Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You got something against the working poor? Try raising a family off a McDonald's and Walmart salary, with two kids. They work as hard as you do I'm sure.

---

I got nothing against the working poor... I'm related to a lot of them... I grew up part of the working poor. Most of my relatives are still part of the working poor. I DO have something against ANYONE that feels they are entitled to what's in my wallet that I earned, And I don't come close to Obamas definition of rich... I might be rich by the standards of some backwater towns... but I don't live in one... and I don't even meet the median income in the area I live now.

And incidentally I got where I am through a hell of a lot of hard work and take exception to those who didn't that think they are entitled to a share of what I make. They ALL had the same opportunities I had (which was essentually no help what-so-ever because I was too not a minority)... most had MORE opportunities, it's their fault they didn't take them.

And yes I have had a lot of setbacks along the way I wasn't recompensed for when I made them... so why are they entitled to my earnings when I made the right choices then.


Familiar with the old saying... you reap what you sow? You aren't entitled to more than you put an effort into making.

That's the point though smoothy my friend, many of us work darn hard at honest work, and have to take what we can get. But every time we look around, somebody is telling us that because THEY screwed up, we have to pay. I feel the same as you do, but we seem to resent different people. I hate politician who tell me what my labor is worth while they keep making' money off my labor. I hate rich fat cats who have the money to give a politician for what he wants and all I can do is vote.

Hell there ain't even no negotiating about it if they have there way.

Hello again,

Hmmm... Looks to me like the Democrats have won. Turns out, their filibuster worked.

But, worse than that. Walker awakened a sleeping giant. Bummer for you wingers. As we've discussed on this thread, if Walker had been successful, he would have been the NEW Reagan. He would have been the 2016 presidential nominee. But, he's toast, isn't he? His ratings have PLUMMETED and are cratering daily. Poor fellow. Poor party. Looks like he went just a tad too far.

excon

Filibuster my butt . It's an irresponsible negligence of sworn duty .

I see no movement besides Walker's emails offering concessions .The Dems have done their Union masters bidding. What did I miss ?

The Dems are still AWOL out of state. If anything there is growing pressure on the Dems by the public to get back to work.

Walker has misplayed this slightly . He should decouple the Union issues from the budget and get a vote in the Senate with the existing quarum . You watch how fast the Dems would come running back if he did that .

Their demand that negotiations take place in Illinois is absurd. Let's see which movement gets bigger traction ;the movement to recall Walker(orchestrated shamelessly from the White House ) ,or the one to recall the Dems of the Senate .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Filibuster my butt . It's an irresponsible negligence of sworn duty .

---

Hello again, tom:

SWORN duty, my butt. Show me what they SWORE to. Show me where they SWORE they wouldn't travel. Show me where they SWORE to sit in their seats. Show me where they SWORE to punch a time clock.

Look. You don't LIKE it. You don't like it because it WORKED. Using Roberts Rules of Order, the Wisconsin Senate made a RULE that a quorum needs to be present before a vote can be taken. If a quorum ISN'T present, a vote is BLOCKED. Those are the rules. I didn't make 'em up.

The United States Senate, using Roberts Rules of Order, has a rule that says if 60 Senators don't agree, a vote is BLOCKED. Those are the rules. I didn't make 'em up. You liked it when YOUR side was the BLOCKER, but it pisses you off when the other side does it.

The real problem here, is that your side ACTUALLY believes its righteous BS, that the Democrats are, how did you put it, "irresponsible and negligent". But, the truth is you got hornswaggeled by the same rules you used to hornswaggle the Democrats.

I say again, the duty of a legislator is to represent his constituency, and THESE Democrats did that EXTREMELY WELL. THAT is their job, and I don't care if they swore to it or not.

excon

And the Governor has lost nothing by giving a little round the unimportant things . He satsifies some of those endless polls conducted by pro-union organizations that say Walker should do some negotiations. He is still holding firm on the essential points of the Dems action ; increased pension and insurance contributions, and ending state collection of union dues.

The Unions know that they could never hold their rank and file if their dues were not confiscated from their paychecks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He satsifies some of those endless polls conducted by pro-union organizations that say Walker should do some negotiations.

---

Hello again, tom:

Rasmussen is pro union?? Dude! Here goes the spin.

excon

Its not over yet! But Walker is backing away from his No Negotiating rule. Hope it spreads to other states with these crazy corporate shills that are now governors.

Hey EX, see what they are trying to do in Michigan? Tell me this ain't a step back to the good old days where the rich master ordered the poor slaves around!

Recall 'em all, once and for all.

Lol Michigan is a basket case with it's misrule by the Dems for years . If I was you I would not hold up either Michigan or Detroit as a liberal success story.

Looks like the fleebaggers should have stuck around to do their jobs. They removed the financial aspects and passed the bill without the AWOL Dems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

passed the bill

---

Hello again, Steve:

Passed? PASSED?? For a fellow who said the Dems rammed through the health care plan, you don't recognize RAMMED.

excon

Amazing that they passed it as NOT a fiscal item---but claimed it HAD to go through because of the "broke" budget.

This isn't over yet.

Funny how the left gets upset when the very same tactics they use over and over are used against them when they are in dereliction of duty.

They should not pay the democrats who have refused to show up for work. Just like every other working stiff in the country. You don't show up, then you don't get paid. See how quick the Dem's run back to Madison then.

Don't gloat to fast, its far from over. Matter of fact, its just getting started.

And they shouldn't pay the governor who SWEARS he is doing all of this for BUDGET reasons, but then pushes a bill through as "non-fiscal" so they can get the vote they WANT.

Those republicans that actually VOTED on it shouldn't be paid either. While they followed the LETTER of the law, they certainly didn't follow the SPIRIT of the law.

This country is seriously starting to make me sick. Why is it always "you damned democrats" and "you stupid republicans"? Why do we have parties that do nothing but block one another constantly, don't really do what their constituents want because it would break party lines, and a budget that has never been met? How about we stop PAYING politicians and giving them benefits until the budget is balanced. Think that would work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Amazing that they passed it as NOT a fiscal item---but claimed it HAD to go through because of the "broke" budget.

This isn't over yet.

---

No it isn't... the White House ,butting in where it doesn't belong , is orchestrating recall petitions.

Just some political jiu jitsu .Let's say the Dems are now lurred back to Madison because they think this issue is finished except for court fights.. Then there is a quorum for a budget vote (the doors get locked by executive order ),and the measure gets reintroduced into the budget vote.
The Dems. Still lose because there is a clear majority in the Senate to pass the measure .

By the way... just checked Wi. Law. Yes Walker can be recalled... but not until he's served at least one year of his term. Petitions cannot begin until November. These recall petitions are obviously targeting Senators.

They lose THIS battle, but the WAR is hardly over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Funny how the left gets upset when the very same tactics they use over and over are used against them when they are in dereliction of duty.

---

Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things... I'm a RULES guy. I LIKE rules. If you KNOW the rules, you KNOW what you can DO. I KNOW the rules WELL. I USE the rules, and I use 'em HARD. I do it with NO shame or embarrassment. In fact, MOST people don't know the rules, and that's why I make mincemeat out of them.. You should be familiar with that.

Politics is a contact sport. Being a rules guy, I actually LOVE it when the rules are used against me. I don't get upset when that happens - I get even. But, one can't MAKE UP the rules, because I'll catch 'em. You should be familiar with that.

Speaking of RULES and DUTY (tom calls it their SWORN duty), rules are published. If you use the Google, if these "duties" are there to be found. You COULD find 'em and post a link... But, they're NOT there, are they?? You're just flapping your gums... In fact, those Democrats violated NO rules and did their duty to their constituents.

excon

This was the section of the law that the Senate used to issue arrest warrants on the truant Senators.

946.12 Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:

946.12(1)
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

946.12(3)
(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another; or

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsi...46/946.12.html