54% of Wisconsin Voters against Recall

[Dr.House]

Ok so care to prove that I do read it as a source for my info?

Come on troll, put your money where your mouth is.

It is my opinion, asswipe, that you are full of shit...

There you have it...

Now fuck off like a good little 0bama drone...

Pretty much everything you spew out is nothing but your baseless opinions so it's really not a surprise that this is no diffrent. LOL

LOL... Claiming Walker "might" be indicted is what? Class? That's right, an "opinion"....

I've been pointing out your fail all afternoon and the hits just keep coming...

I am still waiting on the info that you claimed to have in a previous post. LOL

Link?

 

[Dr.House]

Fact: Governor Walker is not under investigation for any crime committed...

Fact: Governor Walker is cooperating completely with investigations into others...

Fact: According to a recent poll of likely Wisconsin voters, Govrenor Scott Walker should survive an effort to throw out his 2010 election.

 

[Conservative]

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

Actually, it does not. Dr. House asked if there was anything showing Walker is complicit in any illegal activities. So far, the John Doe investigation has not turned up anything that directly or even indirectly implicate Walker himself.

So, while Walker underlings may have some issues here in this investigation, Walker so far has none.

 

[drsmith1072]

google is useful.



Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

So it's basically as I said and they determine the parameters for deciding whose responses to keep and whose to discard.

Thank you.

If that is what you want to read, then that is your limited view/scope.


Have fun with it. However, Rasmussen is right more often than others, because of his methodology, so you might consider coming down off your high horse.


Or don't.


It matters not to me.

LOL limited scope?? I have no limited scope. That is what you posted actually said.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

There it is in black and white. They define the parameters that decide which responses to keep and which to discard. If that is not what it says then please explain how it is different.

Why is it you have a such a hard time grasping the content of the very quote you cited.

 

[Provocateur]

So it's basically as I said and they determine the parameters for deciding whose responses to keep and whose to discard.

Thank you.

If that is what you want to read, then that is your limited view/scope.


Have fun with it. However, Rasmussen is right more often than others, because of his methodology, so you might consider coming down off your high horse.


Or don't.


It matters not to me.

LOL limited scope?? I have no limited scope. That is what you posted actually said.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

There it is in black and white. They define the parameters that decide which responses to keep and which to discard. If that is not what it says then please explain how it is different.

Why is it you have a such a hard time grasping the content of the very quote you cited.

It is used to define "Likely Voter", which is what you think is suspect.

Have fun in conspiracy land.

 

[drsmith1072]

Dr. Smith, you dipshit...

There is no evidence, nor even investigations into, any violations by Walker himself of any law... You are spinning and chasing windmills... We laugh at your foolishness and idiocy... If you had an IQ over room temperature I would try to explain that investigations directed at aides are not investigations directed at Walker... In fact, if you look into the details of this "most grevious act" by said Walker aide, you would laugh your ass off... But, alas, you are a partisan hack dumbass and want to deflect the recall onto some actions by an aide years ago...

You are a joke, Dr. Smith....

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

Nothing in the article posted states Walker himself is under investigation...

Walker to meet with prosecutors in John Doe investigation - m.JSOnline.com

You are just swimming in the fail today, Dr. Smith....

That is but one article and is not the end all and be all of knowledge about the investigation.

Furthermore, it's a john doe investigation so we as the public don't know who is actually under investigation and who isn't.

However, the fact that they are questioning him about actions that took place in the office that he ran and acts that were engaged in by his staff to prop up and support his run fro governor it's pretty obvious that he is being questioned for a reason.

Would they be investigating his office and not him even though four of his staffers in that office have been charged?

 

[drsmith1072]

It is my opinion, asswipe, that you are full of shit...

There you have it...

Now fuck off like a good little 0bama drone...

Pretty much everything you spew out is nothing but your baseless opinions so it's really not a surprise that this is no diffrent. LOL

LOL... Claiming Walker "might" be indicted is what? Class? That's right, an "opinion"....

I've been pointing out your fail all afternoon and the hits just keep coming...

WOW! You just don't get it do you?? The other poster presented his OPINION and you demanded that he support it and he did with a link to an investigation that involves the office that walker ran.
Yet here you are presenting your OPINIONS and yet you apparently believe that you shouldn't be held to the same standard that you hold others to. That is you being esxposed as a hypocrite.

I am still waiting on the info that you claimed to have in a previous post. LOL

Link?

Really?? it was just a few posts ago where you claimed.

In fact, if you look into the details of this "most grevious act" by said Walker aide, you would laugh your ass off... But, alas, you are a partisan hack dumbass and want to deflect the recall onto some actions by an aide years ago.

So what is this knowledge that you claim to have??

Furthermore, I didn't bring up the act of his aide let alone mean it to deflect anything. I merely challenged your baseless claims of guilt by association.

If person "A" drove the get away car in a bank robbery then he was involved in the crime and should be charged. Claiming person "A" should be indicted based on his involvment is not guilt by association.

However, if person "A" knew the driver of the get away car and someone claimed he was guilty merely based on that association then that would be guilt by association.

If walker was involved with what his staffers were doing then he should be indicted.
If he was not then he should not be indicted based on guilt by association.

Do you understand the difference now??

 

[drsmith1072]

Fact: Governor Walker is not under investigation for any crime committed...

Fact: Governor Walker is cooperating completely with investigations into others...

Fact: According to a recent poll of likely Wisconsin voters, Govrenor Scott Walker should survive an effort to throw out his 2010 election.

the first two are your baseless OPINIONS not fact but thanks again for showing that you don't know the difference between fact and your opinions.

The third is but one poll.

 

[drsmith1072]

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

Actually, it does not. Dr. House asked if there was anything showing Walker is complicit in any illegal activities. So far, the John Doe investigation has not turned up anything that directly or even indirectly implicate Walker himself.

So, while Walker underlings may have some issues here in this investigation, Walker so far has none.

Is that what house said at the beginning of this discussion? care to quote the post?

house asked for the other poster to cite a law that would supported his opinion that walker should be indicted. The poster cited an investigation which is still under way concerning staff of walkers in his office when he was milwaukee county executive which would involve his knowledge or lack there of concerning said illegal activities. Then house later asked that same poster if there as anything walker did that the poster felt was indictable.

The fact that they have to question walker of what he knew and when he knew it shows that he is being investigated whether he wants to admit it or not.

Furthermore, how do you kow what the investigation has turned up or not?? Do you actually believe that the DA would allow full disclosure of every aspect of their investigation?

 

[drsmith1072]

If that is what you want to read, then that is your limited view/scope.


Have fun with it. However, Rasmussen is right more often than others, because of his methodology, so you might consider coming down off your high horse.


Or don't.


It matters not to me.

LOL limited scope?? I have no limited scope. That is what you posted actually said.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

There it is in black and white. They define the parameters that decide which responses to keep and which to discard. If that is not what it says then please explain how it is different.

Why is it you have a such a hard time grasping the content of the very quote you cited.

It is used to define "Likely Voter", which is what you think is suspect.

Have fun in conspiracy land.

Yes as I said it is used to define "likely voter" based on their terms and how they decide to define it. Meaning that they can exclude responses that they do not think fit the opinions of what they define as a "likely voter" which may not have anything to do with those who actually vote.

I still don't see your explanation of how I was wrong. I guess that means that you don't have one to back up your allegation.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Conservative]

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

Actually, it does not. Dr. House asked if there was anything showing Walker is complicit in any illegal activities. So far, the John Doe investigation has not turned up anything that directly or even indirectly implicate Walker himself.

So, while Walker underlings may have some issues here in this investigation, Walker so far has none.

Is that what house said at the beginning of this discussion? care to quote the post?

house asked for the other poster to cite a law that would supported his opinion that walker should be indicted. The poster cited an investigation which is still under way concerning staff of walkers in his office when he was milwaukee county executive which would involve his knowledge or lack there of concerning said illegal activities. Then house later asked that same poster if there as anything walker did that the poster felt was indictable.

The fact that they have to question walker of what he knew and when he knew it shows that he is being investigated whether he wants to admit it or not.

Furthermore, how do you kow what the investigation has turned up or not?? Do you actually believe that the DA would allow full disclosure of every aspect of their investigation?

First, I see you edited your post, removing the comments about me needing to 'learn to read'. Smart move.

Second, here is the initial exchange...

Scott Walker Recall: Wisconsin Governor Narrowly Trails Likely Opponents In New Poll

A new poll shows Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) trailing two likely contenders

High stakes for either side, the edge is for the Democrats - The Republicans will be pummeled all the way to Nov. if they lose - and the 4 state senators and the Lt. Governor.

The Rs voted Grey out in California (recall) - who are they to complain - The same results are more than likely for Walker, especially when he is indicted for campaign violations and fraud.

Please cite the law that Walker personally violated that would necessitate his indictment...

Breeze said WHEN Walker is indicted...not IF... not MIGHT BE... but WHEN. It was a statement of fact, not of opinion.

Problem is, it was not fact, as there have been no reported acts by Walker himself that would necessitate his indictment.

House was perfectly correct in asking for a law that Walker violated that would 'necessitate his indictment'.

You really do suck at this, you know.

 

[Conservative]

The fact that they have to question walker of what he knew and when he knew it shows that he is being investigated whether he wants to admit it or not.

Furthermore, how do you kow what the investigation has turned up or not?? Do you actually believe that the DA would allow full disclosure of every aspect of their investigation?

Do you believe the DA would publicize the investigation of Walker staffers, but NOT publicize the investigation of Walker himself?

Really, your suckage at this is now complete.

 

[Zander]

Walker will easily retain his governorship and overcome the hatred of the loony left. This will mark the beginning of the end for public sector unions. Reform that is long overdue...

 

[GoneBezerk]

But....but....but once acorn got enough fake recall names they were supposed to win....

 

[Conservative]

where did poor misunderstood DrSmith go? Did the smack down hurt him that much?

 

[Zander]

where did poor misunderstood DrSmith go? Did the smack down hurt him that much?

 

[BreezeWood]

High stakes for either side, the edge is for the Democrats - The Republicans will be pummeled all the way to Nov. if they lose - and the 4 state senators and the Lt. Governor.

The Rs voted Grey out in California (recall) - who are they to complain - The same results are more than likely for Walker, especially when he is indicted for campaign violations and fraud.

The "when" in the statement is speculative for an ongoing investigation Walker has retained counsel for - The same speculation Walker used as reason for retaining the lawyers.

 

[Conservative]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6luVDxoE0I]Dr. Zachary Smith (Lost in Space) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Conservative]

High stakes for either side, the edge is for the Democrats - The Republicans will be pummeled all the way to Nov. if they lose - and the 4 state senators and the Lt. Governor.

The Rs voted Grey out in California (recall) - who are they to complain - The same results are more than likely for Walker, especially when he is indicted for campaign violations and fraud.

The "when" in the statement is speculative for an ongoing investigation Walker has retained counsel for - The same speculation Walker used as reason for retaining the lawyers.

Let me guess...

Innocent men never need lawyers,. right?

 

[Peach]

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

Actually, it does not. Dr. House asked if there was anything showing Walker is complicit in any illegal activities. So far, the John Doe investigation has not turned up anything that directly or even indirectly implicate Walker himself.

So, while Walker underlings may have some issues here in this investigation, Walker so far has none.

Poor judgement is no grounds for recall, I AGREE. But Walker sure showed a good measure of THAT.
*******************************************
The endless Davy Jones chatter from my relative has driven me to thinking Conservative's prior picture has changed to Davy Jones. Odd......; )