Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

Skeptic Ginger said:
What a bald faced lie.

Perhaps you lost track of the discussion:
The entire rest of your red herring is arguing about additional things which were in post #257 that were discussed in detail after post #257. And you are making up the bald faced lie I have been arguing false budget numbers I have not been arguing.

Go catch up on the discussion and quit lying about my position. It's rude.
Click to expand...

So when someone asks you for links backing up your claims, it's okay to provide a quote to a post that contains 66% debunked crap and 34% non-debunked, yet still crap, that doesn't support your claims but actually supports mine? I asked you for evidence of your claims. You didn't provide any. It appears is that you are standing by your propaganda.
 
Newtons Bit said:
So when someone asks you for links backing up your claims, it's okay to provide a quote to a post that contains 66% debunked crap and 34% non-debunked, yet still crap, that doesn't support your claims but actually supports mine? I asked you for evidence of your claims. You didn't provide any. It appears is that you are standing by your propaganda.
Click to expand...
I answered this 3 times now. How many times are you going to ignore the answer? Does my answer need to be dumbed down? Is that the problem?

Post #257 had more information in it than the citation which answered your challenge about the pay of other Wisconsin government workers besides teachers.

You are lying about my position by claiming THE OTHER INFORMATION in post #257 UNRELATED TO THE WAGES YOU ASKED FOR EVIDENCE OF represents my position on the budget figures.

QUIT LYING. Read the rest of the discussion that follows post #257 and bring yourself up to speed on that particular issue. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. You've taken something COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT AND YOU ARE PRESENTING IT DISHONESTLY.
 
eeyore1954 said:
This may not be true of Chicago garbage crews. But I have noticed that in my neighborhoods they work very fast and hard. The driver frequently jumps out and runs to help the person in the back.
I always assumed they had a route to finish and if they were early they could relax. This doesn't bother me when they work as hard as these particular people do. I am certain they do in 6 hours what most people would consider a good 8 hour work period.
Click to expand...
Did you read the actual report which is linked to in the story? They were parking on the side of the road, drinking beer, pissing in the street. Sometimes they'd punch in, then go back home or to a restaurant for a few hours.

AFAIK not a single disciplinary action was taken. Basically the sity said, "ok, it's really our fault for not keeping a closer eye on what you were doing. Keep up the good work". Nothing has changed.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I answered this 3 times now. How many times are you going to ignore the answer? Does my answer need to be dumbed down? Is that the problem?

Post #257 had more information in it than the citation which answered your challenge about the pay of other Wisconsin government workers besides teachers.

You are lying about my position by claiming THE OTHER INFORMATION in post #257 UNRELATED TO THE WAGES YOU ASKED FOR EVIDENCE OF represents my position on the budget figures.

QUIT LYING. Read the rest of the discussion that follows post #257 and bring yourself up to speed on that particular issue. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. You've taken something COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT AND YOU ARE PRESENTING IT DISHONESTLY.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

I asked you for evidence on a multitude of things. You provided links of a multitude of things. None of which actually supported the claims you were making. How was I supposed to know which link that didn't support your claim was the one you wanted to use for supporting your claim? If you didn't want to include the previously debunked items as part of your evidence you shouldn't have provided them again! People will think that might mean you think you are using them to provide evidence!
 
Respectfully to Skeptic Ginger and Newtons Bit:
The sniping nature of the posts is making it hard to follow your discussion.

Is the issue that Skeptic Ginger claims that Walker created the budget deficit and there wouldn't be one except for his actions?

Or is the issue that Skeptic Ginger contends that the pensions public employees get are an insignificant part of the current budget crisis and future budget problems?

Or am I completely confused on what the issues are?
 
davefoc said:
Respectfully to Skeptic Ginger and Newtons Bit:
The sniping nature of the posts is making it hard to follow your discussion.

Is the issue that Skeptic Ginger claims that Walker created the budget deficit and there wouldn't be one except for his actions?

Or is the issue that Skeptic Ginger contends that the pensions public employees get are an insignificant part of the current budget crisis and future budget problems?

Or am I completely confused on what the issues are?
Click to expand...
I'll quit responding to NB on this and I'm sorry the annoyance has affected other people. I would have hoped what I was saying was clear to other people even if it wasn't clear to NB.

NB challenged me to provide some evidence I had already provided. I copied the post with the already provided evidence to show NB the evidence he asked for.

Then NB then took something else from the cited post that was completely unrelated to the evidence he asked for, and he took that thing out of context. He's been claiming in post after post that the out of context thing from an old post is somehow my position. It is not my argument/position and never has been. In context that would be clear. Out of context it is a straw man of the worst kind, one that is insulting.


In short, the confused budget shortfall numbers has been discussed and clarified. The current 24 month fiscal budget has $137 million shortfall and the predicted shortfall for the subsequent 24 month fiscal budget is 2+ billion. Anyone reading the thread should be aware this has been clarified.
 
davefoc said:
Respectfully to Skeptic Ginger and Newtons Bit:
The sniping nature of the posts is making it hard to follow your discussion.

Is the issue that Skeptic Ginger claims that Walker created the budget deficit and there wouldn't be one except for his actions?
Click to expand...

She did at one point, and then didn't appear to support that claim, and then appeared to use it as a claim again. And then played coy about whether or not it was actually a claim she was supporting for awhile.

Or is the issue that Skeptic Ginger contends that the pensions public employees get are an insignificant part of the current budget crisis and future budget problems?

Or am I completely confused on what the issues are?
Click to expand...

The root issue, was me asking her to back up her claims in this post. She replied with a bunch of stuff that didn't actually respond to that. Pardon me for not knowing which items that didn't support her claim were the ones she that intended to support her claim and which items that also didn't support said claim weren't.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Um, no.

I asked you for evidence on a multitude of things. You provided links of a multitude of things. None of which actually supported the claims you were making. How was I supposed to know which link that didn't support your claim was the one you wanted to use for supporting your claim? If you didn't want to include the previously debunked items as part of your evidence you shouldn't have provided them again! People will think that might mean you think you are using them to provide evidence!
Click to expand...
You are going to have to support this with quotes from the posts in question, and you are going to have to bring yourself up to speed on the discussion, not bring up something that has already been discussed if you want any more discussion of this.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I can understand that post #419 confused you, NB, but I don't understand what was difficult to understand about the clarification which followed a couple posts later.
Click to expand...

I don't want to bicker about it anymore, but you never once said that you didn't think those applied anymore. You just said that they had been discussed and gave replies that seemed like you still thought they applied. Rather than call something a red herring, say it's already been discussed, tell people to read back on the discussion and the links (plural, LINKS) that they would find you were right. Scrolling back, I can't find you disavowing those links. You did say that you thought Maddow made some errors, but the gist of her argument was still right.

I can't follow your position because its not well defined.

edit: and on the subject of wages, that link doesn't support your claim.
 
My post didn't get the response I was hoping for. What I hoped was either Skeptic Ginger would just repost what her claims were and then Newtons bit could describe why he felt the evidence posted to support those claims didn't.

Or that Newtons bit could post an explicit statement of the claims that he thinks Skeptic Ginger is making and SG would either confirm or deny that she was making those claims.

I realize I'm being lazy here, I was just trying to understand this without sorting through a lot of gunge unrelated to the claims, support for the claims and refutation of the claims.
 
Newtons Bit said:
She did at one point, and then didn't appear to support that claim, and then appeared to use it as a claim again. And then played coy about whether or not it was actually a claim she was supporting for awhile.



The root issue, was me asking her to back up her claims in this post. She replied with a bunch of stuff that didn't actually respond to that. Pardon me for not knowing which items that didn't support her claim were the ones she that intended to support her claim and which items that also didn't support said claim weren't.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger has a history of debating like this when she is on the losing side. Which is quite often.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm not sure that's the motivation. Workers identify with one another. I would think the unaffected union members are saying, we don't like what Walker is doing to other workers. The firefighters don't have to feel personally threatened to care about the teachers and other workers.

I'm not threatened by Walker and I care.
Click to expand...

I've gotten reports that in the Wisconsin protests more and more state police officers are joining in on the pro-union side. They apparently don't like the direction in which Gov. Walker wants to head, either.
 
Last edited:
A Laughing Baby said:
An Indiana deputy Attorney General just lost his job because he tweeted that WI police should use live ammunition on the protesters. I don't get why people think being on the internet makes them immune from the "you can be fired for saying stupid stuff" rule.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

With such a highly charged political environment swirling around all of this, I would hope that you provide a reference for such a claim. Please do so.
 
dirtywick said:
They are running TV ads featuring firefighters as well.
Click to expand...

Who are "they"?

If it's Gov. Walker and his billionaire buddies, I think it's too little, too late according to this nationwide, nonpartisan poll from Gallup...

Poll: Public employee unions have support
The public strongly opposes laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions as a way to ease state financial troubles, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

The poll found that 61 percent would oppose a law in their state similar to one being considered in Wisconsin, compared with 33 percent who would favor such a law. ...
Click to expand...

What was that the Tea Party was saying about "representing the people"? :D
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Who is "they"?
Click to expand...

Whoever's running the ads, I don't know. Just saying the firefighters aren't happy like you said with the police.

-edit-

Despite them both being exempted is why it's notable. I'm assuming that's why you said something about the police as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom