Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not hiding out in Rockford
Sp Qr
hiding out in Rockford
OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
Rockford where they're hiding.
Tom McDonald
That's disengenuous of Walker. He has the votes, and there will be no useful
debate. That's clear from everything he's said, and from what the Republican
state senators have said.
If the Democrats just rolled over, that would be cowardice. But I don't
expect you or your pals to agree.
--
Tom
Grendel
> On 2/21/2011 3:38 PM, Sp Qr wrote:
>
> > HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
> > hiding out in Rockford
>
> > OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
> > that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
> > Rockford where they're hiding.
>
>
> That's disengenuous of Walker. He has the votes, and there will be no useful
> debate. That's clear from everything he's said, and from what the Republican
> state senators have said.
>
> If the Democrats just rolled over, that would be cowardice. But I don't
> expect you or your pals to agree.
> --
> Tom
"Elections have consequences."-Obama
They lost. They are in the minority. That's the risk you have in a
representative republic.
The SHOULD have faced up to it like men. Shown up at the legislature,
recorded their objections, and voted against it. THEN the could have
said "We were brave. We stood up for the people." and had the
legislation been an abject failure, they would have their record to
run on.
THAT'S
HOW
THE
SYSTEM
WORKS.
Instead, they ran and hid like scared mice. They screamed 'NO FAIR,
NO FAIR' (ignoring that the elections are fair and WHAT THE PEOPLE
WANT). And it's rather obvious that the Democrat Senators are no
afriad of the voting public so much as they are scared shitless of the
Union leadership.
The Democrats in this case have demonstrated the very definition of
'Cowardice'. They should be recalled for abandonment of duty.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Gray Ghost
news:b1347a2c-862b-415b...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
THE POEPLE ELECTED REPUBLICANS TO FIX THE PROBLEM. OBEY THE WILL OF THE
PEOPLE.
Or does it only matter if the will of the people happens to coincide with
DemoRat talking points?
--
Herman Cain for President!
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
Bluesfan2U
Actually, the Wisconsin Dems are playing by the rules. The GOPers like
those query little rules that the US Senate has that prevented the
Democrats from instilling their agenda for 2 years at the federal level
when they had a massive majority, now they squeal like little school
girls when their agenda is frustrated in Wisconsin by similar state
Senate rules. The Democrats have offered a deep concession compromise
and the GOPers refuse to bend holding out for union busting at all
costs. I think the Dems should stay away until the next election.
Tom McDonald
They may have to face recall. So may Walker, when he's been in office a full
year. Why do you think he came right out of the gate with all of the
over-reaching in the 'Budget Repair Bill'? He's betting that we'll forget in
a year. I'm betting we won't.
The longer the Wisconsin 14 stand up to Walker, the more likely folks are to
remember what needs to be done next year.
--
Tom
Spartakus
> HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
> hiding out in Rockford
>
> OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
> that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
> Rockford where they're hiding.
Walker is blowing smoke out his ass. He has made it clear that there
will be no debate and no negotiation. That's not how a democratically
elected legislature is meant to do business. Every member of the
legislature should have the opportunity to read the bills presented,
debate them, offer amendments and negotiate. The Republicans denied
the Democrats that opportunity. In fact, many of the Democrats in the
State Senate did not even learn of the bill's existence until a few
minutes before the leader of the senate called for a vote.
At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
and the negotiation. If the Republicans take out the language that
strips collective bargaining rights from public sector unions, the
Democrats will return. As long as the Republicans continue to insist
that there will be no negotiations, the Democrats have no choice but
to stay away. What they are doing is much more than "hiding in
Rockford". They are playing a powerful card in order to defend the
rights of Wisconsin's teachers and municipal workers.
Pepe Le Jew
Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
Replace the 14?
Tom McDonald
Easier and more correct to replace just the one.
--
Tom
Grendel
Please point out exactly which rules state "If you don't like what the
majority is doing, run like little pussies."
> The GOPers like
> those query little rules that the US Senate has that prevented the
> Democrats from instilling their agenda for 2 years at the federal level
> when they had a massive majority,
So, you can point out where the Federal Republicans ran from D.C. like
little the little pussies of WI?
> now they squeal like little school
> girls when their agenda is frustrated in Wisconsin by similar state
> Senate rules.
Again, please cite the 'Run away like little pussies so we can subvert
the will of the majority" rule.
You can cite it here:____________________________
Here's a clue. To Dim 14 are BREAKING the rules...not following them.
Bluesfan2U
It is the one that says that the Senate needs a super majority to be
present to make a quorum (you'll need to look this term up since you so
obviously have no clue).
You apparently don't understand the process (or much else for that
matter, idiot).
>
>> The GOPers like
>> those query little rules that the US Senate has that prevented the
>> Democrats from instilling their agenda for 2 years at the federal level
>> when they had a massive majority,
>
> So, you can point out where the Federal Republicans ran from D.C. like
> little the little pussies of WI?
Different rules. They didn't have to be absent to frustrate the majority.
>
>> now they squeal like little school
>> girls when their agenda is frustrated in Wisconsin by similar state
>> Senate rules.
>
> Again, please cite the 'Run away like little pussies so we can subvert
> the will of the majority" rule.
I'm not familiar with the specific rule for the Wisconsin legislature.
Needless to say (for sentient folk) the rule must call for a certain
number of members to make a quorum, OR ELSE THE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAD
THEIR WAY BY NOW AND THIS WOULD BE NEITHER A TACTIC NOR A STORY... I do
wonder about you folks from time to time...
>
> You can cite it here:____________________________
>
> Here's a clue. To Dim 14 are BREAKING the rules...not following them.
>
> Yol Bolsun,
> Grendel.
>
> "I'm not cynical, just experienced."
You are an idiot, even by your own standards.
BTW, what have you got against pussy? Great stuff! IMHO! I guess you're
a dick guy. Each to his own...
Jarbidge
> You are an idiot, even by your own standards.
You're a troll, by any standards.
Phlip
> At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> and the negotiation.
And it's more constitutional than, say, an anonymous Senate filibuster
of 1.
Tankfixer
@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, - Spartakus spar...@my-deja.com
spouted !
>
> Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
> > hiding out in Rockford
> >
> > OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
> > that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
> > Rockford where they're hiding.
>
> Walker is blowing smoke out his ass. He has made it clear that there
> will be no debate and no negotiation. That's not how a democratically
> elected legislature is meant to do business. Every member of the
> legislature should have the opportunity to read the bills presented,
> debate them, offer amendments and negotiate. The Republicans denied
> the Democrats that opportunity. In fact, many of the Democrats in the
> State Senate did not even learn of the bill's existence until a few
> minutes before the leader of the senate called for a vote.
Excelent point..
Do you fault the Madam Peolsi for her hyjinks in bringing bills to the
floor in the dead of night that no one has had a chance to read ?
>
> At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> and the negotiation. If the Republicans take out the language that
> strips collective bargaining rights from public sector unions, the
> Democrats will return. As long as the Republicans continue to insist
> that there will be no negotiations, the Democrats have no choice but
> to stay away. What they are? doing is much more than "hiding in
> Rockford". They are playing a powerful card in order to defend the
> rights of Wisconsin's teachers and municipal workers.
Don't you mean defend their source of campaign funds ?
Phlip
> Don't you mean defend their source of campaign funds ?
CNN reports the crowd in Madison at >100,000.
How'd the astroturfers do? To match that crowd, the Koch Bros would
need to pay for 1,000 buses. From all over the US, not just Wisconsin.
Pepe Le Jew
<ff181e5f-5ac5-4338...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
A nuance that is lost on the general public watching the spectacle of
government workers rebelling while on the payroll, that's going over
really, really well.
Unfortunately, the unionized educators have decided to re-open the
schools tomorrow, bringing to a premature end a certain bizarre
spectacle - but they're probably busing in plenty of union muscle and a
bunch of Chicago homeless to keep the pressure up. You want democracy?
The Union will show you some Democracy, pal.
I wonder what the teachers will be discussing in class tomorrow? Fair
and Balanced of course, but the kids will be wondering more about
make-up days they'll have to endure because the Collective Ms. Pickens,
who pulls down some decent scratch by anyone's standards, closed down
the schools to have a hissy-fit.
Gray Ghost
3eeb0e...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Ithink by definition it can't be anonymous.
You really aren't that bright are you?
Gray Ghost
95f91a...@t13g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
The reason the antiunion crowd was so small during the week is the antiunion
people have jobs, which they went to like they were supposed to.
Tom McDonald
> Phlip<phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ffc12a3f-0177-42ee-b306-
> 95f91a...@t13g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Feb 21, 7:38 pm, Tankfixer<paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you mean defend their source of campaign funds ?
>>
>> CNN reports the crowd in Madison at>100,000.
>>
>> How'd the astroturfers do? To match that crowd, the Koch Bros would
>> need to pay for 1,000 buses. From all over the US, not just Wisconsin.
>>
>
> The reason the antiunion crowd was so small during the week is the antiunion
> people have jobs, which they went to like they were supposed to.
>
Until the weekend, which they have off courtesy of unions.
--
Tom
Tankfixer
95f91a...@t13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, - Phlip phli...@gmail.com
spouted !
You do know those protesters are being bussed and flown in from around
the country ?
New York's Teamsters Local 237 to bus in support to union protestors in
Wisconsin
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/02/21/2011-02-21
_new_yorks_teamsters_local_237
_to_bus_in_support_to_union_protestors_in_wisconsin.html
Tankfixer
Jew Pep...@zionet.com spouted !
>
> In article
> <ff181e5f-5ac5-4338...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 3:37Â pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> > > and the negotiation.
> >
> > And it's more constitutional than, say, an anonymous Senate filibuster
> > of 1.
>
>
> A nuance that is lost on the general public watching the spectacle of
> government workers rebelling while on the payroll, that's going over
> really, really well.
It was a spectacle...
>
> Unfortunately, the unionized educators have decided to re-open the
> schools tomorrow, bringing to a premature end a certain bizarre
> spectacle - but they're probably busing in plenty of union muscle and a
> bunch of Chicago homeless to keep the pressure up. You want democracy?
> The Union will show you some Democracy, pal.
I'd make it easy for em to protest.
I'd fire any public employee that didn't show up for their scheduled
work shift.
Jarbidge
They into us for that too?
Phlip
> >> The reason the antiunion crowd was so small during the week is the
> >> antiunion people have jobs, which they went to like they were supposed
> >> to.
>
> > Until the weekend, which they have off courtesy of unions.
>
> They into us for that too?
Are you aware, before the labor movements of the 1890s, the lower
classes, including children, worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a week?
(And nothing was open on Sunday due to Blue Laws...)
And when they marched, protested, and died to get better working
conditions. And when they did, scabs like you jeered them and called
them "lazy"...
Jarbidge
> On Feb 21, 9:24Â pm, Jarbidge <c...@neva.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> The reason the antiunion crowd was so small during the week is the
>> >> antiunion people have jobs, which they went to like they were
>> >> supposed to.
>>
>> > Until the weekend, which they have off courtesy of unions.
>>
>> They into us for that too?
>
> Are you aware, before the labor movements of the 1890s,
I don't need ancient history replayed in the 21st century, dippy.
Try and get with reality.
Or does your Guild master own your children too?
Phlip
> I'd fire any public employee that didn't show up for their scheduled
> work shift.
So much for defending the little guy from the depredations of big
gov't, huh?
Jarbidge
About how much playing hookie you figure 'WE the people' need to pay for?
Gray Ghost
And you beleive that in the modern age businesses that required you to work
7 days a week would still have employees?
Gray Ghost
514084...@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
Are you aware that it is 2011, much of the work is done in an office,
children are in school and that anyone who required 10 hours a day, 6 days
a week wouldn't have many employees?
Back in DC a contractor, in order to reduce his per hour billing rate to
the fed, required his employees to work 50 hours, 10 hours a day 5 days a
week. So I quit and easily found work elsewhere.
Why do I need to give some thug a percentage of my salary?
Jarbidge
Sure...robotic ones...lol!
They already do, visit any processed food maker.
Oh, when they can unionize robots!
Jarbidge
Sound thinking.
Phlip
wrote:
> Are you aware that it is 2011, much of the work is done in an office,
> children are in school and that anyone who required 10 hours a day, 6 days
> a week wouldn't have many employees?
Are you aware how naive you are? This post lead to lawsuits, and
_almost_ changed an industry. But they still do this crap:
http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/
EA: The Human Story
My significant other works for Electronic Arts, and I'm what you might
call a disgruntled spouse.
EA's bright and shiny new corporate trademark is "Challenge
Everything." Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one
licensed football game after another doesn't sound like challenging
much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm. To any EA
executive that happens to read this, I have a good challenge for you:
how about safe and sane labor practices for the people on whose backs
you walk for your millions?
I am retaining some anonymity here because I have no illusions about
what the consequences would be for my family if I was explicit.
However, I also feel no impetus to shy away from sharing our story,
because I know that it is too common to stick out among those of the
thousands of engineers, artists, and designers that EA employs.
Our adventures with Electronic Arts began less than a year ago. The
small game studio that my partner worked for collapsed as a result of
foul play on the part of a big publisher -- another common story.
Electronic Arts offered a job, the salary was right and the benefits
were good, so my SO took it. I remember that they asked him in one of
the interviews: "how do you feel about working long hours?" It's just
a part of the game industry -- few studios can avoid a crunch as
deadlines loom, so we thought nothing of it. When asked for specifics
about what "working long hours" meant, the interviewers coughed and
glossed on to the next question; now we know why.
Within weeks production had accelerated into a 'mild' crunch: eight
hours six days a week. Not bad. Months remained until any real crunch
would start, and the team was told that this "pre-crunch" was to
prevent a big crunch toward the end; at this point any other need for
a crunch seemed unlikely, as the project was dead on schedule. I don't
know how many of the developers bought EA's explanation for the
extended hours; we were new and naive so we did. The producers even
set a deadline; they gave a specific date for the end of the crunch,
which was still months away from the title's shipping date, so it
seemed safe. That date came and went. And went, and went. When the
next news came it was not about a reprieve; it was another
acceleration: twelve hours six days a week, 9am to 10pm.
Weeks passed. Again the producers had given a termination date on this
crunch that again they failed. Throughout this period the project
remained on schedule. The long hours started to take its toll on the
team; people grew irritable and some started to get ill. People
dropped out in droves for a couple of days at a time, but then the
team seemed to reach equilibrium again and they plowed ahead. The
managers stopped even talking about a day when the hours would go back
to normal.
Now, it seems, is the "real" crunch, the one that the producers of
this title so wisely prepared their team for by running them into the
ground ahead of time. The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm --
seven days a week -- with the occasional Saturday evening off for good
behavior (at 6:30pm). This averages out to an eighty-five hour work
week. Complaints that these once more extended hours combined with the
team's existing fatigue would result in a greater number of mistakes
made and an even greater amount of wasted energy were ignored.
...
Gray Ghost
e972fd...@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
So he got the signal in the interview. And he continues to work for them.
So he worked 70+ hours a week for months on end without getting overtime?
What kind of an idiot is he?
Why would anyone continue to work under those conditions? How could they
continue to produce good code under those conditions? Why don't the
developers get together on thier own and walk out?
Hell, my work product would suffer tremendously under those circumstances.
Gaming isn't missile defense, we don't actually need it.
But then following the links it seems EA was sued, though none suggests the
result. It seems that what they were doing was ILLEGAL already according to
California law.
Programmers are normally an arrogant self important bunch, usually very
smart, clever, creative with fairly well developed reasoning and problem
solving skills. To stay in that environment is self destructive and foolish
in the extreme. I get what was said in the other articles about the gaming
industry, but you know what? That's the market.
Exactly why do we need a bunch of thugs to leach away more of of salary
when there is a ready remedy? Quit, go elsewhere. Maybe find a different
line of work.
I didn't realize it was a prison and he couldn't leave.
Tankfixer
4462b5...@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, - Phlip phli...@gmail.com
spouted !
>
Your employer lets you just not show up for work any time you chose ?
Tankfixer
Ghost grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com spouted !
When I was working for a painting contractor we would sometimes put in 7
day weeks, when the job required it.
We also would work split shifts or overnight on jobs where a business
needed to stay open during the day.
He made it worth our while...
A smart employer does that sort of thing.
Gray Ghost
4462b5...@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com:
How about protecting the citizens from a bunch of people who won't show up
for work?
Ya know if we can go a couple of weeks without 'em maybe we don't really
ne4ed 'em at all.
my name ain't Earl
> On 2/21/2011 3:38 PM, Sp Qr wrote:
>> HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
>> hiding out in Rockford
>>
>> OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
>> that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
>> Rockford where they're hiding.
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/scott-walker-to-democrats-the-arena-is-madison-not-hiding-out-rockford
>>
>
> That's disengenuous of Walker. He has the votes, and there will be no
> useful debate. That's clear from everything he's said, and from what the
> Republican state senators have said.
>
> If the Democrats just rolled over, that would be cowardice. But I don't
> expect you or your pals to agree.
Teachers get paid too much for what they do. Just like Obama.
my name ain't Earl
> Grendel wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 3:45 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2011 3:38 PM, Sp Qr wrote:
>>>
>>>> HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
>>>> hiding out in Rockford
>>>> OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
>>>> that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
>>>> Rockford where they're hiding.
>>>>
>>> That's disengenuous of Walker. He has the votes, and there will be no
>>> useful
>>> debate. That's clear from everything he's said, and from what the
>>> Republican
>>> state senators have said.
>>>
>>> If the Democrats just rolled over, that would be cowardice. But I don't
>>> expect you or your pals to agree.
>>> Tom
>>
>> "Elections have consequences."-Obama
>>
>> They lost. They are in the minority. That's the risk you have in a
>> representative republic.
>>
>> The SHOULD have faced up to it like men. Shown up at the legislature,
>> recorded their objections, and voted against it. THEN the could have
>> said "We were brave. We stood up for the people." and had the
>> legislation been an abject failure, they would have their record to
>> run on.
>>
>> THAT'S
>>
>> HOW
>>
>> THE
>>
>> SYSTEM
>>
>> WORKS.
>
>
> Actually, the Wisconsin Dems are playing by the rules. The GOPers like
> those query little rules that the US Senate has that prevented the
> Democrats from instilling their agenda for 2 years at the federal level
> when they had a massive majority, now they squeal like little school
> girls when their agenda is frustrated in Wisconsin by similar state
> Senate rules. The Democrats have offered a deep concession compromise
> and the GOPers refuse to bend holding out for union busting at all
> costs. I think the Dems should stay away until the next election.
>
They should stay away forever and let Wisconsin move forward by the will
of the majority. See what happens at bargaining time.
Jarbidge
He makes the same salary Bush did.
Phlip
> > Teachers get paid too much for what they do. Just like Obama.
>
> He makes the same salary Bush did.
C-;
Jarbidge
Well...he does.
Spartakus
> Spartakus sparta...@my-deja.com spouted !
> > Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
> > > hiding out in Rockford
> > >
> > > OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
> > > that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
> > > Rockford where they're hiding.
> > Walker is blowing smoke out his ass. Â He has made it clear that there
> > will be no debate and no negotiation. Â That's not how a democratically
> > elected legislature is meant to do business. Â Every member of the
> > legislature should have the opportunity to read the bills presented,
> > debate them, offer amendments and negotiate. Â The Republicans denied
> > the Democrats that opportunity. Â In fact, many of the Democrats in the
> > State Senate did not even learn of the bill's existence until a few
> > minutes before the leader of the senate called for a vote.
> Excelent point..
> Do you fault the Madam Peolsi for her hyjinks in bringing bills to the
> floor in the dead of night that no one has had a chance to read ?
Document or retract.
> > At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> > and the negotiation. Â If the Republicans take out the language that
> > strips collective bargaining rights from public sector unions, the
> > Democrats will return. Â As long as the Republicans continue to insist
> > that there will be no negotiations, the Democrats have no choice but
> > to stay away.  What they are? doing is much more than  "hiding in
> > Rockford". Â They are playing a powerful card in order to defend the
> > rights of Wisconsin's teachers and municipal workers.
> Don't you mean defend their source of campaign funds ?
Excellent point. So you're OK with Republicans using public policy to
dismantle an important part of the Democrats' support infrastructure,
thus tilting the playing field in favor of the Koch Brothers and other
billionaires?
Spartakus
> >> At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> >> and the negotiation.
> > And it's more constitutional than, say, an anonymous Senate filibuster
> > of 1.
> I think by definition it can't be anonymous.
You think wrong. One Senator can put an anonymous hold on most any
business before the Senate.
> You really aren't that bright are you?
ROTFL!
Grendel
> Grendel wrote:
> >> Grendel wrote:
> >>>> On 2/21/2011 3:38 PM, Sp Qr wrote:
> >>>>> HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
> >>>>> hiding out in Rockford
> >>>>> OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
> >>>>> that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
> >>>>> Rockford where they're hiding.
> >>>> That's disengenuous of Walker. He has the votes, and there will be no useful
> >>>> debate. That's clear from everything he's said, and from what the Republican
> >>>> state senators have said.
> >>>> If the Democrats just rolled over, that would be cowardice. But I don't
> >>>> expect you or your pals to agree.
> >>>> Tom
> >>> "Elections have consequences."-Obama
> >>> They lost. Â They are in the minority. Â That's the risk you have in a
> >>> representative republic.
> >>> The SHOULD have faced up to it like men. Â Shown up at the legislature,
> >>> recorded their objections, and voted against it. Â THEN the could have
> >>> said "We were brave. Â We stood up for the people." and had the
> >>> legislation been an abject failure, they would have their record to
> >>> run on.
> >>> THAT'S
> >>> HOW
> >>> THE
> >>> SYSTEM
> >>> WORKS.
> >> Actually, the Wisconsin Dems are playing by the rules.
>
> > majority is doing, run like little pussies."
>
> It is the one that says that the Senate needs a super majority to be
> present to make a quorum (you'll need to look this term up since you so
> obviously have no clue).
>
> You apparently don't understand the process (or much else for that
> matter, idiot).
Apparently you don't either.
Wisconsin Senate Rule 16: Leave of absence: Members of the senate may
not be absent from the daily session during the entire day without
first obtaining a leave of absence. The leave may be granted at any
time by a majority vote of the senate.
Did the Dim 14 obtain a leave of absence? No? Seems like the are
breaking the law. (to the point where they had to flee the STATE to be
out of reach of LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS).
The Dim 14 are not heros, but whiney little pussies.
> >> The GOPers like
> >> those query little rules that the US Senate has that prevented the
> >> Democrats from instilling their agenda for 2 years at the federal level
> >> when they had a massive majority,
>
> > So, you can point out where the Federal Republicans ran from D.C. like
> > little the little pussies of WI?
>
> Different rules. They didn't have to be absent to frustrate the majority.
But they FOLLOWED THE LAW. The DIM 14 are BREAKING THE LAW.
See the difference?
> >> now they squeal like little school
> >> girls when their agenda is frustrated in Wisconsin by similar state
> >> Senate rules.
>
> > Again, please cite the 'Run away like little pussies so we can subvert
> > the will of the majority" rule.
>
> I'm not familiar with the specific rule for the Wisconsin legislature.
Nor familiar with much, are you. The rules SPECIFICALLY say that
Wisonsin Senators must attend a scheduled meeting of the Senate.
There are only two (2) rules that allow a Senator to be absent.
Rule 16: Leave of Absence (they did not obtain a leave of absence)
Rule 23: Committee not to be absent. Members of a committee, except a
conference committee, may not be absent by reason of their appointment
during the sitting of the senate, without special leave. (seeing as
they are not part of a Conference Committee, this rule does not apply
to the Dim 14)
So, again, the Dim 14 are BREAKING the RULES and the LAW.
> Needless to say (for sentient folk) the rule must call for a certain
> number of members to make a quorum, >
The Rules also state that Senators MUST ATTEND!!
> OR ELSE THE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAD
> THEIR WAY BY NOW
"Elections have consequences."-Obama
But you would like that to mean ""Elections have consequences. Unless
I'm on the wrong side of the election."
If the Dim 14 wanted to be heros, they would do the bidding of the
majority of their state, do what legally they should be doing
(attending to Senate business) and QUIT doing the bidding of the Labor
Union Leadership.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Jarbidge
>> Do you fault the Madam Peolsi for her hyjinks in bringing bills to the
>> floor in the dead of night that no one has had a chance to read ?
>
> Document or retract.
http://www.dailypaul.com/113812/pelosi-health-care-bill-passes-in-the-
dead-of-night-220-215
Pelosi Health Care Bill Passes in the dead of night; 220-215
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2368792/
health_care_reform_passes_house_in.html
As is traditional for attempts at theft, the House version of health care
reform passed in the dead of night. The way was cleared for the passage
of
health care reform after the Stupak Amendment banned funding for elective
abortions.
Gray Ghost
2a32e0...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
>> Spartakus sparta...@my-deja.com spouted !
>> > Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
>> > > hiding out in Rockford
>> > >
>> > > OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State
Senators
>> > > that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
>> > > Rockford where they're hiding.
>
>> > Walker is blowing smoke out his ass. Â He has made it clear that there
>> > will be no debate and no negotiation. Â That's not how a democraticall
> y
>> > elected legislature is meant to do business. Â Every member of the
>> > legislature should have the opportunity to read the bills presented,
>> > debate them, offer amendments and negotiate. Â The Republicans denied
>> > the Democrats that opportunity. Â In fact, many of the Democrats in th
> e
>> > State Senate did not even learn of the bill's existence until a few
>> > minutes before the leader of the senate called for a vote.
>
>> Excelent point..
>> Do you fault the Madam Peolsi for her hyjinks in bringing bills to the
>> floor in the dead of night that no one has had a chance to read ?
>
> Document or retract.
Are you that stupid or do you think that everyone else is?
Do you think that noone remembers how it was passed? Really?
>
>> > At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
>> > and the negotiation. Â If the Republicans take out the language that
>> > strips collective bargaining rights from public sector unions, the
>> > Democrats will return. Â As long as the Republicans continue to insist
>> > that there will be no negotiations, the Democrats have no choice but
>> > to stay away.  What they are? doing is much more than  "hiding in
>> > Rockford". Â They are playing a powerful card in order to defend the
>> > rights of Wisconsin's teachers and municipal workers.
>
>> Don't you mean defend their source of campaign funds ?
>
> Excellent point. So you're OK with Republicans using public policy to
> dismantle an important part of the Democrats' support infrastructure,
> thus tilting the playing field in favor of the Koch Brothers and other
> billionaires?
Same tired crap. YAWN! Billionaire! Koch Bros! JOOZ!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Pepe Le Jew
Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff181e5f-5ac5-4338-9495-
> 3eeb0e...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Feb 21, 3:37Â pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> >> and the negotiation.
> >
> > And it's more constitutional than, say, an anonymous Senate filibuster
> > of 1.
> >
>
> Ithink by definition it can't be anonymous.
>
> You really aren't that bright are you?
Perhaps this is his Senator:
An Elder Statesman:
Tankfixer
@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, - Spartakus spar...@my-deja.com spouted
!
>
> Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
> > Spartakus sparta...@my-deja.com spouted !
> > > Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
> > > > hiding out in Rockford
> > > >
> > > > OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
> > > > that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
> > > > Rockford where they're hiding.
>
> > > Walker is blowing smoke out his ass. Â He has made it clear that there
> > > will be no debate and no negotiation. Â That's not how a democratically
> > > elected legislature is meant to do business. Â Every member of the
> > > legislature should have the opportunity to read the bills presented,
> > > debate them, offer amendments and negotiate. Â The Republicans denied
> > > the Democrats that opportunity. Â In fact, many of the Democrats in the
> > > State Senate did not even learn of the bill's existence until a few
> > > minutes before the leader of the senate called for a vote.
>
> > Excelent point..
> > Do you fault the Madam Peolsi for her hyjinks in bringing bills to the
> > floor in the dead of night that no one has had a chance to read ?
>
> Document or retract.
Are you saying you were alseep during the entire health care fiasco ?
>
> > > At this point, leaving the state to prevent a quorum *is* the debate
> > > and the negotiation. Â If the Republicans take out the language that
> > > strips collective bargaining rights from public sector unions, the
> > > Democrats will return. Â As long as the Republicans continue to insist
> > > that there will be no negotiations, the Democrats have no choice but
> > > to stay away.  What they are? doing is much more than  "hiding in
> > > Rockford". Â They are playing a powerful card in order to defend the
> > > rights of Wisconsin's teachers and municipal workers.
>
> > Don't you mean defend their source of campaign funds ?
>
> Excellent point. So you're OK with Republicans using public policy to
> dismantle an important part of the Democrats' support infrastructure,
> thus tilting the playing field in favor of the Koch Brothers and other
> billionaires?
You mean leveling the playting field...
Tom McDonald
Seven out of the top 10 donors to political campaigns donate almost
exclusively to the Republican party. The other three are unions, and they
are somewhere in the middle to bottom of that pack.
If the unions get busted, Citizens' United will assure that all of the major
players are right-wing.
So, no, not leveling the playing field at all.
--
Tom
Tankfixer
tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
Really..
Where are you picking that data from ?
>
> If the unions get busted, Citizens' United will assure that all of the major
> players are right-wing.
Really..
How does that court decision prevent some other group from raising funds
just as the unions do ?
In fact what would prevent the unions from continuing to raise and
donate ?
Bluesfan2U
But I do understand the process, and the particulars.
>
> Wisconsin Senate Rule 16: Leave of absence: Members of the senate may
> not be absent from the daily session during the entire day without
> first obtaining a leave of absence. The leave may be granted at any
> time by a majority vote of the senate.
>
> Did the Dim 14 obtain a leave of absence? No? Seems like the are
> breaking the law.
Law???
> (to the point where they had to flee the STATE to be
> out of reach of LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS).
Really?
>
> The Dim 14 are not heros, but whiney little pussies.
Apparently you disrespect women.
>
>
>>>> The GOPers like
>>>> those query little rules that the US Senate has that prevented the
>>>> Democrats from instilling their agenda for 2 years at the federal level
>>>> when they had a massive majority,
>>> So, you can point out where the Federal Republicans ran from D.C. like
>>> little the little pussies of WI?
>> Different rules. They didn't have to be absent to frustrate the majority.
>
> But they FOLLOWED THE LAW. The DIM 14 are BREAKING THE LAW.
Law???
>
> See the difference?
The Democrats are not breaking a law. They are bending a RULE. Can you
tell the difference?
There is question as to whether they are even bending a rule too. Rules,
as I'm sure you do not know, have to be enforceable to have validity.
Rule 16 does call for members to attend unless excused by the majority
however the only sanction that is available to enforce the rule requires
a vote by 2/3rds of the membership Wisconsin Constitution Article IV,
Section 8). That sanction is expulsion. I'm sure that you don't realize
that there could be no expulsion with almost half of the Senate's
membership voting not to expel themselves.
If anybody was breaking a law it was Senate President Ellis and Governor
Walker by sending uniformed state troopers out of state to attempt to
arrest / intimidate Minority Leader Miller. The Wisconsin State
Constitution expressly provides immunity to members of the legislature
from arrest (except for violent crime) while the legislature is in
session (Article IV, Sec. 15). I think that was a thuggish move worthy
of Storm Troopers.
>
>>>> now they squeal like little school
>>>> girls when their agenda is frustrated in Wisconsin by similar state
>>>> Senate rules.
>>> Again, please cite the 'Run away like little pussies so we can subvert
>>> the will of the majority" rule.
>> I'm not familiar with the specific rule for the Wisconsin legislature.
>
> Nor familiar with much, are you.
But I am.
> The rules SPECIFICALLY say that
> Wisonsin Senators must attend a scheduled meeting of the Senate.
> There are only two (2) rules that allow a Senator to be absent.
>
> Rule 16: Leave of Absence (they did not obtain a leave of absence)
> Rule 23: Committee not to be absent. Members of a committee, except a
> conference committee, may not be absent by reason of their appointment
> during the sitting of the senate, without special leave. (seeing as
> they are not part of a Conference Committee, this rule does not apply
> to the Dim 14)
>
> So, again, the Dim 14 are BREAKING the RULES and the LAW.
Which law? Give us the statute number...
They are bending a rule. A rule that states no determining authority,
nor sanction. Lets see the majority try to enforce it.
>
>> Needless to say (for sentient folk) the rule must call for a certain
>> number of members to make a quorum, >
>
> The Rules also state that Senators MUST ATTEND!!
As it turns out, it is the constitution, not a Senate rule, that demands
the attendance of 3/5this of the members to constitute a quorum for the
type of bill that is under consideration (Article 8, Section 8).
So let's see the Senate try to enforce its unenforceable rule.
The point is that unenforceable rules are not rules at all.
>
>> OR ELSE THE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAD
>> THEIR WAY BY NOW
>
> "Elections have consequences."-Obama
>
> But you would like that to mean ""Elections have consequences. Unless
> I'm on the wrong side of the election."
I'm game. Let's have the Democrats stay away for 2 years until the next
election and then see what happens.
That, of course, could happen but most likely will not. The Democrats
have offered the Governor and the majority everything that they have
asked for except for the elimination of the union busting rights to
collective bargaining. The Governor has nothing to stand on, and his
true motivations is now clear. He is out to subvert working men and
women in his state by robbing them of parity with their employers.
>
> If the Dim 14 wanted to be heros, they would do the bidding of the
> majority of their state, do what legally
Legally? You have trouble keeping things straight, I see. Legally they
are free to be absent.
> they should be doing
> (attending to Senate business) and QUIT doing the bidding of the Labor
> Union Leadership.
They are heroes already.
RD Sandman
news:8X_8p.98716$Gq3....@newsfe09.iad:
Hmmm, you think George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, Rob Glaser, Linda
Pritzker and Mark Buell or Bill Gates, for example, will contribute to
the right wing?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
History shows that today's bailout will become
tomorrow's entitlement.
Tom McDonald
Don't know. But, as I wrote, if the unions get busted, the top political
contributors will be rich folks mainly donating to Republicans. That is a
fact. You might or might not enjoy that fact. I hope it gives you pause.
--
Tom
RD Sandman
I would be interested in that 'fact'....or actually, I would be more
interested in why you think rich liberals won't donate to the Democrats.
You might or might not enjoy that fact. I
> hope it gives you pause.
I don't agree with some of the unions do, I don't think that they are as
needed as they once were and they do have some problems of their own. I
also think there is a difference between private sector unions and public
sector unions.....not only in how they operate but whether or not it is
really a level playing field between unions and 'management'.
SaPeIsMa
news:6Yc9p.60942$6J5....@newsfe05.iad...
Doesn't give me any pause at all, because it's an IGNORANT LIE.
You should look up the rich Democrats who "contribute"..
Tom McDonald
Never said that there aren't a bunch of rich folks who mainly donate to
Democrats. I'm sure there is.
But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten funders of
political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost exclusively Republicans.
Where is the lie, Sal?
--
Tom
Pepe Le Jew
Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
> If the unions get busted, Citizens' United will assure that all of the major
> players are right-wing.
Maybe I'm not totally up on this issue, but why would any public-sector
union lose financial clout in politics just because they are barred from
collective bargaining?
Tankfixer
tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten funders of
> political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost exclusively Republicans.
>
>
I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
Tankfixer
Jew Pep...@zionet.com spouted !
They couldn't coerce members into contributing..
Since the employees would toss the parasites out on their ear.
Tom McDonald
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
Juan Williams agreed that it was fact.
--
Tom
Jarbidge
Well that must make it fact!
Jarbidge
Cite?
Tom McDonald
Fox also stated that as fact. If you don't believe either outfit, I think
you can be dismissed.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
Shep Smith's show today.
--
Tom
Jarbidge
Cite them, please.
Jarbidge
Url please.
I'll view the segment in you link it.
Gray Ghost
Don't expect one. Tom makes a lot of "claims" that he doesn't support.
Jarbidge
> Jarbidge <c...@neva.invalid> wrote in news:4d65...@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:34:11 -0600, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2011 9:29 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2011 9:27 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>> In article<4tg9p.15538$Y63....@newsfe02.iad>, - Tom McDonald
>>>>> tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
>>>>>> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten
>>>>>> funders of political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost
>>>>>> exclusively Republicans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being
>>>> challenged.
>>>>
>>> And I just saw it used on Fox News by Shep Smith. He stated it as
>>> fact, and Juan Williams agreed that it was fact.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>>
> Don't expect one. Tom makes a lot of "claims" that he doesn't support.
If he has it, I'll verify it.
Tom McDonald
Nope. You are not a serious person.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
> Jarbidge<c...@neva.invalid> wrote in news:4d65...@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:34:11 -0600, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2011 9:29 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2011 9:27 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>> In article<4tg9p.15538$Y63....@newsfe02.iad>, - Tom McDonald
>>>>> tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
>>>>>> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten
>>>>>> funders of political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost
>>>>>> exclusively Republicans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being
>>>> challenged.
>>>>
>>> And I just saw it used on Fox News by Shep Smith. He stated it as fact,
>>> and Juan Williams agreed that it was fact.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>
> Don't expect one. Tom makes a lot of "claims" that he doesn't support.
>
Phuque you. I have seen both the MSNBC and the Fox folks state this as fact,
and you can follow up on eithers web site.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
I've checked the Shepard Smith page on Fox, and the segment with Juan
Williams is not on it. There are very few segments from today's show on the
site. If you know a way to find all his segments, I'll be happy to check on
this. Or you can use your skills yourself to find that segment.
--
Tom
Jarbidge
That's cowardly.
I keep my word.
Jarbidge
But you can't?
I smell a rat!
Jarbidge
Iow, you have no real proof.
Tankfixer
>
> On 2/23/2011 9:27 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article<4tg9p.15538$Y63....@newsfe02.iad>, - Tom McDonald
> > tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
> >> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten funders of
> >> political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost exclusively Republicans.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
> >
> >
> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being challenged.
MSNBC....
Uh hu, right...
Tankfixer
I prefer articles over TV talking heads...
Tankfixer
Ghost grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com spouted !
>
> Jarbidge <c...@neva.invalid> wrote in news:4d65...@news.x-privat.org:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:34:11 -0600, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/23/2011 9:29 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >>> On 2/23/2011 9:27 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
> >>>> In article<4tg9p.15538$Y63....@newsfe02.iad>, - Tom McDonald
> >>>> tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
> >>>>> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten
> >>>>> funders of political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost
> >>>>> exclusively Republicans.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being
> >>> challenged.
> >>>
> >> And I just saw it used on Fox News by Shep Smith. He stated it as fact,
> >> and Juan Williams agreed that it was fact.
> >
> > Cite?
> >
>
> Don't expect one. Tom makes a lot of "claims" that he doesn't support.
He's done a good bit of dancing.
Tankfixer
> On 2/23/2011 9:54 PM, Jarbidge wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:29:15 -0600, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/23/2011 9:27 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
> >>> In article<4tg9p.15538$Y63....@newsfe02.iad>, - Tom McDonald
> >>> tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
> >>>> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten funders
> >>>> of political activities support mainly Republicans. Almost exclusively
> >>>> Republicans.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being challenged.
> >
> > Well that must make it fact!
>
> Fox also stated that as fact. If you don't believe either outfit, I think
> you can be dismissed.
Since when do progressives take Fox's word for something ?
Phlip
> > >> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being challenged.
>
> > > Well that must make it fact!
>
> > Fox also stated that as fact. If you don't believe either outfit, I think
> > you can be dismissed.
>
> Since when do progressives take Fox's word for something ?
You are confused about the expression "take my word for it". That
means "believe it WITHOUT corroboration".
Answer? Never.
Gray Ghost
Lieing is as natural as breathing to you, ain't it?
my name ain't Earl
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:04:50 -0700, my name ain't Earl wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2011 2:45 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2011 3:38 PM, Sp Qr wrote:
>>>> HEADLINE: Scott Walker to Democrats: The arena is in Madison, not
>>>> hiding out in Rockford
>>>>
>>>> OVERVIEW: Wisconsin's Scott Walker tells the idiot Dem State Senators
>>>> that the arena for debate is in Madison, not in some little motel in
>>>> Rockford where they're hiding.
>>>>
>>>> LINK:
>>>> http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/scott-walker-
> to-democrats-the-arena-is-madison-not-hiding-out-rockford
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's disengenuous of Walker. He has the votes, and there will be no
>>> useful debate. That's clear from everything he's said, and from what
>>> the Republican state senators have said.
>>>
>>> If the Democrats just rolled over, that would be cowardice. But I don't
>>> expect you or your pals to agree.
>>
>> Teachers get paid too much for what they do. Just like Obama.
>
> He makes the same salary Bush did.
But he is lazy and grossly incompetent, besides being a foreign national.
my name ain't Earl
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:57:01 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 9:09 am, Jarbidge<c...@neva.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Teachers get paid too much for what they do. Just like Obama.
>>>
>>> He makes the same salary Bush did.
>>
>
> Well...he does.
But he doesn't do it well.
bpuharic
racist
Jarbidge
Date Total Public Debt Outstanding
12/31/2008 10,699,804,864,612.10
1/2/2009 10,627,961,295,930.60
1/5/2009 10,635,512,060,907.10
1/6/2009 10,638,425,746,293.80
1/7/2009 10,635,772,096,222.70
1/8/2009 10,608,325,323,172.50
1/9/2009 10,609,758,567,607.10
1/12/2009 10,609,790,681,008.40
1/13/2009 10,613,904,888,048.10
1/14/2009 10,605,968,804,933.40
1/15/2009 10,627,708,753,691.40
1/16/2009 10,628,881,485,510.20
1/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.00
1/21/2009 10,625,053,544,309.70
1/22/2009 10,618,718,703,374.70
1/23/2009 10,620,397,126,433.50
1/26/2009 10,620,857,710,762.30
1/27/2009 10,626,078,634,370.50
1/28/2009 10,617,861,263,183.30
1/29/2009 10,626,297,420,130.80
1/30/2009 10,632,005,246,736.90
2/2/2009 10,667,963,268,393.20
2/3/2009 10,668,643,381,356.90
2/4/2009 10,669,192,308,562.40
2/5/2009 10,717,998,123,287.70
2/6/2009 10,717,280,371,345.80
2/9/2009 10,717,726,200,848.10
2/10/2009 10,721,365,792,566.20
2/11/2009 10,713,124,215,572.20
2/12/2009 10,759,196,587,563.40
2/13/2009 10,759,016,081,652.90
2/17/2009 10,789,783,760,341.40
2/18/2009 10,789,925,775,196.70
2/19/2009 10,802,021,982,124.70
2/20/2009 10,838,758,414,164.40
2/23/2009 10,839,526,591,486.90
2/24/2009 10,843,355,058,860.90
2/25/2009 10,837,499,231,127.10
2/26/2009 10,881,159,722,022.30
2/27/2009 10,877,144,501,237.50
3/2/2009 10,942,165,294,650.80
3/3/2009 10,943,838,929,434.90
3/4/2009 10,944,337,682,981.40
3/5/2009 10,953,034,411,520.10
3/6/2009 10,951,578,308,859.00
3/9/2009 10,952,663,030,603.40
3/10/2009 10,958,408,586,222.40
3/11/2009 10,951,099,637,335.60
3/12/2009 10,983,549,928,728.70
3/13/2009 10,983,750,182,347.20
3/16/2009 11,033,157,578,669.70
3/17/2009 11,042,553,971,450.40
3/18/2009 11,034,225,094,391.00
3/19/2009 11,039,686,130,898.10
3/20/2009 11,040,807,027,558.10
3/23/2009 11,041,711,544,305.30
3/24/2009 11,046,928,257,010.20
3/25/2009 11,037,916,881,157.80
3/26/2009 11,046,247,657,049.40
3/27/2009 11,045,554,110,788.90
3/30/2009 11,043,588,980,678.90
3/31/2009 11,126,941,485,713.30
4/1/2009 11,110,654,357,209.30
4/2/2009 11,124,519,301,253.20
4/3/2009 11,146,566,832,297.30
4/6/2009 11,149,346,771,082.80
4/7/2009 11,152,772,833,835.80
4/8/2009 11,145,352,700,191.50
4/9/2009 11,169,466,380,008.30
4/10/2009 11,169,725,647,724.50
4/13/2009 11,169,978,555,115.40
4/14/2009 11,172,298,738,031.40
4/15/2009 11,218,863,034,278.70
4/16/2009 11,183,899,252,728.00
4/17/2009 11,185,715,978,983.30
4/20/2009 11,189,382,518,232.70
4/21/2009 11,193,459,542,379.90
4/22/2009 11,191,057,364,056.80
4/23/2009 11,184,922,662,862.80
4/24/2009 11,185,300,192,981.20
4/27/2009 11,189,456,636,736.20
4/28/2009 11,194,339,423,305.90
4/29/2009 11,152,922,414,388.20
4/30/2009 11,238,592,141,958.60
5/1/2009 11,208,076,192,300.50
5/4/2009 11,219,969,983,013.60
5/5/2009 11,227,464,371,841.40
5/6/2009 11,226,807,485,330.00
5/7/2009 11,256,266,640,050.20
5/8/2009 11,258,693,795,457.10
5/11/2009 11,260,454,652,131.20
5/12/2009 11,263,799,743,425.90
5/13/2009 11,255,959,564,418.40
5/14/2009 11,270,547,397,564.60
5/15/2009 11,284,110,407,424.50
5/18/2009 11,286,593,315,851.00
5/19/2009 11,293,355,611,258.50
5/20/2009 11,285,462,042,449.60
5/21/2009 11,305,673,498,034.10
5/22/2009 11,301,675,926,828.90
5/26/2009 11,305,594,490,199.60
5/27/2009 11,301,114,877,848.30
5/28/2009 11,311,681,705,086.10
5/29/2009 11,321,599,905,356.40
6/1/2009 11,379,966,189,575.00
6/2/2009 11,382,737,715,925.20
6/3/2009 11,374,265,930,605.70
6/4/2009 11,388,997,387,553.00
6/5/2009 11,387,943,461,664.80
6/8/2009 11,390,254,109,727.10
6/9/2009 11,391,459,255,428.90
6/10/2009 11,383,987,605,139.00
6/11/2009 11,375,626,420,309.60
6/12/2009 11,374,952,729,568.30
6/15/2009 11,400,723,732,452.20
6/16/2009 11,406,012,959,882.50
6/17/2009 11,402,770,228,073.90
6/18/2009 11,399,258,796,766.10
6/19/2009 11,397,711,606,020.00
6/22/2009 11,400,656,567,952.60
6/23/2009 11,407,973,761,151.00
6/24/2009 11,365,652,939,856.30
6/25/2009 11,363,514,364,365.20
6/26/2009 11,362,480,417,393.30
6/29/2009 11,358,401,131,131.40
6/30/2009 11,545,275,346,431.30
7/1/2009 11,518,472,742,288.00
7/2/2009 11,489,560,999,310.70
7/3/2009 11,490,988,069,885.80
7/6/2009 11,520,570,236,023.30
7/7/2009 11,523,843,053,689.90
7/8/2009 11,515,064,224,509.80
7/9/2009 11,526,304,058,825.50
7/10/2009 11,524,606,290,165.00
7/13/2009 11,525,392,902,001.60
7/14/2009 11,528,990,866,940.70
7/15/2009 11,579,428,713,952.50
7/16/2009 11,598,417,943,168.10
7/17/2009 11,600,488,226,683.20
7/20/2009 11,601,270,694,948.60
7/21/2009 11,604,364,019,085.60
7/22/2009 11,595,495,788,840.00
7/23/2009 11,605,521,079,842.10
7/24/2009 11,606,528,598,129.70
7/27/2009 11,607,787,344,879.70
7/28/2009 11,612,707,445,497.10
7/29/2009 11,611,217,335,101.00
7/30/2009 11,581,201,791,282.10
7/31/2009 11,669,251,349,504.60
8/3/2009 11,648,548,144,569.70
8/4/2009 11,659,644,290,011.80
8/5/2009 11,659,077,874,250.30
8/6/2009 11,660,142,454,203.90
8/7/2009 11,658,212,708,636.40
8/10/2009 11,661,947,544,315.80
8/11/2009 11,666,485,985,007.80
8/12/2009 11,658,192,962,449.80
8/13/2009 11,662,830,881,880.00
8/14/2009 11,669,783,083,275.80
8/17/2009 11,682,544,443,828.70
8/18/2009 11,726,594,754,347.90
8/19/2009 11,718,232,402,326.00
8/20/2009 11,720,828,555,380.10
8/21/2009 11,719,258,192,538.90
8/24/2009 11,719,060,925,865.80
8/25/2009 11,730,400,622,450.30
8/26/2009 11,716,563,436,531.30
8/27/2009 11,725,477,836,090.80
8/28/2009 11,718,758,941,630.90
8/31/2009 11,812,870,150,873.50
9/1/2009 11,792,918,170,836.40
9/2/2009 11,797,543,701,288.30
9/3/2009 11,787,062,206,713.50
9/4/2009 11,785,028,226,957.00
9/8/2009 11,787,419,577,736.60
9/9/2009 11,784,424,784,049.60
9/10/2009 11,795,045,980,436.60
9/11/2009 11,794,695,304,981.70
9/14/2009 11,792,615,473,271.70
9/15/2009 11,834,190,645,301.00
9/16/2009 11,827,966,342,208.40
9/17/2009 11,809,239,038,438.40
9/18/2009 11,807,667,118,297.60
9/21/2009 11,811,086,447,487.90
9/22/2009 11,819,629,178,802.20
9/23/2009 11,813,723,781,466.40
9/24/2009 11,770,679,815,806.10
9/25/2009 11,770,698,157,074.20
9/28/2009 11,771,450,693,745.00
9/29/2009 11,776,112,848,656.10
9/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.70
10/1/2009 11,920,519,164,319.40
10/2/2009 11,917,948,701,570.00
10/5/2009 11,919,879,121,739.50
10/6/2009 11,927,435,900,948.90
10/7/2009 11,925,719,527,944.60
10/8/2009 11,898,952,750,944.50
10/9/2009 11,895,799,292,208.40
10/13/2009 11,907,608,545,823.20
10/14/2009 11,903,588,660,952.00
10/15/2009 11,946,703,132,807.30
10/16/2009 11,948,722,543,849.90
10/19/2009 11,952,611,405,769.00
10/20/2009 11,956,584,748,608.50
10/21/2009 11,948,456,481,573.90
10/22/2009 11,896,808,244,570.20
10/23/2009 11,895,889,017,776.10
10/26/2009 11,897,586,393,656.60
10/27/2009 11,901,429,311,747.90
10/28/2009 11,893,668,881,089.00
10/29/2009 11,868,457,477,911.90
10/30/2009 11,893,091,028,361.00
11/2/2009 11,974,737,715,216.10
11/3/2009 11,978,591,612,480.90
11/4/2009 11,978,953,722,825.90
11/5/2009 11,990,561,444,829.40
11/6/2009 11,988,878,801,691.10
11/9/2009 11,990,022,541,364.70
11/10/2009 11,986,954,033,520.50
11/12/2009 11,991,219,535,897.80
11/13/2009 11,991,506,876,413.00
11/16/2009 12,031,299,186,290.00
11/17/2009 12,039,319,107,488.80
11/18/2009 12,030,202,701,513.90
11/19/2009 12,011,787,382,266.60
11/20/2009 12,010,561,742,215.20
11/23/2009 12,011,838,881,463.60
11/24/2009 12,016,320,934,466.70
11/25/2009 12,009,454,244,833.70
11/27/2009 12,008,650,382,616.40
11/30/2009 12,113,047,538,115.40
12/1/2009 12,089,226,465,642.50
12/2/2009 12,090,825,003,370.20
12/3/2009 12,087,361,675,014.70
12/4/2009 12,087,444,121,549.00
12/7/2009 12,086,172,114,368.20
12/8/2009 12,091,292,877,094.80
12/9/2009 12,079,739,352,131.10
12/10/2009 12,092,672,900,402.30
12/11/2009 12,081,709,382,532.30
12/14/2009 12,071,280,871,918.40
12/15/2009 12,134,970,556,795.00
12/16/2009 12,129,073,186,050.20
12/17/2009 12,097,698,782,543.90
12/18/2009 12,097,983,161,366.60
12/21/2009 12,099,243,026,724.50
12/22/2009 12,095,072,597,209.10
12/23/2009 12,102,603,428,507.70
12/24/2009 12,101,272,618,959.00
12/28/2009 12,104,441,214,373.60
12/29/2009 12,100,218,479,276.10
12/30/2009 12,144,893,016,570.40
12/31/2009 12,311,349,677,512.00
1/4/2010 12,290,238,158,257.10
1/5/2010 12,303,300,925,702.10
1/6/2010 12,302,080,159,963.00
1/7/2010 12,280,845,281,517.50
1/8/2010 12,280,604,597,845.50
1/11/2010 12,285,484,345,787.30
1/12/2010 12,291,168,534,193.70
1/13/2010 12,282,274,011,672.10
1/14/2010 12,258,545,028,915.20
1/15/2010 12,319,326,469,724.40
1/19/2010 12,322,107,592,352.90
1/20/2010 12,327,380,804,696.80
1/21/2010 12,300,163,248,044.60
1/22/2010 12,302,465,487,917.30
1/25/2010 12,303,736,486,568.40
1/26/2010 12,308,886,504,801.90
1/27/2010 12,301,772,321,038.00
1/28/2010 12,274,431,428,037.20
1/29/2010 12,278,635,997,966.80
2/1/2010 12,349,463,585,067.40
2/2/2010 12,360,943,989,345.40
2/3/2010 12,354,041,054,846.90
2/4/2010 12,346,427,470,024.00
2/5/2010 12,345,510,656,150.00
2/8/2010 12,347,902,954,531.70
2/9/2010 12,349,467,132,738.40
2/10/2010 12,340,570,199,406.30
2/11/2010 12,349,324,464,284.20
2/12/2010 12,351,624,191,901.00
2/16/2010 12,384,358,013,736.30
2/17/2010 12,386,495,535,882.20
2/18/2010 12,401,448,666,808.30
2/19/2010 12,402,054,835,588.60
2/22/2010 12,403,027,179,655.20
2/23/2010 12,409,374,679,862.00
2/24/2010 12,401,781,166,870.00
2/25/2010 12,433,661,592,275.40
2/26/2010 12,440,068,020,714.40
3/1/2010 12,507,536,462,861.00
3/2/2010 12,519,423,725,485.30
3/3/2010 12,508,944,297,560.50
3/4/2010 12,545,490,013,032.20
3/5/2010 12,544,703,929,352.50
3/8/2010 12,546,372,001,879.70
3/9/2010 12,552,703,515,296.80
3/10/2010 12,544,389,439,808.40
3/11/2010 12,575,479,490,348.40
3/12/2010 12,575,678,862,901.60
3/15/2010 12,636,662,956,140.00
3/16/2010 12,643,701,402,529.50
3/17/2010 12,639,779,478,641.80
3/18/2010 12,661,296,056,307.20
3/19/2010 12,661,039,727,506.60
3/22/2010 12,663,372,436,835.10
3/23/2010 12,670,895,780,689.20
3/24/2010 12,662,466,657,519.80
3/25/2010 12,687,570,153,023.90
3/26/2010 12,685,893,723,805.70
3/29/2010 12,686,249,797,715.00
3/30/2010 12,684,570,896,780.80
3/31/2010 12,773,123,096,139.40
4/1/2010 12,764,878,911,618.10
4/2/2010 12,762,747,199,516.70
4/5/2010 12,786,559,060,352.50
4/6/2010 12,792,967,119,405.50
4/7/2010 12,791,874,548,454.10
4/8/2010 12,826,031,306,447.90
4/9/2010 12,825,687,391,205.70
4/12/2010 12,826,379,456,286.80
4/13/2010 12,831,193,383,690.60
4/14/2010 12,823,492,436,215.10
4/15/2010 12,874,618,766,079.20
4/16/2010 12,877,714,305,798.80
4/19/2010 12,863,049,415,216.30
4/20/2010 12,871,255,665,556.80
4/21/2010 12,865,514,120,486.80
4/22/2010 12,872,601,270,864.40
4/23/2010 12,877,195,922,374.90
4/26/2010 12,880,364,008,405.90
4/27/2010 12,886,315,749,582.90
4/28/2010 12,876,734,073,745.70
4/29/2010 12,853,100,126,888.40
4/30/2010 12,948,738,915,856.80
5/3/2010 12,927,020,546,327.10
5/4/2010 12,940,953,934,792.90
5/5/2010 12,943,495,066,136.10
5/6/2010 12,932,913,325,200.60
5/7/2010 12,928,941,224,629.50
5/10/2010 12,926,785,477,772.90
5/11/2010 12,931,157,737,293.40
5/12/2010 12,923,161,977,864.20
5/13/2010 12,927,411,267,929.20
5/14/2010 12,926,689,780,236.60
5/17/2010 12,974,895,930,216.50
5/18/2010 12,984,666,665,110.50
5/19/2010 12,975,292,327,567.90
5/20/2010 12,987,822,672,429.00
5/21/2010 12,987,796,841,336.50
5/24/2010 12,989,095,409,531.00
5/25/2010 12,995,779,490,444.50
5/26/2010 12,987,274,122,710.70
5/27/2010 12,987,916,782,708.50
5/28/2010 12,992,539,130,957.20
6/1/2010 13,050,826,460,886.90
6/2/2010 13,058,289,851,171.50
6/3/2010 13,056,249,966,400.10
6/4/2010 13,050,588,009,652.60
6/7/2010 13,052,204,878,286.70
6/8/2010 13,056,957,049,453.40
6/9/2010 13,046,148,615,770.70
6/10/2010 13,041,405,343,973.40
6/11/2010 13,041,208,520,697.10
6/14/2010 13,043,148,269,336.40
6/15/2010 13,078,420,280,010.60
6/16/2010 13,073,000,699,429.70
6/17/2010 13,038,877,263,966.70
6/18/2010 13,038,455,716,111.80
6/21/2010 13,040,053,515,762.10
6/22/2010 13,046,652,647,591.80
6/23/2010 13,041,849,923,645.90
6/24/2010 13,038,079,983,718.30
6/25/2010 13,038,305,786,811.20
6/28/2010 13,038,916,836,943.40
6/29/2010 13,037,542,715,703.80
6/30/2010 13,203,473,753,968.10
7/1/2010 13,178,317,356,215.70
7/2/2010 13,175,330,731,664.70
7/6/2010 13,177,644,774,581.60
7/7/2010 13,181,991,714,131.10
7/8/2010 13,192,234,850,314.20
7/9/2010 13,193,854,880,648.00
7/12/2010 13,194,523,014,378.20
7/13/2010 13,199,290,856,204.30
7/14/2010 13,189,505,566,215.80
7/15/2010 13,240,228,521,494.80
7/16/2010 13,239,903,754,450.70
7/19/2010 13,242,893,842,328.70
7/20/2010 13,245,998,461,216.30
7/21/2010 13,237,494,446,894.50
7/22/2010 13,249,153,625,870.30
7/23/2010 13,248,524,997,009.90
7/26/2010 13,252,030,092,034.00
7/27/2010 13,258,280,104,675.60
7/28/2010 13,247,793,649,102.80
7/29/2010 13,246,508,860,572.00
7/30/2010 13,237,726,976,890.00
8/2/2010 13,296,826,659,389.50
8/3/2010 13,301,637,817,150.90
8/4/2010 13,302,301,677,300.10
8/5/2010 13,310,887,351,665.80
8/6/2010 13,310,114,269,532.30
8/9/2010 13,311,250,227,462.80
8/10/2010 13,319,830,936,991.00
8/11/2010 13,307,871,897,992.90
8/12/2010 13,317,048,837,517.10
8/13/2010 13,315,417,951,875.00
8/16/2010 13,356,994,188,341.40
8/17/2010 13,364,739,861,340.50
8/18/2010 13,353,801,011,553.90
8/19/2010 13,363,227,573,941.60
8/20/2010 13,361,739,911,386.50
8/23/2010 13,363,278,285,831.30
8/24/2010 13,371,301,700,295.20
8/25/2010 13,361,354,442,247.90
8/26/2010 13,376,189,739,693.60
8/27/2010 13,375,222,710,985.00
8/30/2010 13,369,841,967,694.30
8/31/2010 13,449,652,537,035.00
9/1/2010 13,426,803,373,412.00
9/2/2010 13,442,057,367,029.20
9/3/2010 13,435,343,171,187.80
9/7/2010 13,438,770,879,030.70
9/8/2010 13,435,355,520,330.40
9/9/2010 13,444,496,046,138.40
9/10/2010 13,441,762,397,157.20
9/13/2010 13,443,442,988,893.40
9/14/2010 13,440,225,498,627.40
9/15/2010 13,498,026,949,136.50
9/16/2010 13,464,896,653,374.10
9/17/2010 13,467,745,270,382.70
9/20/2010 13,469,342,458,134.10
9/21/2010 13,476,661,616,652.10
9/22/2010 13,471,094,170,316.20
9/23/2010 13,463,477,025,087.50
9/24/2010 13,466,818,283,723.40
9/27/2010 13,468,173,874,830.00
9/28/2010 13,472,761,083,757.80
9/29/2010 13,466,272,411,365.60
9/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.70
10/1/2010 13,610,847,585,810.00
10/4/2010 13,617,255,556,356.00
10/5/2010 13,624,352,674,172.70
10/6/2010 13,624,678,196,435.00
10/7/2010 13,615,674,949,267.90
10/8/2010 13,614,052,490,714.70
10/12/2010 13,612,664,732,574.90
10/13/2010 13,612,299,748,993.30
10/14/2010 13,606,947,094,101.90
10/15/2010 13,665,926,643,255.90
10/18/2010 13,668,894,473,093.40
10/19/2010 13,676,109,536,322.00
10/20/2010 13,667,947,376,827.80
10/21/2010 13,667,983,325,978.30
10/22/2010 13,667,624,992,210.90
10/25/2010 13,669,359,903,495.60
10/26/2010 13,673,749,566,734.10
10/27/2010 13,663,891,267,223.30
10/28/2010 13,658,812,457,389.50
10/29/2010 13,668,825,497,341.30
11/1/2010 13,713,087,906,377.30
11/2/2010 13,723,974,060,859.20
11/3/2010 13,718,711,829,904.30
11/4/2010 13,723,439,668,440.10
11/5/2010 13,723,330,060,510.50
11/8/2010 13,725,166,759,183.40
11/9/2010 13,727,147,399,038.50
11/10/2010 13,719,547,683,746.40
11/12/2010 13,721,979,465,685.30
11/15/2010 13,789,013,561,493.70
11/16/2010 13,795,134,710,938.40
11/17/2010 13,789,278,919,702.60
11/18/2010 13,788,455,142,118.00
11/19/2010 13,789,699,194,529.30
11/22/2010 13,794,645,743,594.50
11/23/2010 13,797,004,450,927.60
11/24/2010 13,788,289,275,079.90
11/26/2010 13,794,243,004,364.80
11/29/2010 13,790,302,153,225.80
11/30/2010 13,860,773,759,018.40
12/1/2010 13,834,918,581,977.00
12/2/2010 13,840,966,239,053.10
12/3/2010 13,833,511,738,992.20
12/6/2010 13,834,824,737,060.60
12/7/2010 13,838,490,314,497.60
12/8/2010 13,847,884,133,109.60
12/9/2010 13,846,494,847,569.80
12/10/2010 13,846,685,751,077.10
12/13/2010 13,848,017,156,749.00
12/14/2010 13,852,589,330,911.80
12/15/2010 13,879,785,054,580.10
12/16/2010 13,878,837,351,150.60
12/17/2010 13,883,400,070,159.80
12/20/2010 13,868,461,288,845.80
12/21/2010 13,867,477,082,973.70
12/22/2010 13,858,529,371,601.00
12/23/2010 13,865,176,563,186.30
12/24/2010 13,866,145,290,604.60
12/27/2010 13,874,000,269,245.60
12/28/2010 13,877,230,355,933.00
12/29/2010 13,870,949,681,979.40
12/30/2010 13,871,130,353,817.40
12/31/2010 14,025,215,218,708.50
Jarbidge
So far, agreed, not even close.
Jarbidge
Partial credit, I don't see him as lazy, his competence is low thus far,
and until he relents we'll never know about the foreign national claim.
Jarbidge
Since they decided to disingenuously use it for cover...
Jarbidge
That MSNBC reported no challenge is NOT a surprise!
Tom McDonald
Prove MSNBC has that wrong. Cite, please.
--
Tom
Jarbidge
YOU are the one that owes all of US a cite.
You may begin with Fox News and toss in MSNBC if you wish.
Lacking such, your claims are summarily DISMISSED!
Tom McDonald
Sorry, that would be you. If you are too phuquing lazy to look it up, that's
on you, too.
But if you enjoy living in a fact-free zone, go right ahead.
--
Tom
Jarbidge
YOUR claim, YOUR proof required.
> But if you enjoy living in a fact-free zone, go right ahead.
Insert some of your own, use factual url's to cite them.
Tom McDonald
On maturer reflection, I agree that it is my contention that must be
supported by references. I do not see the Shepard Smith/Juan Williams
segment listed on Fox's web site, and I do not think you'd accept a citation
to an MSNBC segment.
Nevertheless, I did see talking heads on both of those networks say the very
same thing wrt the top 10 PACs in the 2010 midterm elections. Since you
won't take my word for it, and you probably wouldn't accept a reference to
MSNBC's reporting, I'm not able to meet your condition.
--
Tom
Gray Ghost
Basic rule, fou quote it, you provide the evidence. It is not MY job to
prove YOUR statemnts. Particularly when I'm pretty sure they are wrong. But
I will produce evidence to refute what you said AFTER you provide a solid
reference that I can read and make sure it says what you claim it says and
see what exactly the clim is..
Tom McDonald
You are quite right. It looks like Fox does not offer a complete archive of
segments from its shows (unless, perhaps, they have some sort of premium
membership that does provide that), and I don't think you'd accept a link to
an MSNBC segment providing that info. So, unless you accept my word (which
is good, and which you indicated you wouldn't believe if I swore to it on a
stack of your scripture of choice), I'm at a loss.
It is frustrating, knowing what I've seen (multiple times), and not being
able to prove it to your satisfaction. But there we are.
--
Tom
my name ain't Earl
You are lazy and grossly incompetent, besides being an asshole. Is that
racist?
Gray Ghost
> On 2/23/2011 10:14 PM, Jarbidge wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:58:01 -0600, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2011 9:54 PM, Jarbidge wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:34:11 -0600, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2011 9:29 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2011 9:27 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<4tg9p.15538$Y63....@newsfe02.iad>, - Tom McDonald
>>>>>>> tmcdon...@charter.net spouted !
>>>>>>>> But that doesn't change the fact that seven out of the top ten
>>>>>>>> funders of political activities support mainly Republicans.
>>>>>>>> Almost exclusively Republicans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've not seen that "fact" sourced....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been quoted a number of times on MSNBC, without being
>>>>>> challenged.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And I just saw it used on Fox News by Shep Smith. He stated it as
>>>>> fact, and Juan Williams agreed that it was fact.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Shep Smith's show today.
>>
>> Url please.
>>
>> I'll view the segment in you link it.
>
> I've checked the Shepard Smith page on Fox, and the segment with Juan
> Williams is not on it. There are very few segments from today's show on
> the site. If you know a way to find all his segments, I'll be happy to
> check on this. Or you can use your skills yourself to find that segment.
>
Figured as much.
You bozos claim that Fox lies all the time and then you want us to beleive
a segement of fox that noone else has seen? BWAH.
Funny thing I'm pretty sure if the DID say it thier researchers got that
info from SOMEWHERE, docha think? HOW ABOUT A PRIMARY SOURCE??!?!?!?
Dumbass.
Gray Ghost
Who watches MSNBC? all the mind numbed Conservatives are watching Fox and
all the fact checking ZLins are watching Fox.
Phlip
back. If they come back on a non-session day, such as to have hold a
summit meeting...
the legal precedent MIGHT allow Walker to declare a quorum, and then
maintain the quorum when the Dems go back to states with Democrat
governors.
That would turn their votes into no-shows, and give the fascists a
majority in the legislature.
But now his plan won't work, due to the heroism of truth-seekers like
Breitbart and O'Keefe.
Gray Ghost
b61a5c...@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Which, as usual, has nothing to do with the thread we are in.
Phil was dropped on his head repeatedly a baby. As recently as yesterday.