Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll connect the dots for ya. Walker balances budget by borrowing and by government subsidies. Tea partiers are against borrowing. Scotty is a Tea partier. Tea party rules apply to others, not Scotty.
Is this about a Federal government program where states pay into it? If so, he should try and get Wisconsins money that they put into it.
Yeah right.
Quote:
A “small government” Republican like Scott Walker bragging about the surplus “he created,” asking the federal government for help when Wisconsin could easily provide aid for itself without help from the federal government. All so he can cut taxes
.
Quote:
It’s not that I’m against the federal government helping out the people of Wisconsin. I just find it incredibly hypocritical when Republicans constantly harp on the evils of the federal government (and even programs like FEMA), yet they’re some of the first people standing there with their hands out asking for help from the federal government whenever it’s convenient.
The problem all to often is you don't discuss the relevant facts from the link. You post the link and say see.
I think you should read my posts. You couldn't be more incorrect. I post quotes, that relate to the relevant facts, from the links I cite. I give credit to those who provided these facts so as not to plagiarize.
When did they endorse him? I mean you've been babbling in defense of the Clintons claiming there wasnt quid pro quo because there is no proof, so I insist you hold your own postings up to the same standards and cite when the endorsement took place.
While David Koch did not formally endorse Scott Walker, but he did say this (from the OP):
"We will support whoever the candidate is," David Koch said at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, according to the newspaper. "But it should be Scott Walker."
Your post is laughable, considering who funds the Left and is therefore "running the country." Primarily, that would be George Soros.
The difference is, Democrats actually talk about getting all money out of politics (yes, that includes people like Soros and unions). Republicans are totally cool with the current system. They believe that letting a small, select group of ultra wealthy donors hand pick the candidates we all have to vote for is a good thing.
Walker has totally bent over most of the state of Wisconsin with his anti-middle class policies, and now he wants to continue on with the rest of the United States. His economic track record here in Wisconsin is a total embarrassment based on any non-partisan measure, but Republicans love it because he punished a lot of people, including teachers and unions. It's like he has the state of Wisconsin slammed against the pinball machine, and the Kochs and die-hard Republicans are cheering him on.
The difference is, Democrats actually talk about getting all money out of politics (yes, that includes people like Soros and unions). Republicans are totally cool with the current system. They believe that letting a small, select group of ultra wealthy donors hand pick the candidates we all have to vote for is a good thing.
Walker has totally bent over most of the state of Wisconsin with his anti-middle class policies, and now he wants to continue on with the rest of the United States. His economic track record here in Wisconsin is a total embarrassment based on any non-partisan measure, but Republicans love it because he punished a lot of people, including teachers and unions. It's like he has the state of Wisconsin slammed against the pinball machine, and the Kochs and die-hard Republicans are cheering him on.
LOL. Democrats "talk about" this because they know that there are naive Gruberites who support them who will believe whatever they are told, despite every indication that the Democrats have no commitment to getting rid of all money in politics at all.
In fact, it is literally impossible to do this, as they know and understand very well.
All they want is to undermine their opponents fundraising abilities, while increasing their own financial strength. It is pure bias and hypocrisy. One example that illustrates this is the IRS intimidation of conservative groups under the Obama administration, some of which groups are still being stonewalled to this very day (including Karl Rove's "American Crossroads" group).
Seriously, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
LOL. Democrats "talk about" this because they know that there are naive Gruberites who support them who will believe whatever they are told, despite every indication that the Democrats have no commitment to getting rid of all money in politics at all.
In fact, it is literally impossible to do this, as they know and understand very well.
All they want is to undermine their opponents fundraising abilities, while increasing their own financial strength. It is pure bias and hypocrisy. One example that illustrates this is the IRS intimidation of conservative groups under the Obama administration, some of which groups are still being stonewalled to this very day (including Karl Rove's "American Crossroads" group).
Seriously, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
So it's Republicans who are pushing "Move to Amend" petitions and referendums?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
