Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That would be because they didn't have 41 votes. The democratics stymied themselves.

You are full of shit.

Very full of shit. How anyone could make that easily refuted argument is beyond me.

The Republicans didn't get their 41st seat until Scott Brown won a special election in January of 2010. You two aren't making yourselves look too informed here.

 

[BenNatuf]

no, you just have apparently zero sense of the context and total argument of which this is all a part. November sweeps in rep.s with comfortable majorities, a bill is proposed and away go the democrats so as to prevent a vote....get it now?

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

my god......read my post again, the very one you quoted for Christs sake.

these libs obviously don't know the difference between the GOP not having enough votes to block cloture by PARTICIPATING in the process (which wouldn't be a filibuster even if they did have 41 GOP senators--- which they did not), and fleabagging it out of state to AVOID PARTICIPATING in the process.

 

[Trajan]

there have been give-backs everywhere.

but don't you find it a little obscene that the middle class has to make up for corporate welfare and tax breaks to millionaires?

don't you think that people should be a little intransigent about that?

i do.

until i see realistic tax policy and the right stops it's wealth re-distribution to the rich, i'm kind of not inclined to be told that working people have to take it in the neck.

I want to see a realistic tax policy, also, Jillian. But, I also want to start seeing a realistic spending policy going forward. It's all out of control right now.

but why cut the things that hurt people while shifting wealth to corporations? if it were me, i wouldn't agree to cut a dime until they did away with the bush tax cuts.

harsh? maybe. i'm all for shared pain. I'm not for carrying it for the people who need the breaks the least.

so wealth re-distribution is ok as long as it goes where you think it should go......

 

[Trajan]

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

my god......read my post again, the very one you quoted for Christs sake.

these libs obviously don't know the difference between the GOP not having enough votes to block cloture by PARTICIPATING in the process (which wouldn't be a filibuster even if they did have 41 GOP senators--- which they did not), and fleabagging it out of state to AVOID PARTICIPATING in the process.

Cognitive dissonance......

 

[jillian]

They gave in for 1 (one) contract, Jillian. This tax and spend isn't going away in the next 3-4 years.

there have been give-backs everywhere.

but don't you find it a little obscene that the middle class has to make up for corporate welfare and tax breaks to millionaires?

don't you think that people should be a little intransigent about that?

i do.

until i see realistic tax policy and the right stops it's wealth re-distribution to the rich, i'm kind of not inclined to be told that working people have to take it in the neck.

as for tax and spend... let me know when they get out of iraq and afghanistan and we can talk about cutting spending.

that's a good point,, when are you libtards getting out of iraq, afghanistan, and libya?

maybe y'all rightwingnut hypocrites shouldn't have gotten us in there in the first place.

but yeah, we should be out. your point?

 

[Annie]

I don't know how this will all turn out. I do know that the Democrats threw it all into this race, outspending the Koch brothers by quite a lot. That it's this close? Speaks a lot to the problems the Democrats are facing.

In Wisconsin however? A blue state for many years. A bit schizoid I'll agree. But overall, blue, except in 2010. Now this mixed bag in 2011. What will 2012 bring? Awaiting with baited breath.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

I want to see a realistic tax policy, also, Jillian. But, I also want to start seeing a realistic spending policy going forward. It's all out of control right now.

but why cut the things that hurt people while shifting wealth to corporations? if it were me, i wouldn't agree to cut a dime until they did away with the bush tax cuts.

harsh? maybe. i'm all for shared pain. I'm not for carrying it for the people who need the breaks the least.

so wealth re-distribution is ok as long as it goes where you think it should go......

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

 

[BenNatuf]

but why cut the things that hurt people while shifting wealth to corporations? if it were me, i wouldn't agree to cut a dime until they did away with the bush tax cuts.

harsh? maybe. i'm all for shared pain. I'm not for carrying it for the people who need the breaks the least.

so wealth re-distribution is ok as long as it goes where you think it should go......

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

When people keep their own money its not "redistributed".

What fucking planet do you guys live on?

 

[Trajan]

but why cut the things that hurt people while shifting wealth to corporations? if it were me, i wouldn't agree to cut a dime until they did away with the bush tax cuts.

harsh? maybe. i'm all for shared pain. I'm not for carrying it for the people who need the breaks the least.

so wealth re-distribution is ok as long as it goes where you think it should go......

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

I recall using Jillian's words to craft a statement I think captured her intent. I don't know what you're reading.

 

[Trajan]

so wealth re-distribution is ok as long as it goes where you think it should go......

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

When people keep their own money its not "redistributed".

What fucking planet do you guys live on?

you spooked the horse dude....

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

I don't know how this will all turn out. I do know that the Democrats threw it all into this race, outspending the Koch brothers by quite a lot. That it's this close? Speaks a lot to the problems the Democrats are facing.

In Wisconsin however? A blue state for many years. A bit schizoid I'll agree. But overall, blue, except in 2010. Now this mixed bag in 2011. What will 2012 bring? Awaiting with baited breath.

I love it. Since Nov 2010, all I've heard from cons is, "We won"; "The American people spoke". Now you're all like, "But but but, WI is a blue state. Dems should have done better" (never mind the fact that they won the seat). So, I guess I'll make the same argument. For Republicans to have won a supposed mandate for their agenda, shouldn't they have won this seat? Not looking too good.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

so wealth re-distribution is ok as long as it goes where you think it should go......

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

When people keep their own money its not "redistributed".

What fucking planet do you guys live on?

I live on a planet that frowns upon giving wealthy people more money while cutting services and programs that benefit poor families.

 

[Annie]

I don't know how this will all turn out. I do know that the Democrats threw it all into this race, outspending the Koch brothers by quite a lot. That it's this close? Speaks a lot to the problems the Democrats are facing.

In Wisconsin however? A blue state for many years. A bit schizoid I'll agree. But overall, blue, except in 2010. Now this mixed bag in 2011. What will 2012 bring? Awaiting with baited breath.

I love it. Since Nov 2010, all I've heard from cons is, "We won"; "The American people spoke". Now you're all like, "But but but, WI is a blue state. Dems should have done better" (never mind the fact that they won the seat). So, I guess I'll make the same argument. For Republicans to have won a supposed mandate for their agenda, shouldn't they have won this seat? Not looking too good.

Huh? 2010 was imo an aberration considering the past 15 years. You disagree? What I was pointing out was the fact that given the push for ousting the judge, that it was 'thisclose' is a wonderment. You disagree?

 

[mudwhistle]

there have been give-backs everywhere.

but don't you find it a little obscene that the middle class has to make up for corporate welfare and tax breaks to millionaires?

don't you think that people should be a little intransigent about that?

i do.

until i see realistic tax policy and the right stops it's wealth re-distribution to the rich, i'm kind of not inclined to be told that working people have to take it in the neck.

as for tax and spend... let me know when they get out of iraq and afghanistan and we can talk about cutting spending.

that's a good point,, when are you libtards getting out of iraq, afghanistan, and libya?

maybe y'all rightwingnut hypocrites shouldn't have gotten us in there in the first place.

but yeah, we should be out. your point?

Huh???? We got us into Libya, and we expanded Afghanistan?

Did you know that 116 of the 101st died last month in Afghanistan? Bush knew that he had to keep Afghanistan low-key because of the difference in terrain and the advantages the enemy has there, yet the left screamed that Bin Laden was there to be found and that Afghanistan was the good war. Now it's no better then Iraq, and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden has ended. So what the fuck are we doing there I ask you????

Btw, Iraq is winding down as per the Bush plan.

Personally I think we should pull out of all of them.

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't know how this will all turn out. I do know that the Democrats threw it all into this race, outspending the Koch brothers by quite a lot. That it's this close? Speaks a lot to the problems the Democrats are facing.

In Wisconsin however? A blue state for many years. A bit schizoid I'll agree. But overall, blue, except in 2010. Now this mixed bag in 2011. What will 2012 bring? Awaiting with baited breath.

I love it. Since Nov 2010, all I've heard from cons is, "We won"; "The American people spoke". Now you're all like, "But but but, WI is a blue state. Dems should have done better" (never mind the fact that they won the seat). So, I guess I'll make the same argument. For Republicans to have won a supposed mandate for their agenda, shouldn't they have won this seat? Not looking too good.

The only thing thats terrible about this election loss is that its a SC seat. hate that. But otherwise the numbers aren't bad at all, all things considered.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

I don't know how this will all turn out. I do know that the Democrats threw it all into this race, outspending the Koch brothers by quite a lot. That it's this close? Speaks a lot to the problems the Democrats are facing.

In Wisconsin however? A blue state for many years. A bit schizoid I'll agree. But overall, blue, except in 2010. Now this mixed bag in 2011. What will 2012 bring? Awaiting with baited breath.

I love it. Since Nov 2010, all I've heard from cons is, "We won"; "The American people spoke". Now you're all like, "But but but, WI is a blue state. Dems should have done better" (never mind the fact that they won the seat). So, I guess I'll make the same argument. For Republicans to have won a supposed mandate for their agenda, shouldn't they have won this seat? Not looking too good.

Huh? 2010 was imo an aberration considering the past 15 years. You disagree? What I was pointing out was the fact that given the push for ousting the judge, that it was 'thisclose' is a wonderment. You disagree?

Yes, I disagree. He was a popular judge. He easily won previous elections, and, before the Walker fiasco, he was expected to easily hold on to his seat. Pre-election polling had his challenger down by 30 points. 19 Republican districts flipped to the Democrats. I'd say Republicans got creamed.

 

[BenNatuf]

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

When people keep their own money its not "redistributed".

What fucking planet do you guys live on?

I live on a planet that frowns upon giving wealthy people more money while cutting services and programs that benefit poor families.

When people keep thier own money its not giving them anything, it's just not taking it from them. It's not your money.

 

[mudwhistle]

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

When people keep their own money its not "redistributed".

What fucking planet do you guys live on?

I live on a planet that frowns upon giving wealthy people more money while cutting services and programs that benefit poor families.

You can always give to your favorite charity.

That's the way it used to be done.

 

[Jack Fate]

Isn't that what you are saying yourself? Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting services for the poor is not a form of wealth re-distribution?

When people keep their own money its not "redistributed".

What fucking planet do you guys live on?

I live on a planet that frowns upon giving wealthy people more money while cutting services and programs that benefit poor families.

I live on a planet that doesn't "give" wealthy people more money while cutting services and programs that benefit poor families. Tell us who "gives" the wealthy people their money. This should be interesting.

 

[Political Junky]

Kloppenburg has given her acceptance speech.