# Scott Walker - Handicapping the GOP hopefuls



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2014)

The third in a series. 

Scott Walker-  

Qualifications- Governor of Wisconsin. 

Pros-  Blue State governor with a record of winning tough races.  Took on the powerful unions and won.  

Cons - Has earned the enmity of unions.  Doesn't have a college degree.  Has a few scandals rattling around in his closet.  

My own opinion, I really don't like what he did with the unions up there.  His view is that gosh darn it, some  unions actually managed to hold on to a Middle Class lifestyle and we can't have that. 

But he did have to make some tough choices.  If I had to vote for a Republican, it would probably be this guy.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 28, 2014)

Not a chance!

He is lacking in way too many crucial areas of leadership in my opinion. As an Independent I am looking at Kasich as being a viable GOP candidate right now. Way better choice that Walker in my opinion.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The third in a series.
> 
> Scott Walker-
> 
> ...



He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 28, 2014)

My first choice John Kasich.
Second Scott Walker.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.



The Public Sector needs unions for the same reason the private sector does.  

Otherwise the boss's drinking buddy get promoted even though you have seniority.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.
> ...



That's what civil service rules are for, not unions. And it the case of unions its the shop steward's drinking buddy that gets promoted. 

Public unions are the bane of local governments, state governments, and federal governments. The people who are paid by the government cannot have undue influence on who is elected to the governments, or the actions they take in the name of the people.


----------



## Votto (Nov 28, 2014)

Jeb?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> That's what civil service rules are for, not unions. And it the case of unions its the shop steward's drinking buddy that gets promoted.
> 
> Public unions are the bane of local governments, state governments, and federal governments. The people who are paid by the government cannot have undue influence on who is elected to the governments, or the actions they take in the name of the people.



What do you consider, "undue"?  Actually having a say in what policy is?  I think we call that "Democracy".

You guys keep claiming that the Koch Brothers dumping billions of dollars into our politics has no effect, but union money does?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > That's what civil service rules are for, not unions. And it the case of unions its the shop steward's drinking buddy that gets promoted.
> ...



The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working. 

We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.


----------



## Votto (Nov 28, 2014)




----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.
> 
> We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.



Guy, there was no problem with pensions for government workers when we used to have pensions for private secotr workers and a middle class.  

the real problem was, the governments never set aside the money to pay for the pensions.  they were too busy spending it on wars and bridges to nowhere and bailouts for the rich.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.
> ...



State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago. 

The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now. 

Its a racket, nothing more, nothing less.

Scott Walker gets my support for trying to get a start at ending this shit. Granted he went after the low hanging fruit of the teachers unions, but every effort has to start somewhere.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.
> 
> The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now.
> 
> ...



Guy, we are talking about federal unions, too, right.  Unless you are just trying to limit the argument. 

Now, yeah, I think there ought to be SOME pension reform.  But to keep the state solvent, not to give more tax cuts to rich people...


----------



## martybegan (Nov 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.
> ...



State unions are worse because of the smaller resources, and the larger impact the union members have on elections, but federal ones are bad as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 28, 2014)

Kasich before Walker, and Paul, Bush, Christie before either of the first two.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kasich before Walker, and Paul, Bush, Christie before either of the first two.



I no longer trust Christie's judgment when it comes to hiring people. Paul is ahead of him in my opinion and Kasich is probably tied with Paul. 

Bush is a wildcard because I am torn between the fact that he is by far the best of the clan but he will still have to deal with those who belong to the Bush camp and that includes scum like Cheney, et al.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 28, 2014)

My main concern with Bush is his connections to the neo-cons who would keep our people in continual war if they get the chance.


----------



## Toro (Nov 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I've worked around public pensions most of my career, and I generally agree with Joe that the problem is that governments have not funded what they've promised, at the state level anyways.  There are certainly some abuses in public pensions, and there are some politicians who have over-promised, but governments have often made the choice not to fund when they could have, instead spending money on other things or giving tax cuts because it was politically expedient when things were good.

Ironically, Wisconsin has one of the most innovative public pension plans around.  One of the criticisms of public plans is that all the market risk falls on the government.  In Wisconsin, that risk falls on both the retiree and the government.

FTR, I'd seriously consider supporting Scott Walker.


----------



## Toro (Nov 28, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kasich before Walker, and Paul, Bush, Christie before either of the first two.
> ...



I could be completely wrong, but I don't think that Jeb would have picked Cheney and his ilk had he been elected President in 2000 instead of his brother.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 28, 2014)

Toro said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



its not just pensions, but that is a major issue. Its arcane work rules, the inability to get rid of non performers, and the basic problem in employees having the ability to influence their employers in a situation where it is not the employer's money that is being negotiated over. 

In a non governmental industry, the unions know they can only push so hard before whatever service or product they provide becomes non-viable. With government both sides see the taxpayer as a bottomless cookie jar, an cookie jar that can be ignored.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> State unions are worse because of the smaller resources, and the larger impact the union members have on elections, but federal ones are bad as well.



No, actually, they aren't.  Unions are needed at the Federal, State and Local level to keep managers from absuing employees.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 28, 2014)

The USPS is a good example.  Mgmt will abuse craft in a heart beat.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 28, 2014)

Holy crap


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > State unions are worse because of the smaller resources, and the larger impact the union members have on elections, but federal ones are bad as well.
> ...



No, civil service laws can do that. Public unions just screw taxpayers over.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> No, civil service laws can do that. Public unions just screw taxpayers over.



Right. Because clearly, nothing makes thing better than a bureaucracy where they might hear your complaint in a month.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > No, civil service laws can do that. Public unions just screw taxpayers over.
> ...



Considering that's what everyone else has to deal with when dealing with government, I fail to see your point. 

The problem again stems from management not dealing with their own money, and thus the stability of their own "company."  This is even worse in one party towns, where the taxpayers have no real option besides those who cuddle up to the public unions for votes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Considering that's what everyone else has to deal with when dealing with government, I fail to see your point.
> 
> The problem again stems from management not dealing with their own money, and thus the stability of their own "company." This is even worse in one party towns, where the taxpayers have no real option besides those who cuddle up to the public unions for votes.



So what's your point?   

Sorry, I htink someone fucking with your livelihood is a bit more  urgent than someone waiting for that permit to build a driveway.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that's what everyone else has to deal with when dealing with government, I fail to see your point.
> ...



A government worker's livelihood is for the good of the taxpayers, if you don't want to deal with that get another fucking job. We have turned our civil servants into another class of kulaks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> A government worker's livelihood is for the good of the taxpayers, if you don't want to deal with that get another fucking job. We have turned our civil servants into another class of kulaks.



Oh, yeah, let's look at that.  

You see, until fairly recently, a government sector job actually paid LESS than private sector jobs. Then you favorite 1%ers decided that they were going ot bust the unions, move jobs overseas, and suddenly, the Government Job became the awesome job to have because you can make money and have a good retirement. 

THose bastards.  We can't have that.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > A government worker's livelihood is for the good of the taxpayers, if you don't want to deal with that get another fucking job. We have turned our civil servants into another class of kulaks.
> ...



Not on the taxpayers dime we shouldn't. Especially in places where the taxpayers have no say because the union vote keeps voting in the people paying them off.

You seem to love yourself some graft when it benefits yourself. 

Government jobs became "awesome" because they could vote their goodies in using their "bosses." Its cheating, and you know it. 

Just wait until more cities turn into Detroit. But you will probably be dead by then, and thus you don't worry about it because you are a selfish prick.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Not on the taxpayers dime we shouldn't. Especially in places where the taxpayers have no say because the union vote keeps voting in the people paying them off.
> 
> You seem to love yourself some graft when it benefits yourself.
> 
> Government jobs became "awesome" because they could vote their goodies in using their "bosses." Its cheating, and you know it.



Except most government jobs pay pretty modest wages, so you really dont' know what you are talking about, as usual. 

Average teachers take home a salary of about $56,000.  
Average cops take home a salary of $55,000
Average firefighter salary is about $43,000

These are not lavish, exhoribant salaries. 





martybegan said:


> Just wait until more cities turn into Detroit. But you will probably be dead by then, and thus you don't worry about it because you are a selfish prick.



Hey, guy, I love how you use "Detroit as an example. 

Detroit didn't lose business to an Ayn Randian Free Enterprise system.  they lost out to German and Japanese companies where the Unions have the ability to FIRE THE CEO!!!!


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not on the taxpayers dime we shouldn't. Especially in places where the taxpayers have no say because the union vote keeps voting in the people paying them off.
> ...



Salaries do not cover the entire benefit package, which is where the real costs are. Plus those averages include little podunk towns, and the problems are in the big cities.

Detroit's government should have adjusted to the new reality, instead they kept on like the money would keep coming in, and the taxpayers left and the tax receivers stayed. 

Your lack of economic understanding is typical and laughable.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 29, 2014)

Walker lacks charisma

No chance


----------



## Meathead (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Detroit didn't lose business to an Ayn Randian Free Enterprise system.  they lost out to German and Japanese companies where the Unions have the ability to FIRE THE CEO!!!!


Where the hell do you get this stuff?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Salaries do not cover the entire benefit package, which is where the real costs are. Plus those averages include little podunk towns, and the problems are in the big cities.
> 
> Detroit's government should have adjusted to the new reality, instead they kept on like the money would keep coming in, and the taxpayers left and the tax receivers stayed.
> 
> Your lack of economic understanding is typical and laughable.



Actually, detroit should have had a mayor who wasn't stealing, and a governor who wasn't ready to sell the city off bit by bit to the rich.  

But I did notice you deftly avoided the point that Detroit didn't lose to one of your Ayn Randian paradises.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Salaries do not cover the entire benefit package, which is where the real costs are. Plus those averages include little podunk towns, and the problems are in the big cities.
> ...



What point? That the american automakers got out competed? That Detroit didn't adjust to it? 

You go for the typical blame the rich, blame the republicans, blame everyone but the actual culprits (i did notice you threw the mayor to the wolves, how quaint of you) because those asshats are your asshats.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> What point? That the american automakers got out competed? That Detroit didn't adjust to it?
> 
> You go for the typical blame the rich, blame the republicans, blame everyone but the actual culprits (i did notice you threw the mayor to the wolves, how quaint of you) because those asshats are your asshats.



i blame the rich because we actually had it pretty good.  We were making plenty of money, but that wasn't good enough for them.  

As Herbert Hoover observed.  The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.  They're too damned greedy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > What point? That the american automakers got out competed? That Detroit didn't adjust to it?
> ...



Someone wanting to keep what they earned isn't greedy except to those like you that think they owe you something.

If you don't have it good anymore, you are the cause.  Better yourself and quit blaming someone else for your failures.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Detroit didn't lose business to an Ayn Randian Free Enterprise system.  they lost out to German and Japanese companies where the Unions have the ability to FIRE THE CEO!!!!
> ...


He pulled it out of his ass before sticking his head back up it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > State unions are worse because of the smaller resources, and the larger impact the union members have on elections, but federal ones are bad as well.
> ...


The problem is you define abuse as an employee not getting what he/she wants.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > What point? That the american automakers got out competed? That Detroit didn't adjust to it?
> ...



Blaming the rich is the same as blaming the jews. Its scapegoating, nothing more, and nothing less.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


That's all some have left.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 29, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Not a chance!
> 
> He is lacking in way too many crucial areas of leadership in my opinion. As an Independent I am looking at Kasich as being a viable GOP candidate right now. Way better choice that Walker in my opinion.


Walker isn't president obama doesn't act like a president, but walker would be a better president than obama


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The third in a series.
> 
> Scott Walker-
> 
> ...


I Mai


JoeB131 said:


> The third in a series.
> 
> Scott Walker-
> 
> ...


I maintained my own middle class lifestyle.  Didn't need a union doing it for me.  Guess those using unions can't do it on their own.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.
> ...


In the public sector all it takes is dark skin color and/or a vagina.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.
> ...


What's wrong with a private business owner promoting who they want?  If it's my money, I'll promote whomever I want.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The third in a series.
> ...



Unions got you a 40 hour week, workplace safety, anti- discrimination, fair labor protections

Yea....you did it all yourself


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I did.  That you didn't isn't a shock.  Some just can't do it like me son.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Typical conservative....I did it ALL myself
What happened before does not matter


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Typical whatever you are who can't do it for himself.  Sorry you couldn't cut it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Someone wanting to keep what they earned isn't greedy except to those like you that think they owe you something.
> 
> If you don't have it good anymore, you are the cause. Better yourself and quit blaming someone else for your failures.



guy, the problem is, the rich didn't EARN what htey have.  They stole it from the people who did the actual work.  

the 1% who control 43% of the wealth did not do 43% of the physical labor.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> The problem is you define abuse as an employee not getting what he/she wants.



No, if they can totally justify why the boss's drinking buddy got promoted before the person with seniority, they are free to do so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Blaming the rich is the same as blaming the jews. Its scapegoating, nothing more, and nothing less.



No, you can actually DOCUMENT what the rich did to fuck up the economy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Isn't it amazing you have all these supposed successful people on USMB, all these self- made men, and yet USMB struggles to raise $100.00 every month to keep running.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is you define abuse as an employee not getting what he/she wants.
> ...


Because the boss can promote whomever he wants because he's doing the paying.  If I want to hire a friend's son over someone I don't know I can because it's my money and none of your business.  I don't have to justify it to you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone wanting to keep what they earned isn't greedy except to those like you that think they owe you something.
> ...


Did those doing the work get paid?  Do you really believe the workers should make as much as the owner?  Your problem is you will never amount to shit in your sorry life and expect someone like me that's does to hand mine to you.  If you want it, man up and come fail in your attempt to take it.  If you won't, STFU, better yourself and earn it for a change.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Because the boss can promote whomever he wants because he's doing the paying. If I want to hire a friend's son over someone I don't know I can because it's my money and none of your business. I don't have to justify it to you.



That's a nice, quaint view.  

It doesn't happen to be current law, though.  Nor should it be. But we were talking about government employees.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Did those doing the work get paid? Do you really believe the workers should make as much as the owner? Your problem is you will never amount to shit in your sorry life and expect someone like me that's does to hand mine to you. If you want it, man up and come fail in your attempt to take it. If you won't, STFU, better yourself and earn it for a change.



Should they make as much as the owner?  Nope. 

Should we have a situation where the Waltons (Owners of Walmart) pay their employees so little many of them have to go on Food Stamps and Medicaid, while the Waltons are amongst the richest people in the country? Fuck no, that's insane. 

And frankly, I don't believe one of you right wing losers has accomplished as much as I have and never will.  MOst of you are just happy to have more than the other guy, and you think that makes you "superior".


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Did those doing the work get paid? Do you really believe the workers should make as much as the owner? Your problem is you will never amount to shit in your sorry life and expect someone like me that's does to hand mine to you. If you want it, man up and come fail in your attempt to take it. If you won't, STFU, better yourself and earn it for a change.
> ...



What's insane is paying someone more than their skills are worth then the taxpayers providing them anything when the cause of their low pay is them.  

I'm superior to you simply because I breath.  It doesn't take much to be better than you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Because the boss can promote whomever he wants because he's doing the paying. If I want to hire a friend's son over someone I don't know I can because it's my money and none of your business. I don't have to justify it to you.
> ...



Is it a nice view and how it works.  

So you support promoting the most senior solely for that reason?  I thought you lefties wanted the most qualified.   With how you think , it's no wonder we have the dipshit we have for President.  Too many dumbasses thought him being black was a qualification.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> What's insane is paying someone more than their skills are worth then the taxpayers providing them anything when the cause of their low pay is them.
> 
> I'm superior to you simply because I breath. It doesn't take much to be better than you.



Well, obviously, you lack any sense of compassion or humanity.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Is it a nice view and how it works.
> 
> So you support promoting the most senior solely for that reason? I thought you lefties wanted the most qualified. With how you think , it's no wonder we have the dipshit we have for President. Too many dumbasses thought him being black was a qualification.



I think seniority should be taken into account.  So should merit, so should performance. 

The reason why Obama became president is you nominated Crazy old Uncle Fester and the Weird Mormon Robot to run against him.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Blaming the rich is the same as blaming the jews. Its scapegoating, nothing more, and nothing less.
> ...



Lol, Standard agitprop from the least inventive poster on this board.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Yeah, I realize you live in a world where 2008 either didn't happen or it was Nancy Pelosi's fault.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > What's insane is paying someone more than their skills are worth then the taxpayers providing them anything when the cause of their low pay is them.
> ...



I don't have compassion for someone who is where they are because of THEIR own lack of skills.  Also, you don't get to define compassion for anyone but yourself.  Your problem is thinking I have to do it your way.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I don't have compassion for someone who is where they are because of THEIR own lack of skills. Also, you don't get to define compassion for anyone but yourself. Your problem is thinking I have to do it your way.



So you just admit that you don't have compassion for people who "lack skills", but how dare I define compassion. 

You see, I have a funny idea that a person's worth is more than what he can produce to make rich people richer.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have compassion for someone who is where they are because of THEIR own lack of skills. Also, you don't get to define compassion for anyone but yourself. Your problem is thinking I have to do it your way.
> ...



You missed part of it.  I don't have compassion for those who lack skills because of life choices they made.  I didn't say you couldn't define compassion.  You can't do it on my behalf and define it for me.  There is a difference.   There are people who lack skills not of their own doing then there are those who lack skills solely and only because of them.  The former is not part of my contention.  The latter are because they caused their problems and now want someone else to offset the results.  The best example I can think of is the high school dropout.  They lack education based on a choice they made and when they can't afford the results of that choice expect someone else to pay them more than the skills that less than high school education earns them to the point that they want the government to force it from the person who stayed in school.

Someone having worth and thinking I should support having what I've earned taken from me to give to them is two different things.  You confuse worth with entitlement to someone else's money.    You define worth in a manner that if someone doesn't have what another person has, the one that has it should be willing to give up someone of it in order that the person who doesn't gets it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> You missed part of it. I don't have compassion for those who lack skills because of life choices they made. I didn't say you couldn't define compassion. You can't do it on my behalf and define it for me. There is a difference. There are people who lack skills not of their own doing then there are those who lack skills solely and only because of them. The former is not part of my contention. The latter are because they caused their problems and now want someone else to offset the results. The best example I can think of is the high school dropout. They lack education based on a choice they made and when they can't afford the results of that choice expect someone else to pay them more than the skills that less than high school education earns them to the point that they want the government to force it from the person who stayed in school.



Okay, let's take a look at that.  A person should pay for the REST OF HIS LIFE for a poor decision that he made at 17.  This by you is "compassion".   

Was a time in this country, you could work a job that required no education, and still make a living wage doing it. Today we have college graduates on Ramen Noodle diets.  



Conservative65 said:


> Someone having worth and thinking I should support having what I've earned taken from me to give to them is two different things. You confuse worth with entitlement to someone else's money. You define worth in a manner that if someone doesn't have what another person has, the one that has it should be willing to give up someone of it in order that the person who doesn't gets it.



Guy, I doubt your trailer-trash ass makes enough money to support a week's worth of food stamps for a poor person.  

And, no, in my universe, when you live in the richest country in the world, you should not have children going to bed hungry at night because her mother dropped out of high school when she got pregnant.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You missed part of it. I don't have compassion for those who lack skills because of life choices they made. I didn't say you couldn't define compassion. You can't do it on my behalf and define it for me. There is a difference. There are people who lack skills not of their own doing then there are those who lack skills solely and only because of them. The former is not part of my contention. The latter are because they caused their problems and now want someone else to offset the results. The best example I can think of is the high school dropout. They lack education based on a choice they made and when they can't afford the results of that choice expect someone else to pay them more than the skills that less than high school education earns them to the point that they want the government to force it from the person who stayed in school.
> ...



Since you don't know a thing about my level of income son, making such a statement is why you are on food stamps. 

In my universe, one person should never be forced to pay for another person's bad choices regardless of when or why it was made.  The problem stems around those making bad decisions telling others to butt out when the choices were being made.  That's fine.  However, when those choices produce results later in life don't be shocked when those of us told to butt out say tough shit when those choices can't be afforded.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Since you don't know a thing about my level of income son, making such a statement is why you are on food stamps.
> 
> In my universe, one person should never be forced to pay for another person's bad choices regardless of when or why it was made. The problem stems around those making bad decisions telling others to butt out when the choices were being made. That's fine. However, when those choices produce results later in life don't be shocked when those of us told to butt out say tough shit when those choices can't be afforded.



Yeah, I can usually tell who is a business success and who is some white trailer trash who still thinks he's better than 'those people' when the 1%ers piss on him. 

The problem is, we pay for each other's bad choices all the time. Stay healthy? Too bad, your health insurance is probably going to still end up paying for that person who ate cupcakes when he gets a heart attack. 

Of course, this isn't even a case of you paying for a poor person's bad choices.  It's you paying for the Walton's being too cheap to pay their workers a fair wage.  So congrats, you are subsidizing rich people and their "Good" choices. 

Feel better now?


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Since you don't know a thing about my level of income son, making such a statement is why you are on food stamps.
> ...



When those having $7.25/hour skills get paid $7.25/hour, that's fair.  If that's the only skill level someone has, it's not the payers fault the person is so low skilled. 

I am better than you and can tell you're nothing more than the white trash, much like the President's white trash mother, who believes collecting a check for doing nothing means he worked for it.

I'll feel better when those who make a low wage for a low skill level quit getting handed my money because they can't support themselves due to THEIR lack of skills.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> When those having $7.25/hour skills get paid $7.25/hour, that's fair. If that's the only skill level someone has, it's not the payers fault the person is so low skilled.
> 
> I am better than you and can tell you're nothing more than the white trash, much like the President's white trash mother, who believes collecting a check for doing nothing means he worked for it.
> 
> I'll feel better when those who make a low wage for a low skill level quit getting handed my money because they can't support themselves due to THEIR lack of skills



Well, guy, as long as the rich can get your dumb white trash ass to subsidize their cheap labor, they are going to do so.  And they'll use it as an excuse to keep your labor costs, down, too.   Especially in a recession. 

Because frankly, I'm an old guy, and I've been listening to Republicans tell us about how they were protecting you from them "Welfare People' since NIXON!  

Fucking NIXON!  

Funny, they never get around to doing it, though.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > When those having $7.25/hour skills get paid $7.25/hour, that's fair. If that's the only skill level someone has, it's not the payers fault the person is so low skilled.
> ...



I'm not the one that supports subsidizing their fair wage to skill pay.  Not one of the low skilled workers getting an equivalent wage can be subsidized unless programs people like you support get passed.  Places paying someone with low skills an equivalent wage aren't the ones passing the laws.  People you elect do then blame someone else as if they had a vote in it's passing. 

They don't have to have an excuse to keep their wages lower.  The workers that provide low level skills and get paid an equivalent low wage cause it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I'm not the one that supports subsidizing their fair wage to skill pay. Not one of the low skilled workers getting an equivalent wage can be subsidized unless programs people like you support get passed. Places paying someone with low skills an equivalent wage aren't the ones passing the laws. People you elect do then blame someone else as if they had a vote in it's passing.
> 
> They don't have to have an excuse to keep their wages lower. The workers that provide low level skills and get paid an equivalent low wage cause it.



Guy, of course you don't want to subsidize them.  YOu are under some fucking delusion your dumb white trash ass has any say in the matter.  

Here's a reality check.  WalMart TOTALLY wants Food Stamps. Not only do they get someone else to subsidize their workforce, they get billions in sales from people who use them. 

Hey, remember a couple years ago when there was a glitch on EBT Cards and all the limits were erased, and when word got out, all these EBT people loaded up multiple shopping carts and they were living large?  WalMart totally didn't put a stop to that, even though they knew there was a problem.  Nope, they just racked up the profits and decided to let the government work it out.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one that supports subsidizing their fair wage to skill pay. Not one of the low skilled workers getting an equivalent wage can be subsidized unless programs people like you support get passed. Places paying someone with low skills an equivalent wage aren't the ones passing the laws. People you elect do then blame someone else as if they had a vote in it's passing.
> ...



You are under the delusion that you have a say that they should.  If you want them subsidized, give them the money you lie about having.  Someone such as yourself that is the byproduct of two monkeys butt fucking might make a good zoo animal but nothing else. 

Walmart shouldn't have had to put a stop to it.  Sounds to me as if the pieces of shit who misused the cards were the cause.  Unless those entitlement minded wastes of oxygen didn't do what they did, nothing that happened after it would have mattered.


----------



## Judicial review (Dec 1, 2014)

Kasich is 10 times better.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> You are under the delusion that you have a say that they should. If you want them subsidized, give them the money you lie about having. Someone such as yourself that is the byproduct of two monkeys butt fucking might make a good zoo animal but nothing else.
> 
> Walmart shouldn't have had to put a stop to it. Sounds to me as if the pieces of shit who misused the cards were the cause. Unless those entitlement minded wastes of oxygen didn't do what they did, nothing that happened after it would have mattered.



I pay my taxes, thanks, more than my fair share.  

The Waltons should pay theirs. 

The fact is, the Waltons have gotten very good at getting you to subsidize their lifestyle.  

Most of the other HONEST merchants did put a stop to the fraud.  For instance, the Food 4 Less chain here in Chicago limited EBT cards to $50.00 until the problem was resolved.   But not WalMart.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



2008 was everyone's fault, from the bankers, to the traders, to the government, to the people buying houses outside their means.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 2008 was everyone's fault, from the bankers, to the traders, to the government, to the people buying houses outside their means.



Yup, anything to excuse the rich people.  

YOu know, you are really starting to sound like someone who suffers from battered wife syndrome.  NO matter how much they abuse you, you will make an excuse for them. 

Were folks who bought "McMansions"  hoping to flip them two years later foolish? Maybe.  But the rich companies kept building them. The Banksters kept writing mortgages for them knowing that the income wasn't their to pay them.


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one that supports subsidizing their fair wage to skill pay. Not one of the low skilled workers getting an equivalent wage can be subsidized unless programs people like you support get passed. Places paying someone with low skills an equivalent wage aren't the ones passing the laws. People you elect do then blame someone else as if they had a vote in it's passing.
> ...







*Yep ... We remember.*

We remember where the opportunistic thieves left the food they intended to steal as well. That didn't help WalMart at all ... And some food cannot be restocked after removed from the shelf due to safety and security regulations.

*Typical liberal ... So concerned with dogging the corporation you are unable to understand who the real thieves were.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> *Yep ... We remember.*
> 
> We remember where the opportunistic thieves left the food they intended to steal as well. That didn't help WalMart at all ... And some food cannot be restocked after removed from the shelf due to safety and security regulations.
> 
> *Typical liberal ... So concerned with dogging the corporation you are unable to understand who the real thieves were.*



The corporation made a choice to honor the mistake, knowing it was a mistake. 

That makes them co-conspirators, not victims.  Jewel and Food 4 Less didn't have this issue. THey put a manual limit until the problem was resolved.  

Now, the FUNNY part.  Walmart got stuck holding the bag. 

Walmart stuck with the bill after glitch causes food stamp shopping spree syracuse.com


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The corporation made a choice to honor the mistake, knowing it was a mistake.
> 
> That makes them co-conspirators, not victims.  Jewel and Food 4 Less didn't have this issue. THey put a manual limit until the problem was resolved.



WalMart kept accepting the mistake because they didn't want EBT Card Holders to go without food. Once management told them to stop, they did. The funny part is the fact you still cannot properly identify the thieves ... Not uncommon for liberals like you who lack any decent principles.

It is a perfect example of why you are so screwed up.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> WalMart kept accepting the mistake because they didn't want EBT Card Holders to go without food. Once management told them to stop, they did. The funny part is the fact you still cannot properly identify the thieves ... Not uncommon for liberals like you who lack any decent principles.
> 
> It is a perfect example of why you are so screwed up.



When the poor steal, it's called "crime". 
When the rich steal, it's called "profits". 

You'd cheer shooting Michael Brown for stealing $25.00 of cheap cigars, but give Enron a pass for defrauding people out of billions. 

Given how much WalMart screws this country on all levels, I'm perfectly good with them getting screwed back.


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > WalMart kept accepting the mistake because they didn't want EBT Card Holders to go without food. Once management told them to stop, they did. The funny part is the fact you still cannot properly identify the thieves ... Not uncommon for liberals like you who lack any decent principles.
> ...



I know you are willing to give thieves a pass when it suits your needs. We all know why you hate corporations as well.

We also know that you being an unprincipled, irresponsible, incompetent boob is not a medical condition.

.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
He is a typical Liberal.  He blames those, who without the actions of the ones knowingly abusing the system, that can't do anything without the abusers doing their part first.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > 2008 was everyone's fault, from the bankers, to the traders, to the government, to the people buying houses outside their means.
> ...



How is making them share the blame excusing them? You are looking for a boogeyman to absolve everyone else of blame for something.

Your issue is that you are like a cult member when it comes to government and progressive politics. You don't want any other explanation of a situation, so you don't go looking for it. 

Just keep to the class warfare/corporations are bad unga bunga mantra that has  been fed to to your addled little mind.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You are under the delusion that you have a say that they should. If you want them subsidized, give them the money you lie about having. Someone such as yourself that is the byproduct of two monkeys butt fucking might make a good zoo animal but nothing else.
> ...


 
The Walton do and expect you to pay your fair share. 

As long as you support them, they're honest?  I now see your problem.  You're from the same town as the piece of shit you voted to elect as President.  Seems there's more than one piece of trash from Chicago.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> I know you are willing to give thieves a pass when it suits your needs. We all know why you hate corporations as well.
> 
> We also know that you being an unprincipled, irresponsible, incompetent boob is not a medical condition.



True enough.  

Too bad they actually fired me for running up BILLS to pay for the medical condition, not the condition itself. 

but to the point.  WalMart tried to scam the system. They got burned.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> The Walton do and expect you to pay your fair share.
> 
> As long as you support them, they're honest? I now see your problem. You're from the same town as the piece of shit you voted to elect as President. Seems there's more than one piece of trash from Chicago.



Where the fuck did you learn how to compose a sentence?  Were you the Valedictorian in your Home Skule, Cleetus?  

Point is, the Waltons have burned every sector in this society, including small businesses you Republicans claim to love so much.  They go into a town undercut all the local merchants, and then close up shop and say, "Well, come visit our store 20 miles away- like you got a choice."  

So fuck it, what we need to do is find every Wal-Mart employee on SNAP and Section 8, and send the Walton's a bill- Cash on Delivery.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2014)

martybegan said:


> How is making them share the blame excusing them? You are looking for a boogeyman to absolve everyone else of blame for something.
> 
> Your issue is that you are like a cult member when it comes to government and progressive politics. You don't want any other explanation of a situation, so you don't go looking for it.
> 
> Just keep to the class warfare/corporations are bad unga bunga mantra that has been fed to to your addled little mind.



The only thing that has made me think corporations are bad--- is having to work for them.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > How is making them share the blame excusing them? You are looking for a boogeyman to absolve everyone else of blame for something.
> ...



Boo fucking hoo.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



If you want to see a great combination of mean and stupid, you need look no further than corporate America. 

There's a reason why Dilbert Comics are so popular.  We've all worked in THAT office.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



government is just as mean, and even stupider. Plus is has no fear of going out of business, and you can't leave if you get really pissed at it.  And you assholes want to give it even more power.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> government is just as mean, and even stupider. Plus is has no fear of going out of business, and you can't leave if you get really pissed at it. And you assholes want to give it even more power.



No, I want it to do things that the private sector sucks at.  Like running health care.  

sorry, man, when I was in the army, I never saw the kind of mean-spirited bullshit that I saw in the private sector.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > government is just as mean, and even stupider. Plus is has no fear of going out of business, and you can't leave if you get really pissed at it. And you assholes want to give it even more power.
> ...



Nice story, but it doesn't mean anything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Nice story, but it doesn't mean anything.



It means a lot to me. 

Obviously, the one time i counted on the private sector to take care of a serious health care need, I had to fight with them for over a year, before they figured out a backdoor to get me off their program.  

Single Payer, accountable to WE THE PEOPLE.   Like every other industrialized country does it.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nice story, but it doesn't mean anything.
> ...



Bureaucrats are not accountable to we the people. Your naive belief that giving health care to the government will mean you won't get screwed over is comical and sad. Ever try holding the DMV accountable? That's what you want for health care.


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yeah, and IRS is scary. People like Lois Lerner should scare the shit out of everyone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Bureaucrats are not accountable to we the people. Your naive belief that giving health care to the government will mean you won't get screwed over is comical and sad. Ever try holding the DMV accountable? That's what you want for health care.



Last time I went to the DMV (Actually, the Secretary of State's office here in IL), they had me in and out in less than six minutes.  I timed it.  

Compared to when I went to the Comcast store next door to ask a couple of questions about my service, where they had me wait for 20 minutes and didn't answer my questions at all.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Yeah, and IRS is scary. People like Lois Lerner should scare the shit out of everyone.



Naw, just political hacks who lie about being charities.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bureaucrats are not accountable to we the people. Your naive belief that giving health care to the government will mean you won't get screwed over is comical and sad. Ever try holding the DMV accountable? That's what you want for health care.
> ...



I want to expound a bit more on the above, because Marty Begging to Be Locked Up seems to think Bureaucrats are accountable to no one. 

Now we DID have a problem with the Sec. State's office a few years ago.  George Ryan, a Republican, was using the office to build his warchest so he could run for governor and some of his lackey's were selling driver's licenses. 

And you know what happened?  He went to jail for it.  The lackeys went to jail.  Jesse White came in and not only cleaned up the office, he made it a hell of a lot more efficient.


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, and IRS is scary. People like Lois Lerner should scare the shit out of everyone.
> ...


You mean  only those who were not of Lerner and Obama's political persuasion. Scary stuff. You're a fascist Joey.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Left wing groups got rejected, too.  So no.


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Left wing groups were not targeted. Even IRS has admitted to that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Left wing groups were not targeted. Even IRS has admitted to that.



Left wing groups were not calling themselves 'Tea Party Patriots to take American back and trust us, we are totally not a political group!"


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Left wing groups were not targeted. Even IRS has admitted to that.
> ...


You are always goofy to the point of profound instability, but that makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



This is an example of malfeasance, what I worry about is apathy and ignorance. If we punished government workers for that, no one would be left.

You want health care to be run by a bunch of job protected union represented assholes who get paid and get pension if they do their job, don't do their job, or do it just enough not to get placed on some path to being fired that takes 5 years.

Fuck no.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bureaucrats are not accountable to we the people. Your naive belief that giving health care to the government will mean you won't get screwed over is comical and sad. Ever try holding the DMV accountable? That's what you want for health care.
> ...



You can always go to direct TV, or dish. I can't go to another DMV, and you don't want people to be able to go to another health care provider. 

And try the NYS DMV sometime.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



I'm sorry, the point was lost on you. 

Okay, short version- Citizen's United allowed unlimited donations, but you had to declare who your donors were. Unless you are a social welfare group, becuase that's like a charity.  

A lot of tea party groups tries to scam the IRS by claiming they were "Social Welfare Groups" and hiding their donors, who rhyme with Boch Krothers.  

After getting a few of these scams, the IRS decided to review anyone calling themselves 'Tea Party", Patriot or "9/12", because these were the groups trying to pull the scam.  

Hello- that's good police work.  That's what you are supposed to do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> This is an example of malfeasance, what I worry about is apathy and ignorance. If we punished government workers for that, no one would be left.
> 
> You want health care to be run by a bunch of job protected union represented assholes who get paid and get pension if they do their job, don't do their job, or do it just enough not to get placed on some path to being fired that takes 5 years.



Right, I think you need to stop visiting the "Bureau of RIght Wing Stereotypes".  

Out in the real world, I've seen the same mix of lazy and diligent in the private and public sectors.  And as long as you have people, that's probably going to be the way it's going to be.


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Sorry Joey, that a fantasy version. When you get into convoluted reasoning in order to persecute people based on their political leaning you're pretty much a fascist. Sounds a lot like the "Elders of Zion" which you likely give credence to anyway.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > This is an example of malfeasance, what I worry about is apathy and ignorance. If we punished government workers for that, no one would be left.
> ...



But at least in the private sector you can hold them accountable. In the public sector? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



JoeBlow is the type that will gladly bend over and take it up the ass as long as its government doing it to him. He probably wouldn't even ask for a reach around.


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


The government is the hand that feeds him. He thinks the larger the government, the more his entitlements. What would you expect?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> But at least in the private sector you can hold them accountable. In the public sector?



Yeah.  About that.  Last job, all the folks who did the work got fired, the managers who fucked it up got promoted.  

Sorry, dude. The only thing you can do with private health insurance is put it all out of our misery.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > But at least in the private sector you can hold them accountable. In the public sector?
> ...



is that company still in business? 

And ill take private health care over government health care any day of the week. I do not have your child like conviction that government is teh awesome.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > But at least in the private sector you can hold them accountable. In the public sector?
> ...


 
I'll take my private over public.  I've been forced to pay for public healthcare for years and the only people who benefit from it are the ones not paying for it.  What a bunch of fuckoffs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

martybegan said:


> is that company still in business?
> 
> And ill take private health care over government health care any day of the week. I do not have your child like conviction that government is teh awesome.



No, you've got the convictions of a dipwad who listens to a fat, gay drug addict all day telling you gummit is bad, and you blurt out, "Right on, Rush!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I'll take my private over public. I've been forced to pay for public healthcare for years and the only people who benefit from it are the ones not paying for it. What a bunch of fuckoffs.



Yes, I know you live in mortal terror than money of yours is used to help people.  

Hey, why don't you think happy thoughts and just pretend all your money goes to letting the military kill brown people.


----------



## Meathead (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, I know you live in mortal terror than money of yours is used to help people.
> 
> Hey, why don't you think happy thoughts and just pretend all your money goes to letting the military kill brown people.


Maybe he's just upset that his money goes to parasites like you Joey. Ever think of that?


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take my private over public. I've been forced to pay for public healthcare for years and the only people who benefit from it are the ones not paying for it. What a bunch of fuckoffs.
> ...


 
That money of MINE is taken to hand people something those that didn't earn that money think I owe to them. 

Race card, huh?  Typical of your kind.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I know you live in mortal terror than money of yours is used to help people.
> ...


 
Exactly.  I define a parasite as someone whose decisions are the sole reason they demand someone else pay for their bad choices.  I define a parasite as someone who said when they were making those decisions it was none of my business yet when they can't afford the results later in life think it's OK to expect someone that didn't make bad decisions to pay for theirs.  Joe doesn't think of that.   That's why I call parasites like him bleeding hearts.  They feel sorry for those who caused their situation and define compassion as seeing how many others they can find to force the funding of help for them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I know you live in mortal terror than money of yours is used to help people.
> ...



Wouldn't know, I don't take government money.  But I'm actually happy some of my taxes go to feed poor children.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Exactly. I define a parasite as someone whose decisions are the sole reason they demand someone else pay for their bad choices. I define a parasite as someone who said when they were making those decisions it was none of my business yet when they can't afford the results later in life think it's OK to expect someone that didn't make bad decisions to pay for theirs. Joe doesn't think of that. That's why I call parasites like him bleeding hearts. They feel sorry for those who caused their situation and define compassion as seeing how many others they can find to force the funding of help for them.



Um, yeah, guy.  You define a parasite as "anyone with less power than me I can push around.' 

Unless of course, they vote to do otherwise.  THen you are kind of fucked.  

You whine about how many people are dependent on government and totally vote for more of that shit, but if you made the Walton's pay them decently for the work they do, there wouldn't be an issue.  They'd be right next to you bitching about the people who don't want to do anything but collect a paycheck.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 2, 2014)

Jeb Bush pointed out what has been obvious: a GOP can't go through the primaries kissing far right ass, because the body politic will not give such a candidate a presidential victory in the future.

Jeb says a candidate will have to take some early primary defeats and then grind down the far right candidates.  Bush, Christie, and Paul all think the far right are cracker crazy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jeb Bush pointed out what has been obvious: a GOP can't go through the primaries kissing far right ass, because the body politic will not give such a candidate a presidential victory in the future.
> 
> Jeb says a candidate will have to take some early primary defeats and then grind down the far right candidates.  Bush, Christie, and Paul all think the far right are cracker crazy.



Guy, Rand Paul is crazier than anyone on the far right. 

You see, I think you make these distinctions between far right that are just way off base.  

The times the GOP has won, it's been with a "Far Right" candidate.  - Reagan, Bush-43.  

Scott Walker is probably a guy that the far right and the establishment can live with.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > is that company still in business?
> ...



Have not listened to Rush in over 8 years.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

I'm always amazed how many wingnuts repeat the Limbaugh Party line verbatim and then claim they never listen to him.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm always amazed how many wingnuts repeat the Limbaugh Party line verbatim and then claim they never listen to him.



Just as correlation does not equal causation, coming to a similar conclusion does not imply influence. 

Political radio to me is like political TV, the easy way to get info. I'd rather read stuff via webpages than listen to it. 

And no, I don't go to rush's websites either.


----------



## gipper (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Jeb Bush pointed out what has been obvious: a GOP can't go through the primaries kissing far right ass, because the body politic will not give such a candidate a presidential victory in the future.
> ...



To think Bush 43 is far right, is ridiculous.  He was a moderate progressive who expanded the size and power of government...which Reagan also did.

You really have no clue Joey.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

gipper said:


> To think Bush 43 is far right, is ridiculous. He was a moderate progressive who expanded the size and power of government...which Reagan also did.
> 
> You really have no clue Joey.



I'm going to try to break this to you very gently. 

Your brand of Right Wing Crazy isn't even 1% of the electorate.   seriously, guy, even other right wingers probably think you are nuts.  I know this is tough for you to hear, but I'm doing an intervention, man.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. I define a parasite as someone whose decisions are the sole reason they demand someone else pay for their bad choices. I define a parasite as someone who said when they were making those decisions it was none of my business yet when they can't afford the results later in life think it's OK to expect someone that didn't make bad decisions to pay for theirs. Joe doesn't think of that. That's why I call parasites like him bleeding hearts. They feel sorry for those who caused their situation and define compassion as seeing how many others they can find to force the funding of help for them.
> ...


 
I define parasite as someone who thinks another person owes them something. 

Why wouldn't they vote for someone that would force taxpayers like me to support them.  They haven't done shit to support themselves.  Why would anyone expect them to start now. 

Why would I make the Waltons pay someone a higher wage than their skills are worth?  If the people who get paid an equivalent wage to their skill level actually did something to better their skills, it wouldn't be an issue.  You blame Walmart for paying someone with $7.25/hour skills $7.25/hour.  You should be blaming the one with the low skills.  Why should any business pay an employee more than the skills are worth even if the pay isn't enough?  Your problem is you blame the wrong people.  If you owned a business, would you pay an employee that had low level skills twice what those skills warranted?  If you say yes, you're a liar, retarded and someone that would never own a business, or some combination.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Jeb Bush pointed out what has been obvious: a GOP can't go through the primaries kissing far right ass, because the body politic will not give such a candidate a presidential victory in the future.
> ...



Bush and Reagan not hard right TP-like. The Pubs would slaughter Reagan in the primaries now.

Don't worry, if you ever figure it out, I will let you know


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2014)

Libertarianism is merely the flip side of communism.

Conservative65 is an extremist.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Libertarianism is merely the flip side of communism.
> 
> Conservative65 is an extremist.



"Derp Derp Derp, Im FarkeyStarkey, Derp Derp Derp"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > To think Bush 43 is far right, is ridiculous. He was a moderate progressive who expanded the size and power of government...which Reagan also did.
> ...



Your political literacy is returning you false coin, my illiterate friend.

We reached to the women and minorities this last election, and we will continue to do so as well in 2016.

Your dem is going to have a real contest to fight.

You only hurt the dems, as usual.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2014)

That's what a politically illiterate libertarian like Marty has to say when he gets his ass handed to him yet again.

Marty is still hurting from the whipping we gave him on the marriage equality debates.

Let the butt hurt flow, Marty.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> That's what a politically illiterate libertarian like Marty has to say when he gets his ass handed to him yet again.
> 
> Marty is still hurting from the whipping we gave him on the marriage equality debates.
> 
> Let the butt hurt flow, Marty.



lol, "whipping"

Keep thinking that farkeyfarty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2014)

Yep, you stopped marriage equality in your tracks.   You got your ass kicked boy and you liked it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I define parasite as someone who thinks another person owes them something.



Congrats- you think the whole human race are Parasites.  

Do you customers owe you money?  Do your employees owe you a day's work?  Human society is based on us owing each other things.   

You didn't think this out, did you? 



Conservative65 said:


> Why wouldn't they vote for someone that would force taxpayers like me to support them. They haven't done shit to support themselves. Why would anyone expect them to start now.



Actually, as I keep pointing out to you, many of them have jobs, just jobs where a rich person is ripping them off for the fruits of their labors.  Many more would happily take jobs if they were available. 

I also guess that you are probably against food stamps, but all for middle class entitlements like Social Security, Unemployment benefits and Medicare. 



Conservative65 said:


> Why would I make the Waltons pay someone a higher wage than their skills are worth? If the people who get paid an equivalent wage to their skill level actually did something to better their skills, it wouldn't be an issue. You blame Walmart for paying someone with $7.25/hour skills $7.25/hour. You should be blaming the one with the low skills. Why should any business pay an employee more than the skills are worth even if the pay isn't enough? Your problem is you blame the wrong people. If you owned a business, would you pay an employee that had low level skills twice what those skills warranted? If you say yes, you're a liar, retarded and someone that would never own a business, or some combination.



I would pay an employee a fair wage so he was happy with what he did and would do a good job for me.  Frankly, I've worked in places where the managers thought like you did.  Keeping and retaining good people was next to impossible for the 'low skill" jobs, and it probably cost us more money in turnover costs than anything else. 

The problem is that the same folks who think that the people doing the work are only worth $7.25 - even though they are the face of your company and the people the customer sees - are the same ones who pay executives eight figures when the company is losing money.  

Again- why you need strong unions and strong labor laws- to protect these people from themselves.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your political literacy is returning you false coin, my illiterate friend.
> 
> We reached to the women and minorities this last election, and we will continue to do so as well in 2016.
> 
> ...



Fakey- No body believes you were a Republican.  Not even a guy like myself who dumped the Republicans because they became too crazy. 

The last election, the GOP does deserve credit for tamping down the crazy, but the reality is, the real winner in 2014 was apathy and disillusionment as we had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2014)

Joey, you have admitted several times you thought I was Republican, so your lying is noted, yet once again, as unfruitful as you were doing in the election of 2012.

Your opinion, as a crazy atheist, is worth as much as that of crazy evangelical: nothing.


----------



## initforme (Dec 3, 2014)

No college degree no vote from me... and I live in wisc


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Joey, you have admitted several times you thought I was Republican, so your lying is noted, yet once again, as unfruitful as you were doing in the election of 2012.
> 
> Your opinion, as a crazy atheist, is worth as much as that of crazy evangelical: nothing.



Actually, I'm starting to think you are just a troll, seeking attention.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2014)

initforme said:


> No college degree no vote from me... and I live in wisc



That's an interesting thought.  He would be the first President since Harry Truman to not have a degree.  

But frankly, I don't think a college degree is the be all and end all. 

Sarah Palin and George W. Bush have college degrees, and it means about as much as this...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Joey, you have admitted several times you thought I was Republican, so your lying is noted, yet once again, as unfruitful as you were doing in the election of 2012.
> ...



Nah, it's election talk time, and I make you cry like a baby every time.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your political literacy is returning you false coin, my illiterate friend.
> ...



The two fake republicans fighting each other, doesn't this create a rip in the time-message board continuum? Hopefully the damage is limited to you two idiots. 

Have fun in the singularity twerps.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2014)

marty tries to ignore that he is the focal point of Joe B's left and my mainstream badminton game.  Birdie!


----------



## martybegan (Dec 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> marty tries to ignore that he is the focal point of Joe B's left and my mainstream badminton game.  Birdie!



If figures a panty-waist twat like you would use a badminton reference.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The third in a series.
> 
> Scott Walker-
> 
> ...



I don't like Walker but I am suspecting he may be the GOP candidate- what you consider to be 'cons' are plus's for the the primary- the GOP base hates unions and is loves to hate on intellectuals- lack of a college degree should be a plus- the 'everyman' touch.

He is a governor with a fairly strong conservative record- he is not a Bush and he is not Christy and he is not a Paul. I think he has a good chance for the nomination.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2014)

Perhaps so.


----------

