Metal Sludge Gossip Board

SmokingGun wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwXa197 ... r_embedded


The solution?

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/06/kill-scot ... ll-defeat/

brotherplanet wrote:
Fucking hysterical!!! The VOTE/ELECTION didn't go his way so Democracy is dead!

DEATH ROW JOE wrote:

brotherplanet wrote:
Fucking hysterical!!! The VOTE/ELECTION didn't go his way so Democracy is dead!

He said democracy was dead because outside money determined the outcome of a state election, not merely because his candidate lost.


Fake "Koch brother" calls up Wisconsin governor
http://youtu.be/AOCixU_U71o


Outside money soils Wisconsin politics
By Greta Van Susteren (Fox News host)

OK, call me old-fashioned (and while you are at it, you can call me cheesehead, too).

I think the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker June 5 has been hijacked by "out-of-staters." I don't like it. The governor's recall race is Wisconsin's business. Period.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/ou ... 25855.html

tylamonroe wrote:

DEATH ROW JOE wrote:

brotherplanet wrote:
Fucking hysterical!!! The VOTE/ELECTION didn't go his way so Democracy is dead!

He said democracy was dead because outside money determined the outcome of a state election, not merely because his candidate lost.


Fake "Koch brother" calls up Wisconsin governor
http://youtu.be/AOCixU_U71o


Outside money soils Wisconsin politics
By Greta Van Susteren (Fox News host)

OK, call me old-fashioned (and while you are at it, you can call me cheesehead, too).

I think the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker June 5 has been hijacked by "out-of-staters." I don't like it. The governor's recall race is Wisconsin's business. Period.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/ou ... 25855.html

Oh cry me a fucking river. These Union Thug Cunts have been outspending their competitors for years AND bussing in out of state PAID union thugs to walk their signs and sing their gay chants and help the dead to vote (119% turnout for this one). They got beat at their own game this time and I, for one, am fucking loving it.

tylamonroe wrote:I'm curious. What do corporations, in your opinion, have to gain from PE unions taking a haircut? Seems to me the only ones that lose here are the union mafia bosses.

Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

By Peter Dreier, Reader Supported News

06 June 12



Here's a headline you won't see, but should: "Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote."

Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Wisconsin recall election, examining exit polls, spilling lots of ink over how different demographic groups - income, race, religious, union membership, gender, party affiliation, independents, liberals/conservatives/moderates, etc - voted on Tuesday.

But the real winner in Wisconsin on Tuesday was not Gov. Scott Walker, but Big Money. And the real loser was not Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, but democracy.

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million - that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes - 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.

But the reality is even worse than this, because the $34.5 million figure does not include so-called independent expenditures and issue ads paid for primarily by out-of-state billionaires (like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and Joe Rickets), business groups, and the National Rifle Association, which were skewed even more heavily toward Walker. Once all this additional spending is calculated, we'll see that total spending in this race could be more than double the $34.5 billion number, that Walker and his business allies outspent Barrett by an even wider margin, and that he had to spend even more than $23 for each vote.

In other words, business and billionaires bought this election for Walker. The money paid for non-stop TV and radio ads as well as mailers. There's no doubt that if the Barrett campaign had even one-third of the war- chest that Walker had, it would have been able to mount an even more formidable grassroots get-out-the-vote campaign and put more money into the TV and radio air war. Under those circumstances, it is likely that Barrett would have prevailed.

Pundits can have a field day pontificating about the Wisconsin election, but in the end its about how Big Money hijacked democracy in the Badger State on Tuesday, and how they're trying to do it again in November.

Peter Dreier is E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College. He is the co-author of "Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century" and "The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City." He writes regularly for the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, and American Prospect. His next book, "The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame," will be published by Nation Books in the spring.

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:I'm curious. What do corporations, in your opinion, have to gain from PE unions taking a haircut? Seems to me the only ones that lose here are the union mafia bosses.

It seems you disapprove of the dead being involved in the electoral process unless they are dead presidents.

Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

By Peter Dreier, Reader Supported News

06 June 12

Let go back to my initial "cry me a river" comment. Unions have had no problem pileing up the dead presidents in the past. They got beat at thier own game this time and it's the end of the world? Really?

All their bag of tricks failed for one simple reason. You can't fool all the people all the time forever.

Get used to it. The new working man has arrived and he has no sympothy for the protected elite gov't worker.

Power to the people for real.









Here's a headline you won't see, but should: "Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote."

Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Wisconsin recall election, examining exit polls, spilling lots of ink over how different demographic groups - income, race, religious, union membership, gender, party affiliation, independents, liberals/conservatives/moderates, etc - voted on Tuesday.

But the real winner in Wisconsin on Tuesday was not Gov. Scott Walker, but Big Money. And the real loser was not Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, but democracy.

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million - that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes - 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.

But the reality is even worse than this, because the $34.5 million figure does not include so-called independent expenditures and issue ads paid for primarily by out-of-state billionaires (like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and Joe Rickets), business groups, and the National Rifle Association, which were skewed even more heavily toward Walker. Once all this additional spending is calculated, we'll see that total spending in this race could be more than double the $34.5 billion number, that Walker and his business allies outspent Barrett by an even wider margin, and that he had to spend even more than $23 for each vote.

In other words, business and billionaires bought this election for Walker. The money paid for non-stop TV and radio ads as well as mailers. There's no doubt that if the Barrett campaign had even one-third of the war- chest that Walker had, it would have been able to mount an even more formidable grassroots get-out-the-vote campaign and put more money into the TV and radio air war. Under those circumstances, it is likely that Barrett would have prevailed.

Pundits can have a field day pontificating about the Wisconsin election, but in the end its about how Big Money hijacked democracy in the Badger State on Tuesday, and how they're trying to do it again in November.

Peter Dreier is E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College. He is the co-author of "Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century" and "The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City." He writes regularly for the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, and American Prospect. His next book, "The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame," will be published by Nation Books in the spring.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 ... f-the-vote

Danzig in the Dark wrote:Power to the people with money enough to buy it.

tylamonroe wrote:

Danzig in the Dark wrote:Power to the people with money enough to buy it.

And you are pissed because the Unions came up short this time? Seems to me all the evidence is that the everyday Joe comes out on top on this one. Teachers and over govt employees are being asked to contribute 6% to their health and retierement. I can't offer anything close to that for my employes, much to my and their chagrin.

The days of PEI raping the tax payer are over. That is NOT a bad thing no matter what side of the fence you sit.

Wis went from billions of red ink to millions of black under Walker. Maybe he has an idea? If I'm a teacher, yeah it sucks. If I am one of the 90% who is not a gov't employee I'm thrilled and say "welcome to the real world, fruit whistles."

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:

Danzig in the Dark wrote:Power to the people with money enough to buy it.

And you are pissed because the Unions came up short this time? Seems to me all the evidence is that the everyday Joe comes out on top on this one. Teachers and over govt employees are being asked to contribute 6% to their health and retierement. I can't offer anything close to that for my employes, much to my and their chagrin.

The days of PEI raping the tax payer are over. That is NOT a bad thing no matter what side of the fence you sit.

Wis went from billions of red ink to millions of black under Walker. Maybe he has an idea? If I'm a teacher, yeah it sucks. If I am one of the 90% who is not a gov't employee I'm thrilled and say "welcome to the real world, fruit whistles."

Money won. Everyday Joes don't spend millions to influence elections in a state they will never step foot in. I don't care about the unions. They've been weak and useless for years. Even Walker's Democrat opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Bennett, was going to cut their benefits. I am mystified by the fear and loathing you invest into them, though.

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

I imagine this isn't the only thing Tyla and Hitler agree upon.

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

I imagine this isn't the only thing Tyla and Hitler agree upon.

brotherplanet wrote:


Really??? Now anyone who isn't pro Union is a Nazi???


What the fuck is wrong with you?


The Libs are for gun control. Using your logic this now applies correctly...

1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.

2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: As ThinkProgress reported earlier in the week, the relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.

3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.

4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”

5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”

brotherplanet wrote:The Libs are for gun control. Using your logic this now applies correctly...

Skate4RnR wrote:Don't you wish Ahnold could run for prez, you guys out in Cali know what's up!

tylamonroe wrote:When a Republican is fucking a Kennedy you can't trust him.

tylamonroe wrote:Fucking trogladytes.

That is the other one a lib uses the second he loses an argument. The one that follows it is really scary though... "We have to pass it to find out what is in it"

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:Fucking trogladytes.

That is the other one a lib uses the second he loses an argument. The one that follows it is really scary though... "We have to pass it to find out what is in it"

Ramble on.

Again I say, you don't like unions, that's your perogative, just don't take advantage of anything workwise that unions got for the american worker.

SmokingGun wrote:

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:Fucking trogladytes.

That is the other one a lib uses the second he loses an argument. The one that follows it is really scary though... "We have to pass it to find out what is in it"

Ramble on.

Again I say, you don't like unions, that's your perogative, just don't take advantage of anything workwise that unions got for the american worker.

So we have to remain loyal to every group or organization that has ever benefitted us, even if they do nothing for us today? Don't like Henry Ford because he was an anti semite, so just don't take advantage of his invention of the car?

My take on this issue is that private funding for political parties is always tainted by the agenda of the donor. The left have the unions and Hollywood, the right have their religious institutions and multinationals hell bent on offshoring everything.

Ban all lobbying, all political donations of any kind and the average citizen would be infinitely better off. The losers would be the proverbial 1%.. bankers, CEOs and politicians.

Instead of unions, have minimum wages set in law by the government. Match tarrifs and other barriers with those of China to offset the subsequent loss in competitive advantage from increased wages.

SmokingGun wrote:

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:Fucking trogladytes.

That is the other one a lib uses the second he loses an argument. The one that follows it is really scary though... "We have to pass it to find out what is in it"

Ramble on.

Again I say, you don't like unions, that's your perogative, just don't take advantage of anything workwise that unions got for the american worker.

So we have to remain loyal to every group or organization that has ever benefitted us, even if they do nothing for us today? Don't like Henry Ford because he was an anti semite, so just don't take advantage of his invention of the car?