Are elected Democrats chicken ALL the time?...

1. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

   ....or are they chicken only when they don't get their way?
   
   Wisconsin and Indiana Dems sure have a fine way of doing their jobs.....by running away when unions might have to actually give up some of their power and money.   I'd say that's grounds for removal from Office.  Not to mention traitorous actions.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Given the huge crowds who have come out in support, both in Wisconsin and across the U.S., you seem to have once again gotten it completely wrong.
      
      Why do you hate America and it's values?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It not america that's hated, it"s Obama.  America can implode, It wouldn't matter, as long as Obama fails. That's Rush orders.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Democratic chickens know the fox is in the state house.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The biggest one is in the White House.  Why haven't they run from him yet?

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  It's  his way, or the republican way. You might say it went the republican way in the mid-term elections.  You would be wrong again if you would say that,because the tea party had it their way. Read my hub (The underclass poll was very wrong) it will help you understand why I say the republicans did'nt win the mid-terms.

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Given the huge crowds?
         
         Well, that just brings up the question of Are ALL Democrats (not just elected ones) chicken, then?
         
         By asking me why I hate America, you clearly illustrate the false accusations that are so often thrown at conservatives.  I had thought better of you than that, Ron.  Guess I was naive.
         
         I don't hate unions either.   I think they're a good tool for the American worker.  Or at least they WERE, until they got too big and too corrupt.  It wouldn't hurt for them to be brought down just a notch or two, in order to actually serve the good purpose they were meant to serve.   I'm not talking about the average union worker!  I'm talking about the corporate bosses, the head honchos, the ones who're lining their own pockets with the dues the hard-working members pay.  Yet the Democratic leaders are acting like unions are too big to fail......doesn't that remind ya of something else?  Like....all those bailouts we gave those other big companies.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That was W's doing

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, you are naive.

            replyreport
         3. 81

            oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Its often a character issue I think.  Its about being on a side that is more for oneself, than being on the side of what is better for all people everywhere.  What comes with being on the one side, is often not too pretty, and so a lot of games need to be played and tactics need so play out to cover it up.  I think it should be enough of a sign that something else needs to change.  I would think it would get tiring after a while.  The tricks don't work anyway.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               What would be good change?  And how do we make our politicians and other leaders perpetuate that change?
               
               Stevennix said the ideo of America is great on paper.  I think the idea of America has been proven to be great all-around.  It's become more than an idea; it's become the greatest Nation on earth!  The areas where the Nation has in general failed to follow its own ideals, have been rectified.  We are a Nation that tries to do good, tries to follow good ideas and ideals. 
               And yet it seems almost half of Americans don't give one whit about that, don't appreciate it at all. 
               I believe most of the problem is allowing the bringing-in of the ideology of other Nations instead of sticking to what this Country was based on.  Imperfect, yes, but always with room to correct the wrongs.  How are we gonna correct any wrongs if we let other cultures and societies dictate and/or add to what we already know is right?

               replyreport
   2. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Whining cry baby losers that couldn't get their way and refused to play! They are beyond childish! And have you seen the violence, vitriol, and hatred spewed by the protestors? And the media compares them to the protestors in Cairo but the Tea Party oh they are racist haters!! Lol

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, I've seen some of it.
         The outright hatred and racism that's becoming evident from the liberal section of society is an example of those things that should be unlawful!
         Freedom is good.  But give the libs an inch and they take a thousand miles, speaking of and forcing things that should never even be said or considered.
         That far-left element gets scarier all the time...

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            So, you're not for freedom of speech then!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I'm for freedom of proper speech, about proper subjects, at proper times.
               
               I'm not for the freedom to spout hatred, falsely accuse, nor to label inappropriate ideas/ideals as though they were appropriate.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So that's a no then?
                  Who will be the judge of what is proper speech, proper subjects and proper times?
                  Sounds like you should be in China.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Without those freedoms, what would you do with your day?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Neat Ron.

                     replyreport
   3. 81

      oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ahhh, I just love to see my hard earned tax dollars at work!  We work hard so some can run away when it gets hot in the kitchen...NICE. (not)...
      
      I think though, its rather telling is all.  People act in ways that are in accordance with their views.  Wrong views and actions tend to end up with consequences that cause you to have to run, or change, or cover up, or playing the diversion game.   Its telling they were on the wrong side of things.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Its a good thing that what you say doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to state government tactics.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Spoken like a real Democrat.

         replyreport
   5. 81

      thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Can you explain to me why democrats are chickens in this matter? - not an argument I just haven't had time to keep up with the news over the last few weeks.
      
      By the way, unionization is not all together a bad thing.  Yes employers need representation, but with the average American having the lowest standard of living in over 50 years, you would think it might be a good idea to have employee representation to protect the rights of the working man.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         See posts above.
         Unions were originally a good thing, but these days it seems their goal isn't to protect the working man; it's to line the pockets of those with personally-vested interests.
         
         
         And to Hugh--
         The Dems started the mess by boycotting our (and their) own representative body, soliciting and eliciting those picketers who swamped the place.  Mr. Milroy should've expected police to be controlling who enters and leaves.   Dems always have a way of trying to pass the buck off onto the Republicans.

         replyreport
   6. 0

      Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, yes they are.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         But isn't that the American Dream, to feather your nest and feather it well?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Not this American. America is about freedom from tyranny, it's about picking yourself up out of the mire and moving forward with bold assertion. The drive of the working class American has always been a standard to the world in dedication to duty. Only in our age has the onslaught of poverty been heralded by the growing influence of a Socialist sentiment. In our day we see the people accruing debt perhaps like never before. We owe an appalling amount of money to our most historic enemies, and their influence only becomes stronger as we submit to their demands. We sell them weapons which are used to kill our own military forces, and in return they sell us back substandard food, and cheap plastic junk that is designed to fail or break.
            
            Our egos have become enlarged through mainstream media as the networks distort the truth and add shock value to global and local events in order to increase their ratings. our minds and our posterity are being saturated with reality television which constantly pumps images of beautiful rich people whose lives are replete with decadence and ego maniacal self gratification , TV stars who cheat on their wives with pride, and abuse drugs and alcohol. And if they can do it, why shouldn't the rest of us?
            
            Everyone wants to be movie stars, rock legends, sports heroes, or filthy rich entrepreneurs. It is apparent to me that the younger generation is being more and more influenced by this self involved catastrophe that plagues our nation as they enter the workforce with the ideal that they will rise to the top instantly. But it doesn't happen. In the end we get stuck with a bunch of crybabies who don't feel like they need to work hard in order to be successful, they just want everything handed to them. All the while we are piling our debt onto the next generation and securing their future in a life of poverty, and unstable government. Until recent generations this has not been the case, but recently we have become tolerant of such self destructive ideology, and it sickens me to think that my children will be bombarded with the degenerate values this nation is sinking into.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

   Drat.
   I could almost swear I heard a parrot sayin' Blame it on Dubya Blame it on Dubya.....

   replyreport
3. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Ooh -- Snap, Junko!
   
   Brenda,
   The unions in question have accepted the negotiating terms. They are willing to accept financial concessions.
   What they are not willing to do -- and this is the crux of the issue -- is fold completely simply because the Republican governors want to pull a power grab.
   This is not about money. It's about stripping unions of their LEGAL collective bargaining rights.
   There really is no parallel on the other side, but if there was, it would be like Governor Walker telling companies in Wisconsin, "From now on, I'm going to decide how much you can charge for your products, how much profit you can make, how much you can pay your employees. You will have no say in the matter. Oh, and if you don't like it, you can go work in some other state, but not one controlled by a Republican governor, cuz we're all taking the same hard line on business!"
   
   Do you picture any sane business owner ceding his/her existence to a power-mad elected official????

   replyreport
   1. 76

      junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      M/M:  Brenda knows what you know.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Mighty Mom, I don't disagree with you at all about the Republican Party, as it seems most modern conservatives are arrogant in their ways.  However, you can at least respect them for the fact that they always stick to their guns on various issues.  Whereas liberals, I noticed tend to often change their minds too frequently and always go with the vote that's deemed most popular.  I know it's easy to blame W. for all our country's problems.  However, if memory serves me correctly, didn't the democrats support Bush's stance to go war originally?  Hell, it was part of John Kerry's infamous speech, "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."  You may have forgotten about it, but i didn't, as I remember it played a huge role in Bush's campaign to get reelected.  Yet, it's funny that the war is deemed in the eyes of the media and most liberals to be solely Bush's fault.
      
      The reality is Mighty Mom, ALL POLITICIANS, regardless of their party affiliation is responsible for the current predicament we're in.  Not just one party or man.  Liberals messed up this country every bit as much as the conservatives have too.  Seriously, if we're going to anoint blame, then lets give credit where credit is due.  Both parties have in their own way screwed up this country, and I think unless we can learn to put aside our petty differences..then things will only get worse before they'll get any better.
      
      As for Unions, I agree with Brenda to an extent, but Unions only have power in certain states that allow them to.  Whereas if you went to a state like texas, unions are really nothing more than tools of the government itself.  Take what happened during the capital metro strike.  Sure, they striked for about 48 hours but after that, capital metro started hiring scabs to replace about 150 of their original drivers.  Meaning that out of the plus 300 workers that went on strike, 150 of them lost their jobs and there was NOTHING the union could do about it.  As the state does allow capital metro legally to start replacing some of their striking laborers after a certain duration of time.  If that wasn't bad enough, none of the union workers got what they wanted anyway, so what did they gain by it? 
      
      Then there's another incident with a woman I once knew that worked at the university.  she was part of a union too.  always paying her union fees, and she was very supportive of the union.  Believing that they would protect her rights as a worker.  Unfortunately, when the economy took a hit and the university fired her.  You want to know what the Union official said?  They told her she would have to take it up to HR herself.  Gee, whatever happened to the Union representing the common man in that situation?  Look, the reality is that the Unions are only as powerful as the States allow them to be.  Therefore, you can't really blame W. or the National government, as it has more to do with your local and state government.  If you believe unions should have more power to protect the workers it represents, then you need to make sure your state government fully supports them.  Otherwise, they're nothing more than a tool for the government that profits off the workers.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Then why is our "President" Obama inserting his nose into these situations?
         How are people in any State at all supposed to ever come to any type of agreement, accountability, or solution to this when a liberal activist stands and spouts his agenda from his mighty position in the Federal government?  (A position which, I will add, was by all accounts made available to him BY those big-wig lobbyists including the unions?)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Well first of all Brenda, there's two different types of Unions.  The one I was referring to was the ones in the private sector, that deal with collective bargaining agreements between the employers and their workers.  The unions you seem to be referring to are the public unions that deal with the politicians you speak of.  here's a link if you want to know more about it:
            
            http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=30965
            
            The statements I made were directed primarily at those private sector unions.  However, if you want to know what I think about the public sector ones, I will say that you do have a good point there.  I always said that big corporations have more power in this country than any of our politicians do and as long as we thrive off a capitalistic society, it will always be that way.

            replyreport
      2. 76

         junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Steven: You mentioned the democrats supported the wars and other decisions made by W.  At that time W. was president and he felt a need to fight a war on two fronts regardless of cost to protect us from terrorism. When you mentioned that fact, it made me wonder why president Obama is treated different. He came in to office when the US was at war on two fronts, the economy was in recession and headed for depression. Two in a half years later I don't think the republican give the office of the president of the US the respect the democrats gave to W.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Well I think both you and Mighty Mom bring up some very valid points about that, as it does seem typical for the public to often assert blame on the troubles of the country on whoever just happens to be in office at the time.  This is just another example of how America tends to repeat itself sometimes.  If you go back to the great depression, it was bound to happen anyway; regardless of who was in office.  However, because Hoover was elected president during that era, people automatically asserted blame on him.  Of course, it didn't help him to come up with the logic of just letting the businesses figure out how to get out of the depression themselves.  However, it wasn't his fault the depression happened. as most financial analysts of today claim that even if Hoover wasn't elected into office, then it still would've happened based on the economic figures of the time period.
            
            As for what Mighty Mom said, she's right in saying that Bush had the factor of being the President that inherited a country that allowed him to portray himself as a John Wayne hero archetype in the eyes of the media due to 9/11.  Plus, say what you want about Bill Clinton, but he did reduce the financial deficit significantly during his terms, before W took over.
            
            Whereas O'Bama, he inherited a country in amidst of a war and suffering from huge economic woos. Plus, his campaign was based on the idea of change and since we live in a culture that expects and demands immediate results, its not surprising that O'Bama isn't getting the respect he deserves.  Don't get me wrong, I think anyone would be under the same scrutiny if they had to put up with the troubles O'Bama has to.  The only problem is that over the past few decades, the division between Democrats and Republicans have grown so much, it's become next to impossible to get anything done in this country.  That's ultimately what O'Bama has against him right now.  At the time during post 9/11, Bush didn't have to deal with as much division between the parties like O'Bama has.  Therefore, i can't say I disagree with you there Junko, as you do bring up a good point.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Steven: I think you are a honorable and reasonable man. I believe what Obama did to avoid the finanical collapse of our nation, would make Hoover proud.

               replyreport
4. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Ron -- I've been meaning to comment. Is that what you've been hiding all this time under the Colts helmet?
   When will you be putting the helmet back on?

   replyreport
5. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

   I found this online.  If it's true, it's certainly something to take into account.
   
   
   
   
   Top 10 Highest-Paid Union Bosses
   07/17/2007
   
   
   
   Reported by the U.S. Department of Labor
   
   1. G. William Hunter
   Executive Director
   NBA Players Association
   Salary: $2,185,446
   
   2. Eugene Upshaw
   Executive Director
   NFL Players Association
   Salary: $2,064,526
   
   3. Donald M. Fehr
   Executive Director
   MLB Players Association
   Salary: $1,000,000
   
   4. Jimmy Warren
   Financial Treasurer
   Steelworkers and AFL-CIO
   Salary: $825,262
   
   5. Gregory J. Hessinger
   Chief Executive Officer
   Screen Actors Guild
   Salary: $803,399
   
   6. Alan Eisenberg
   Executive Director
   Actors and Artists, AFL- CIO Branch
   Salary: $720,743
   
   7. Jay Roth
   National Executive Director
   Directors Guild of America
   Salary: $686,673
   
   8. Don Hunsucker
   President and CEO
   United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1288
   Salary: $679,949
   
   9. John McLean
   Executive Director
   Writers Guild, West Headquarters
   Salary: $650,402
   
   10. Gerald McEntee
   President
   State, County & Municipal Workers
   Salary: $629,291

   replyreport
   1. 61

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And yet if I was to make a similar list of CEOs you'd say that I was illustrating the American dream, the divine right of everybody to be filthy rich at the expense of their fellow men!
      
      You aren't being just a touch  hypocritical are you?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The American Dream isn't about being rich at the expense of everyone else.  The American Dream is about the opportunity to be "rich" by working hard and offering everyone else a good product for their money.  And that's a choice everyone gets to make, whether or not to "spend" their money on that product.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Really!

            replyreport
         2. 60

            BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately, we have a growing class in this country that believes they are owed a portion of somebody else's hard earned gain.
            
            I've asked some of them on these very forums how much of my income they believe they are entitled to, but so far, nobody can seem to come up with a percentage....

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               haha .
               Looks like they only wanna "share the wealth" with whoever they pick and choose...

               replyreport
         3. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You know the irony about that is that even though America claims to be built on that idea.  The reality is that if you look closely at it's history, America has always gotten rich off somebody else.  Sure, when they first originally wrote the constitution and implemented the bill of rights, it sounded like a great idea.  However, it was only applied to people that weren't women or minorities in general, during those early days.  Sorry if that sounds sexist or rude, but that's just a fact if you look back at history.  Sure, things have changed a lot since then with affirmative action and civil rights movements throughout our country's history.  however, we still have a long ways to go.  America has always been a country that says one thing, then does something else.  Don't get me wrong, no government in any form is ever going to be perfect.  Nor should anyone here expect it to ever be, as humans aren't perfect, and our governments are ran by imperfect humans. 
            
            All I can say is, i think the idea of America is great on paper.  I just wish that the idea of America actually existed in today's society if you know what i mean.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Steven:  You spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Junko.

                  replyreport
   2. 81

      oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unions are SO not what they used to be, what they were created for.  Now that those bigger true human rights issues were made into law, they need to back down or go away. 
      
      Its just embarrassing they can actually talk this many sane minded (supposedly) individuals into acting the ways we are seeing.  I think they either don't care how they look to the public, or don't now how badly they look.  Seriously.... its insulting and ridiculous and then teaching future generations how to "be"?  YIKES.   God help us!

      replyreport
6. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Brenda,
   Most of those "union" bosses you cite are for major league sports team associations. And their salaries are pittances compared to what the players themselves get!
   All of the others, with the exception of the last one, are private-sector unions.
   And again, compared to their "corporate" exec counterparts, these folks are getting paid chicken scratch.
   AND your information is 4 years old.
   But mostly -- what is your point with this, exactly?

   replyreport
7. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Junko,
   Brenda knows what I know?
   If she does, she hides it quite well!

   replyreport
   1. 76

      junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      M/M She knows she's wrong about just about everything, dis-information is her vocation

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Wow.  Some of y'all have fallen into a repetitious habit of  deflecting from the original discussion.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            We learn that from the right.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, what would've been a good thing to learn from the Right would be the tendency to ban discussion about inappropriate things!  There are many issues and many ideas that should never be proposed in the first place.
               
               I don't think you learned how to "deflect" from any Republican! Even when we say No, if libs still push their agenda, we Republicans usually at least stand and fight, instead of running away when the kitchen heats up.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey don't let Lady Love hear you talking like that, she's a great defender of freedom don't you know?
                  Really, talking of the restriction of freedom of speech will not sit well with her!

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Don't you love the left's "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" retorts.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  oceansnsunsetsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  yep, gotta love it.

                  replyreport
8. 75

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Ah. I thought LaLo had the corner on that dis-information niche.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

   Yeah, their responses are typical.  We can almost set our watches by them! ha

   replyreport
10. 60

    tony0724posted 13 years ago

    I was just wondering, but in Walkers bill there was a provision that would have the unions collect their own dues instead of the state automatically doing it for them. Do you not think this ws a factor in those union bosses importing many of those protestors ? Just a thought.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       On that, I don't know. I'm trying to figure this out myself.  But that's a great question.  I think that's a question those Democrats should've faced instead of them scuttling off to other States and leaving average union members to fight their own battles.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Brenda who do you think is paying for their self imposed exile ?

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I imagine we the taxpayers are.  And in duplicate, most likely, after it goes through the hands of a lot of those same union bosses that got those Dems elected!

             replyreport
11. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Don't pout.  Just say carpfeathers or something

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, and quit trying to re-write the first amendment.  People who love America never do that.

          replyreport
12. 75

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    But aren't we the great melting pot, the country that is founded on immigrants? Our foundation is still there, but we can't return to the America of the 1600s or 1700s. That's impractical. And the truth is, we have learned a lot from other countries and cultures over the centuries and decades. Our politics in the 21st century is and must be influenced by what is going on in the rest of the world.
    Unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying -- perhaps you are simply suggesting we stick to the Constitution as originally written (?) Help!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That's the problem right there... this view that the constitution is irrelevant because we have airplanes now is absurd! If you think ut needs changing then amendend it don't reinterpret it or ignore it... that's the rules of the game!

       replyreport
13. 75

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Yes, I agree with what you said above, stevennix. I don't blame W for all our nation's problems(even though I wish I could ). There's plenty of blame to spread around! And you are correct. Both parties have had a hand in messing things up.
    Just look at the state many of our states (my own included) are in. That is not W's fault, Obama's fault, Pelosi's fault, Reid's fault, or anyone else at the federal level's fault.
    Nope, the states have fallen into the trap of spending more money than they take in (just like the federal government).
    In the wake of the recession (that's trying to be optimistic that it really is in the past) people's incomes are down and they have less to pay into the system. Businesses have cut back or gone under. The revenue base has shrunk like testicles in cold water.
    Meanwhile, unfunded pension liabilities and health care benefits for state (and city and county) workers are out of control.
    I've said this before and I'll say it again. Where have the damned ACTUARIES been? Did no one see this day coming???!!!
    But even that is not the whole story.
    We, the public, need a scapegoat. Right now, public employees and public employee unions are the convenient target.
    Oh well, at least it gives the illegal immigrants a short break from the firing squad, eh?

    replyreport
14. 75

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    junko,
    You raise an excellent point about the parallel of W and Obama.
    The difference is that 2.5 years into his presidency, W had a cause celebre. He was the hero. The John Wayne of the USA, fighting the evil terrorists.
    Of COURSE he had our respect --- then. He was our leader and he had an important job to do. Get the bad guys who blew up planes and killed Americans.
    
    W did not come into office facing a recession. He did not inherit two wars. At that point the country (including the Democrats) did not know that WMDs were a fabricated excuse to invade Iraq. At that time we did not know how many years and lives (soldier and citizen) we would waste trying to locate bin Laden.
    The thing is, Obama is also fighting terrorists.
    The difference is, the terrorists he's fighting sit on the right hand side of Congress. .

    replyreport
    1. 76

       junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       M/M:  That's the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.

       replyreport
15. 75

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Obama's actions to rescue the economy from further freeall reminds me of that old saying, "Those who forget history are destined to repeat it."
    Obama knew Hoover's laissez faire attitude toward letting market forces correct the Great Depression was a failure. He intervened and softened the financial blow. Some say he didn't intercede ENOUGH!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yah, sure, the same way Bill Ayres said his terrorist organization didn't do enough.
       
       I thought of ignoring your post above where you said the terrorists sit on the right hand side of Congress.
       But since you still take up for Obama's carp, I might as well point out that connection.
       Over two years into the Obamanation, and libs are still afraid to see the truth about their oh so great icon....

       replyreport
       1. 76

          junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Brenda: The truth is served here, no deception.

          replyreport
16. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

    The truth is, those Democrat chickens should be FINED, FIRED, and FIXED to where they cannot hold public office again.
    They still haven't returned, and if they were Republicans they'd be already picketed and persecuted and prosecuted.
    They're apparently of the Party of NO SHOW.  They can't even claim to be voting "Present" like their leader Obama did when he was in the Senate, and when ya even upstage Obama, that's pretty bad....

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Maybe the dems don't want the treatment that Democratic Representative Milroy got in this clip.
       
       http://www.wisn.com/r-video/27074185/detail.html
       
       The question of Gov. Walker's motivations was made clear on the phoney phonecall from "Koch". I have as yet heard no plausible explanation for Walker's shoe-licking performance to the big business mogul.
       
       Don't worry, Wisc will get the government it asked for.

       replyreport
17. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

    What's so striking about this course of events is the huge outcry from Democrats about the union issue.  They were really up in arms.  Yet ask them to defend the rights of an unborn child or traditional marriage or consider sensibly the rights of patriotic Americans, and they suddenly lose their sense of outrage.   I guess they know which side their bread's buttered on.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Perhaps they're more concerned with the rights of women and opposed to traditional marriage and maybe they think they are considering the rights of patriotic Americans, or are you implying something unpatriotic about belonging to a union?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          No I'm not implying that at all.
          What I'm saying is that the Democrats suddenly get irate when it comes to money/job/lobbying issues that concern them, but don't give a whit about the moral or social consequences of other issues.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             First of all, are you talking about Democrats or Unions, because they aren't the same thing!
             If you are talking about the Unions then it is not their place to concern themselves with moral issues that don't universally affect their membership.

             replyreport
    2. 70

       Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "I guess they know which side their bread's buttered on."
       
       The issue is money not butter. Each party is going to dance with the one that brung 'em. Both parties do the same thing.
       
       Republicans filibustered the Health Care Plan and Dems are likewise using a procedural gimmick to prevent a vote. As an independent voter I don't see a difference. In politics, there are some noble aims but not many saints to be found.
       
       Q. Why did the chickens cross the state line?
       
       A. They wanted to "get to" the other side.
       
       And they've succeeded.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          The "healthcare" bill was designed (and secretly compiled) to make us SPEND money.  This issue now on the table is the opposite.   Like I said, the Dems ran away.  Nobody's claiming sainthood for the Republicans, believe me! lol.   But at least we (they) normally stand and fight.  Sometimes they're naive for doing so, since the Left has had 'em all fighting for 2 years now about nonsensical stuff from the get-go, stuff that should've never even been put on the table.  And now that it's all a big mess, they....again I say....RUN.   Bok bok bok....isn't that how a chicken goes?...

          replyreport
          1. 70

             Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             "Bok bok bok....isn't that how a chicken goes?..."
             
             Yes, they do. We had 2,000 of 'em when I was a kid but it was difficult to tell what their politics were.
             
             If the country's welfare doesn't soon become more important than partisan posturing, then there won't be a chicken in anyone's pot.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think it's "posturing"!
                I think the Democrats (as a whole) do indeed exhibit their mindsets, as do the Republicans; and those two opposing mindsets parallel the Party lines.
                So, the fight is on.  At least, the Republicans have a record of at least staying for the fight, even if they're losing.
                
                Compromise isn't always the answer either, because that "reaching across the aisle" sometimes only serves to grab nonsense and waste time debating it.  Someone has to admit they're wrong, at some point, at some time, because yes it's the American public who's paying FOR their salaries and paying dearly all-around for the whole mess.  UNLESS, as I've said, those chicken Dems that hold Office will resign or be recalled (a better word is fired).
                
                
                
                And why are Wisconsin Democrats asking for a meeting with the Governor?
                Can't our Representatives do their jobs anymore at all?  They wanna whine to him instead of doing their jobs as elected officials in a governing body!  Such nonsense!

                replyreport
18. 70

    Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Translation of that picture---
       
       Indeed, Democrats will still squawk without using their heads. 

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Republicans are rough on poultry...
          
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Well, that's what they're best put to use for----fried.
             I mean....fired.

             replyreport
             1. 70

                Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                
                
                Good one.

                replyreport
19. 71

    Cagsilposted 13 years ago

    It's always lovely to see that the distortion and misinformation tactics of politicians are working.

    replyreport