Gary M Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/18/republicans-challenging-unions-state-capitols/ "I think we're focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing," Walker told Fox News. "Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Obama said. "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends." This shows Obama is more concerned about his union friends than the country's financial situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 This shows Obama is more concerned about his union friends than the country's financial situation. While there's no question Obama is a smart man -- and I'm sure he has his political reasons -- he is, without question, the Gladys Kravitz of presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 While there's no question Obama is a smart man -- and I'm sure he has his political reasons -- he is, without question, the Gladys Kravitz of presidents. I don't think he is. I think he's all bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I don't think he is. I think he's all bull ****. Yes because only stupid people spew bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/18/republicans-challenging-unions-state-capitols/ "I think we're focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing," Walker told Fox News. "Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Obama said. "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends." This shows Obama is more concerned about his union friends than the country's financial situation. "Assault"???? What happened to the toning down of the violent rhetoric after the congresswoman was shot in the head? Well that didn't last long, did it...LOL Are non-union, private sector workers not neighbors? not your friends? You know, the ones who are footing the bill for outrageously bloated union salaries, pension plans and gold plated healthcare plans. The ones that Obama couldn't give a rat's ass about. BTW, for someone who graduated from Harvard, he's a mathematic moron who obviously doesn't have a clue what the phrase "balancing a budget" means. Dude should have put down the weed and taken an accounting class. This is his dumbest move yet. Chris Christie can't get elected fast enough for President in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Yes because only stupid people spew bull ****. Ok he is of moderate intelligence and possesses a car salesman's level of bull ****. Hows that? Edited February 18, 2011 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Yes because only stupid people spew bull ****. In some contexts, they're more likely, because they can't understand how reality refuses to conform to "the way things should be". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 In the war between perception and reality, perceptions wins 99% of the battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 In the war between perception and reality, perceptions wins 99% of the battles. Or at least it's perceived to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Wisconsin Governor not moving. Jeff Myers, who works for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, said he's taking a 10% cut in pay and wondered how many others in the state were taking that kind of hit. "I'm feeling personally bullied at work," he said. "I'm being made to feel like a criminal, they're taking attendance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/18/republicans-challenging-unions-state-capitols/ "I think we're focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing," Walker told Fox News. "Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Obama said. "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends." This shows Obama is more concerned about his union friends than the country's financial situation. Walker is a lying sack of crap. He wants to bust the unions... oh and IF he can actually get that state budget in order after that, great. If not (which is more likely) he still busted the unions. You say Obama cares about his union friends? Really? If that was the case the Employee Free Choice Act would have been passed a LONG time ago. Obama like the unions are trying to protect the middle-class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Walker is a lying sack of crap. He wants to bust the unions... oh and IF he can actually get that state budget in order after that, great. If not (which is more likely) he still busted the unions. You say Obama cares about his union friends? Really? If that was the case the Employee Free Choice Act would have been passed a LONG time ago. Obama like the unions are trying to protect the middle-class. So how exactly do you define "middle class?" I'm asking because I always hear that thrown out there but nobody gives a defined answer as to what it means. My in-laws are both teachers at a technical college in Wisconsin. They both give the same talking points - "without the union, there's no middle class." I won't state how much they make until I hear some responses, but I'll just say that I don't consider them middle class. So how much money does a family earn to be middle class? Middle-upper class? Upper class? Elite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 So how exactly do you define "middle class?" I'm asking because I always hear that thrown out there but nobody gives a defined answer as to what it means. My in-laws are both teachers at a technical college in Wisconsin. They both give the same talking points - "without the union, there's no middle class." I won't state how much they make until I hear some responses, but I'll just say that I don't consider them middle class. So how much money does a family earn to be middle class? Middle-upper class? Upper class? Elite? Good question. I, and damn near everyone I know, are "middle class", but I don't know one mother !@#$er in a union. When I hear empty aphorisms like the talking points you mentioned it just sounds like the empty drivel of overly religious types who have made their beliefs part of their identity thus divorcing those beliefs of any logical prerequisits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 So how exactly do you define "middle class?" It's very easy, actually, if you pay attention to today's politics. You just find the middle of the classes. On the low end, you have the poverty class, which I believe is about $11,000/year for an individual, and around $22,000/year for a family of four. On the high end, you have the wealthy millionaires, which now is defined as individuals earning $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000/year. Everything between there constitutes the modest, or middle class. In the end, the issue isn't about the middle class so much as it's about those willing to be responsible for themselves (or what the progessives refer to as "the selfish"), and those who demand others be responsible for them with no accountability (or what the conservatives refer to as "progressives."). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 So how exactly do you define "middle class?" I'm asking because I always hear that thrown out there but nobody gives a defined answer as to what it means. My in-laws are both teachers at a technical college in Wisconsin. They both give the same talking points - "without the union, there's no middle class." I won't state how much they make until I hear some responses, but I'll just say that I don't consider them middle class. So how much money does a family earn to be middle class? Middle-upper class? Upper class? Elite? Lower side of the Middle-Class $35,000 to $75,000... upper side: $100,000 to $150,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Walker is a lying sack of crap. He wants to bust the unions... oh and IF he can actually get that state budget in order after that, great. If not (which is more likely) he still busted the unions. You say Obama cares about his union friends? Really? If that was the case the Employee Free Choice Act would have been passed a LONG time ago. Obama like the unions are trying to protect the middle-class. Historically, unions try to protect the working class, not the middle class. If unions are now protecting the middle class, that's truly a watershed change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Historically, unions try to protect the working class, not the middle class. If unions are now protecting the middle class, that's truly a watershed change. Historically, the working class IS the middle-class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Historically, the working class IS the middle-class. If there's anything history has taught us, it's that: pBills is an idiot And history always repeats itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 If there's anything history has taught us, it's that: pBills is an idiot And history always repeats itself. I'm not sure I agree with you here concerning history repeating itself. If that always happens then that would mean that there had been many pBills over the long course of history. Don't you think that the natural selection of the fittest would have eliminated him very, very early on? pBills is for sure just a chance happening of a threesome with Dumb & Dumber and a remora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Historically, the working class IS the middle-class. The proletariat is historically the petit bourgeuis? The peasantry is historically the merchant class? I understand you're confused, because in modern America the working class gets paid almost as much as the middle class, thus you equate the two. But you're still an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts