bombed the state with ads PUSHING THE NOTION that a recall was improper, all year prior to the actual 4-week recall period (after the Dem candidate was chosen in their primary)? Portraying him as a boy scout salt of the earth honorable guy who was being unfairly targeted, when there was no money to oppose his expertly crafted ad narrative? For months and months?

To paraphrase the old Clinton slogan, 'it's the ADS, stupid!'

But I forgot, that according to you, people routinely spend millions of dollars for no reason, as in no way could advertising change opinions or behavior.

Hmmm. Proctor and Gamble could save over $1 billion a year, if they could only understand the wisdom of your opinion. Surely a badly abused shareholder group there should sue the management, to enforce their dropping such a large and ineffective cost from their bottom line? It's criminal to waste so much money as they do with that entirely ineffective and worthless so-called advertising budget, right?

eg8r
06-10-2012, 05:00 PM
Really dude, your defense is funny to watch.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 08:57 PM
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

-- Mahatma Gandhi

You are wise to stick with the second, as you cannot muster the third, and could not take the last.

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 03:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love it when you get backed into a corner and recognize that you have nothing intelligent left to bring to the conversation...you start changing the subject. LOL, happens every time.

eg8r </div></div>

You were the one who changed the subject right about here, in your first post:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't necessarily argue about the "good point" as you refer to it but then again that just shows us another example of Dems, according to the people responding to the poll you are referring to, abusing the system.

eg8r </div></div>

Title of the post?: SEEMS WALKER LOST REPIGLICAN MAJORITY IN WISC.!!!!

What does Ed do? Changed the subject over to the exxtrapolate more BS against the Dems, with no proof whatsoever for his ridicuclous statements.

Same ol' Same ol'....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif