• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wisconsin Governors Race

Archangel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
OTP, Georgia, USA
imported post

AaronS wrote:
Ahh, to be so young as to not remember Jimmy Carter...
I do.

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom.
(cough cough, GAG)

Yeah . . . they sure are wise aren't they?
 

Right2Bear

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

I wouldn't be surprised if I'm older than you. And yes, I do remember Jimmy Carter.

Obama is worse than Carter by a mile and that is saying something. Up until January of 2009, Carter was the worst president we've ever had. But Carter didn't try to take over the automobile industry, insurance industry, health care, and appoint czars to multiple positions who are not accountable to the American people. And the list goes on and on.

There is little doubt that Obama will prove to be the worst and most destructive president this country has seen. That is unless of course you are one who believes in a socialist state. Then you will most likely love him. If you are naive and uniformed, you'll probably love him also.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Right2Bear wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if I'm older than you.  And yes, I do remember Jimmy Carter. 

Obama is worse than Carter by a mile and that is saying something.  Up until January of 2009, Carter was the worst president we've ever had.  But Carter didn't try to take over the automobile industry, insurance industry, health care, and appoint czars to multiple positions who are not accountable to the American people.  And the list goes on and on.

There is little doubt that Obama will prove to be the worst and most destructive president this country has seen.  That is unless of course you are one who believes in a socialist state.  Then you will most likely love him.  If you are naive and uniformed, you'll probably love him also.

I think you're missing a few details. Bush started the bailouts with AIG and he appointed more "czars" than Obama has(although czar is not a technical position, it's an informal term; I've pointed this out before).

Plus, the poll numbers show his approval rating to be dropping, mostly because people don't see him as a force of change but instead he is showing himself to be much of the same garbage we've seen in the past, plus some.

I was pro McCain in the past but his, uh, let's say temporary insanity, during the recent campaign turned me off. I did vote for Obama and frankly he has done nothing yet that he promised (whoa surprise! politicians lie?) but it would not follow to say that if Obama is no good, McCain would have been. I suspect both would be looked upon unfavorably at the moment.

Not that it matters, but there should have been NO bailouts whatsoever, starting with Bush's bailout of AIG. The healthcare I was on the fence (I didn't know enough details) until I read that people would be fined for not buying insurance. Completely ridiculous.

You may be correct that Obama will turn out to be the worst President but only time will tell. As of yet, he's done little except maintain the status quo.

And if it makes any difference, I was a staunch Bush supporter in 2000. I also flew to D.C. to see Reagan in State(and voted for him back in the day), so I'm not anti-Republican, just keeping it real. :)
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Could have been worse. Could have been Hillary, then we could have really kissed our guns goodbye. Can't you just imagine Hillary as president and "Slick Willie" as Attorney General.
 

Crawlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

How many of Obama's appointments had to go back and repay their taxes they never had paid for the past 5-6 years or whatever it was. Amazing at how irresposible some of those appointments are.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

I have personal experience with the Carter family. In 1970 I graduated from a prestigious military (USN) school. At my class convening, Chip Carter showed up in a chauffeur driven limousine. In the Seventies the military had a serious drug problem, resolved in my field by zero-tolerance (i.e., thoughtlessness). Mid-term Chip left the program at night.

His daddy (hah) presented himself as a 'nuclear engineer'. He never was such by any stretch of the imagination. Couldn't even pronounce it properly.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

heard on tv tonight one of the candidates, but i didn't get the name is talking about term limits to 12 years, and allowing residents to petition the legislature to act on bills. now there's a ray of hope.
 

Right2Bear

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

So you are crediting Bush with making appointments and just calling them czars, and Wikipedia is your source? Sorry - maybe you should use the DNC website. It is about as unbiased as Wikipedia.

Try posting something negative about Obama on Wikipedia and see how long it lasts. True or not, it will be removed.

I will still stand by my statement that anyone who thought (or thinks) Obama is a moderate is simply extremely uninformed.

And Obama hasn't done anything? You really think that is why his poll numbers are dropping?

He hasn't nationalized the major car companies, banks, and insurance companies. He hasn't set wage caps? He has given sweetheart deals to unions and screwed bondholders? He hasn't tried to completely nationalize the health care industry?

And you really believe that his poll numbers aren't dropping because he and the rest of these left wing radicals have been exposed for what they really are? For real?

Ok - well, just wait to see how his numbers look if he actually gets to implement any of his Marxist plans.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

You are welcome to falsify any of my posts, or the Wikipedia, whenever you can. Argument from authority by bald assertion does not cut it.

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it your self unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ Goddamn the Obamination and its teeth.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

i saw in the paper this morning mark neuman was about racine campaigning. is he one of our favored?
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

ass we discuss things in this thread, and make our comments known about what we think of our leaders, all i can add is; you ever notice how every president we get is a lawyer first? kida seems like they come into the office of president with a masters degree in feed em poo-poo- ology.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Lammie wrote:
Could have been worse. Could have been Hillary, then we could have really kissed our guns goodbye. Can't you just imagine Hillary as president and "Slick Willie" as Attorney General.

I can't believe Hilary is still around. It boggles my mind that she has not been forced to disappear into the woodwork...
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Crawlin wrote:
How many of Obama's appointments had to go back and repay their taxes they never had paid for the past 5-6 years or whatever it was.  Amazing at how irresposible some of those appointments are.

I don't dispute your assertion, only that you limit it to one side of the aisle. :)
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
gbu28 wrote: 
Bush started the bailouts with AIG and he appointed more "czars" than Obama has(although czar is not a technical position, it's an informal term; I've pointed this out before).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#List_of_executive_branch_czars

Don't miss the referenced, in the same article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_on_concepts

I stand corrected per Doug's research, with the disclaimer that this topic came up before and at that time Obama had less 'czars' than Bush had. But more or less is irrelevant. The whole idea behind the czar thing is to paint the picture of socialism by using terms that we associate with the Soviet Union and all it entails. One word: McCarthyism.

I have no issue with someone making an assertion, but it's less than genuine to use the czar issue to taint Obama's presidency when the last administration did the exact same thing.

Besides, there are good reasons to question Obama's leadership, no need to use misleading, false, or irrelevant ideas. :)
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it your self unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

This is, without doubt, the best thing I learned in college, bar none.

And I know many people say it, referring to those they disagree with, but they often don't apply it to themselves.

Almost every day I get emails forwarded to me from (mostly right-wing) friends which detail some audacious plan from the left to steal the liberties from the right, which were forwarded to them and they just forward it on, without researching it. To date, I've shown all of them to be false and misleading, and I've responded with appropriate references. They don't even bat an eye at being corrected. They just move on to the next false assertion and grasp it as gospel.

Just this morning I received one that had a claim which included hyperlinks to snopes and the US Senate as proof. I clicked on the links in the email and the websites flat out refute the email claims. What am I supposed to do with people like this? They're not even making a half-assed attempt at being truthful or honest.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Things to Consider Before Supporting Any Candidate for Public Office




General George Washington: The model of the disinterested, reluctant leader. A man who turned down and walked away from power at least three times in his life: first, by refusing the offer of a military coup at the height of his power; second, by retiring from public life after the Revolutionary War when he likely could have become “King of America,” and third, by, to the astonishment of the world, term-limiting himself and walking away from what could have been presidency for life. How does your candidate compare?

When you are considering supporting any candidate for office, consider the following four criteria:
1. Do they know and understand the Constitution? If they don’t know and understand it, how can they possibly defend it? As a threshold matter, do they know the text? Have they even read it? If they don’t even know what it says, how can they follow it? If the can’t be bothered to read it, just how sincere a Constitutional defender are they? And do they understand it? Do they have a firm grasp of the basic principles and concepts of our Constitutional Republic? Attend a town hall meeting and ask them some pointed questions to test their knowledge. A good list of questions to ask can be found at the back of the excellent book, the Five Thousand Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen. If they don’t know the text or the answers to those questions, then you should be very hesitant to support them for office. Certainly you can have good, sincere people of demonstrated courage who have recently woken up and had not heretofore studied the Constitution. But courage without understanding will just not cut it. At the least they should correct their ignorance, and you can help them do so, such as by giving them a copy of Skousen’s book to go along with their reading of the text of the Constitution itself, but frankly I have to wonder why they are even running for office if they have not yet bothered to read and study the Constitution.
2. Even if they know what the Constitution says and understand it, do they have the integrity and courage to follow the Constitution, come what may? Knowledge without courage and integrity is even more useless than is courage without understanding. There’s a thundering herd of politicians, most of them lawyers, who do know what it says but simply don’t give a damn. When trying to figure out whether a candidate has the courage and integrity to actually be faithful to the Constitution, look not to what they say now, on the campaign trail, but to what they have done. If they have already served in office, what was their voting record? If they have already voted for unconstitutional bills, then they have shown you all you need to know. Such a person is a demonstrated oath breaker. If, to be fair to them, there is a valid question of whether one of their votes was a violation of their oath, ask them to explain why they voted the way they did. Unless they can articulate a credible rationale for why the bill was constitutional, you should pass. And have they spoken out against the violations of the Constitution by their own party, or do they only point out the violations by “the other team”? And even if they have no political voting record to look at, have they, in the past, ever stood tall in any situation, with the courage of their convictions, even at personal risk? In other words, what have they DONE? When have they taken a stand? If you can’t find any examples of them taking a stand, I would be very suspicious of believing the campaign promises.
3. Do they have the personal integrity to keep specific campaign promises, such as promises to term limit themselves or to vote for or against particular bills? What about them or their past behavior makes you confident they will keep their promises? When have they been true to their word even to their own harm?
4. What is their motivation for running? Do they look forward to public office? Are they excited about the prospect? If so, run! Frankly, the best candidate is the sincere constitutionalist who does not want to run for office, who loathes the thought of all the headaches that go with the job, that you have to convince to run against their better judgment (because serving in public office is a royal pain in the rear to normal people. Only psycho sociopaths enjoy it). You want someone who is not interested in power and perks. All too often I have seen people who were sincere constitutionalists but who also were very keen on public office sell their souls and compromise their principles because they were star-struck with the prospects of fame and fortune and liked the idea of being called “Senator” or “Representative” so-and-so just a bit too much. Seek out the person who doesn’t care a whit about all the perks and power, who detests the idea of running for office, and convince that one to run. You will more likely have someone who will stand tall no matter what.
A candidate for office must know the Constitution, must have the courage to follow it, must have the integrity to keep promises, and must be in it not for personal gain, but to serve, protect, and defend. Look past the campaign rhetoric and see if you can find a track record of knowledge, courage, and actual devotion to country. If you can’t find such a clear track record, look elsewhere.
Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers


  • [align=center] [/align] Sign up for our Email Newsletter [align=center] [/align] OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY Click here to read full length version.
    1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
    2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
    3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
    4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
    5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
    6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
    7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
    8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
    9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
    10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
    Click here to read full length version.

    Founder Stewart Rhodes
    stewart.jpg
    Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.
    Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine
    Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.
    Read More

    Board of Directors Sgt. Dave Freeman (RET), Las Vegas Metro, and Army veteran.National Peace Officer Liaison.

    CDR David R. Gillie, USN. National Liaison to current Serving Military Officers.

    Capt. Chauncey Normandin (RET), Lowell (MA) PD, and Army veteran. Florida State Director.

    Capt. Gregory Gooch (Ret), Merchant Marine, and Viet Nam Era Navy veteran. Texas State Director.

    Chief Celia S. Hyde (RET),Bolton (MA) PD. Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police.Oath Keepers Massachusetts State Director.

    Sgt. Rand Cardwell. U.S.M.C. veteran (Desert Storm). Tennessee State Director.

    Elias Alias. U.S.M.C. veteran (Vietnam). Montana State Director.

    Robert A. Gomez, MSgt, USAF (RET). Oklahoma State Director.

    P. Jeffrey Black (Ret), Federal Air Marshal Service, Federal Law Enforcement Liaison

    David T. Helms, U.S. Army (Vet), AR Chapter President

    Maj. Rex H. McTyeire (Ret), U.S. Army Special Forces, SC Chapter President



    [align=center]
    [/align]
 

GlocksRfun

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
147
Location
Waukesha, ,
imported post

Right2Bear wrote:
So you are crediting Bush with making appointments and just calling them czars, and Wikipedia is your source? Sorry - maybe you should use the DNC website. It is about as unbiased as Wikipedia.

Try posting something negative about Obama on Wikipedia and see how long it lasts. True or not, it will be removed.

I will still stand by my statement that anyone who thought (or thinks) Obama is a moderate is simply extremely uninformed.

And Obama hasn't done anything? You really think that is why his poll numbers are dropping?

He hasn't nationalized the major car companies, banks, and insurance companies. He hasn't set wage caps? He has given sweetheart deals to unions and screwed bondholders? He hasn't tried to completely nationalize the health care industry?

And you really believe that his poll numbers aren't dropping because he and the rest of these left wing radicals have been exposed for what they really are? For real?

Ok - well, just wait to see how his numbers look if he actually gets to implement any of his Marxist plans.
Savage Nation?
 
Top