Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
Kaostricks
3094 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Miguel Lopez
27074 Followers
merainydayNov 9, 2011
NOW on to SCOTT WALKER: who may be the EPITOME (next to Kasich & Herman Cain) of the NEW GOP:
Have you noticed the slimy,slick new way all Rethuglicans treat Americans, even our Veterans as is they were of no use, or benefit. Current GOP politicians , not just Teabaggers, are ALL CORPORATE (KOCH/ALEC/Norquist) Owned now, ... and since Corporations have no ethics, morals, values or responsibilities to humans, Republicans don't either anymore! ..So Simple! .... GOTTA Vote'em out folks. Starting with Walker, Then McConnell, Boehner and Cantor! and all teabaggers!
skyislandNov 9, 2011
Right on.
alucardthegreatNov 9, 2011
And by greater than 60%. How do you like them apples, Kasich!
absoul2Nov 9, 2011
If it pisses off the rightards then it's good enough for me.
letsgetreal50Nov 9, 2011
It's a very good sign of things to come. Happy, happy. Joy, joy!
johnnr2Nov 9, 2011
Tax the rich.
bdbrNov 9, 2011
End world hunger!
(Since we're listing things that have nothing to do with this bill, I say go big)
letsgetreal50Nov 9, 2011
Tax them twice or more!
shivabeachNov 9, 2011
I have to say that I am still in shock at what the Republican governors have been trying to do to American workers and to American people in general. Why on earth would they do this so blatantly? I know they are following ALEC and the Koch brothers, but anyone with a brain has to know that when you do this the people would fight back
Religious authoritarianism and the attack on the American worker produced a big fail yesterday. This certainly won’t be the end of it for the Koch and ALEC, but it will show them that their tactics are not acceptable.
Mississippi absolutely shocked me because I was dead sure the personhoood bill would pass. All the experts on TV thought it would. We will not go back into the 10th-century and be led by little people saying they are doing the work of God.
We have lots to be proud of this morning
kamtsaNov 9, 2011
Actually it would help most American workers. The public employees unions are monopolistic special interest groups that such the rest of the working Americans.
Trying to generalize from restrictions on the monopolistic public employees unions to the rest of the American workers is misleading at best.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
While fat cat corporate executives are hoarding trillions of dollars and making themselves richer and richer you think its public employee special interest groups that are harming American workers?
mrteflonNov 9, 2011
Fat cat CEO who makes 500 times the regular workers salary has Earned it.
The regular worker upon whos back the Fat Cat CEO made his fortune does Not earn it and shouldn't get benefits and a decent salary but should be happy with minimum wage and no Benefits.
See how these Right Wingers think.
They are all Sociopaths.
concusionNov 9, 2011
Hypocrites, imbeciles, morons, racists, we can go on..
leonard2Nov 9, 2011
That is a very good description for liberals.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
Ooh, he got you with the old "I know you are but what am I?" insult! What are you going to do know?
:)
lastvisibledogNov 11, 2011
Who is the Democrat Party
bdbrNov 9, 2011
You're making the assumption that only one group at a time can go after your money. Fat cat executives want to pay you less, and government interests want more of what you get paid.
At least with state government, voters have some say in whether the government workers get more of the voters' pay. This is one reason that conservatives rail against federal government, where you have virtually no say in the process. I've noticed, though, that when a state makes a decision they don't like, conservatives complain about that as well.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
Your argument does nothing to explain why the federal tax rate is currently lower for all Americans than it has been in 30 years for all Americans
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table8
If you feel like you are paying more than you can afford in taxes that is probably because you are not earning enough. And you are not earning enough because wages have stagnated while your cost of living has gone up.
bdbrNov 9, 2011
I wasn't trying to explain why federal taxes were lower than they have been in the past (but still a s**t ton more than state taxes), but if you like, I will: they're low because we're only paying 2/3 of what they're spending. States aren't allowed to be that irresponsible.
treehugger87Nov 10, 2011
I was responding to "government interests want more of what you get paid" and the notion that "at least with state government, voters have some say...".
Government interest do *not* want more of what you get paid, they currently want (and get) less then at any point in the last 30 (more than 30, I'm sure) years.
lastvisibledogNov 11, 2011
Do you ever understand what the f*ck you are trying to talk about ???
You only site income tax - that is by-far NOT the only tax
NIT WIT
philomonNov 9, 2011
Don't count on that.
The state governemerns can be as corrupt as the Fed and it goes all the way down. In some states there are constant referenda and ballot issues to manipulate that tax structure for the benefit of corporations against the people
lastvisibledogNov 11, 2011
Trillions of dollars???
You are a moron
skyislandNov 9, 2011
Let's hope the seventh generation out is thought of too and that the life supported by ecosystem services of Earth which at present are being destroyed for economic gain are considered valuable..
Short term security, wealth, whatever you want to call it can't be the goal but rather real security by preserving and helping Nature survive and devoted to keeping as permanent a beautiful place called home.
Junbugg1Nov 10, 2011
It's times like these that make me proud to be a Black American. This is the stuff that continues to gives me hope for the future of my country, and hope upon hope for my family and yours. For all those Patriots who worked so tirelessly. Thank You and GOD bless you and yours. America Thanks You!
Billy_JackNov 10, 2011
Biden can go to OH and push card check then...We don't want it here, apparently Ohioans like to have their money stolen...LOL
eraptorNov 9, 2011
While the congratulations are appreciated, most of the country wonders why the Obama administration was noticeably absent/silent on middle class issues (i.e., the economy and unemployment) until election season rolled around.
It didn't help Obama's credibility to nominate a blatant Globalist/Free Trader (GE's Jeffrey Immelt) to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (as if THAT would lead to genuine trade reform/job creation) or former banker, Bill Daley, to be Chief of Staff (overseeing access to the President). Actions speak louder than words, fellas...
If these men genuinely care for the economic interests of the American people and country...they should PROVE IT WITH ACTIONS, not words.
reaper527Nov 9, 2011
funny, the article doesn't mention that the unions outspent their opposition 3:1. as much as politicus loves to talk about money in politics, i wonder why they don't want to comment on thisComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonNov 9, 2011
Unfortunately for the people of Ohio, the layoffs are about to begin. Repealing SB5 is not a solution to our problems here. All the younger state employees are going to be hating life now that the seniority rule is back into affect with layoffs, to bad for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghengiskhan1Nov 9, 2011
Ah, unintended consequences. Reality has a way of really screwing up a perfectly good fantasy.
kamtsaNov 9, 2011
Since I don't live in Ohio it's their problem and they can do whatever they want. The problem is that my state is even worse in this respect. People vote for most spending and then complain when the state practically goes bankrupt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherNov 9, 2011
Did they congratulate the people of Ohio for voting down the Obamacare mandate too?
'Cause that's a big f**king deal.
alucardthegreatNov 9, 2011
Because it's unenforceable as federal law trumps this. We don't have nullification in America. This ain't the Confederate States of America.
reaper527Nov 9, 2011
"Because it's unenforceable as federal law trumps this."
but it remains to be seen if the supreme court will trump federal law and strike it down
ghengiskhan1Nov 9, 2011
But strangely silent on Ohio's rejection of Obamacare. Weird.
alucardthegreatNov 9, 2011
It has no teeth and was worded to sound like people were voting for health care choices, not against the health care law.
vbdonNov 9, 2011
It has enough teeth to keep Obamacare out of the state until the Supreme court or Congress crushes it.
alucardthegreatNov 9, 2011
The DC Circuit court heard it and voted to uphold all of it (with one of the judges being a conservative Reagan appointee).
candycornpornNov 9, 2011
Meaningless. Everyone knows the Supreme Court is the final destination for the Obama Healthcare Initiative.
reaper527Nov 9, 2011
and plenty of other appeals courts have said the law is unconstitutional. as vbdon implied, since this WILL make it to the supreme court, the appeals courts don't have too much to do other than make headlines.
sapana543Nov 9, 2011
Obama is a slave to his union masters.
WWZNov 9, 2011
Obama is the master of his union slaves.
sapana543Nov 9, 2011
Is he a slave to his corporate masters or vice versa?
WWZNov 9, 2011
Good one. I'm stumped.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
Both. It's a symbiotic relationship.
joothichsNov 9, 2011
Papa Koch is going to get mad if he finds out his two favorite little paid shills are wasting time talking to eachother instead of spreading his propaganda to the community!
vbdonNov 9, 2011
"Congratulations," says Obama. "Now, you are going to lose another 107,000 jobs because of your union bosses taking payoffs from my guys. Thanks for your continuing support, losers!!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
You have to wonder why Obama is congratulating them when they also voted down Dumbama Care.
dirtyfriesNov 9, 2011
Because "Dumbamacare" (classy, as always) is not what Obama wanted at all. This can be seen as a referendum that we need to re-examine the issue.
And he's probably pretty happy about it being declared constitutional the same day.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
I would say just get rid of it all together and the open up competetion between state lines for insurance. I believe it would be far cheaper because the companies will be trying to one up eachother.
Constitutional is a very relative term to most politicians and judges these days. I'm sure it would be if it was done at the state level and not the federal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kamtsaNov 9, 2011
I see, so Obama is also against Obamacare like most of the Americans. He should stop it then and make everybody happy, including himself.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
I'm still working on good ones for the republican presidential field. There names are a little more difficult to work with.
letsgetreal50Nov 9, 2011
Happy, happy. Joy, joy!
kamtsaNov 9, 2011
Why the negative diggs? This is a valid and related question. Interesting that liberals want to avoid it.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
Buried for "dumbama" care and as I posted the classes effort to turn away rational people from the conversation.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
Real mature tree. Really helping your case their.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
Young man, my post is quite mature, rational and true. Do you deny that you are trying to dumb down the conversation? Are your proud of calling the President of your country "dumbama"? Do you feel that using such a term invites honest, open debate?
Stop using Digg during your English class. You've already missed the part where they teach you the difference between their, there and they're, and I would hate to see you grow up ignorant.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
and there you go with your assumptions again tree. Number 1 you have no idea who I am. I have the feeling that by the nature of your posts you are younger than I am. And yes I'm proud of calling that country ruining tool Dumbama. OH and I forgot that he's liar and have been proven to be but that doesn't matter to you.
You guys did the same thing to Bush when he was in office. So I guess that's just a double standard you can live with. I know I made fun of Bush quite a bit.
So think about this next time you want to say something good about Obama. It is proven that a good majority of his campaign funds for this year have come from the same people OWS is railing against.
Although you will probably just dismiss that as right wing talking points instead of the truth that it actually is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cntlscrutNov 9, 2011
too late
rpillerNov 9, 2011
I can't reply to krusty47's comment, but it's the lesser of 2 evils. Everyone knows all politicians get money from companies and big shots (although I would argue I don't like that fact), but Obama has other values and traits that align with people who are on the left. No candidate will meet all your requirements, so you have to pick the candidate that shares the general idea of what you want America to be.
It scares me that the right would rather let someone die on the streets for being lazy than spend money to help them. So since I don't share that thought process my options are Obama who doesn't want that. Stuff like that.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
I can name 1 presidential candidate that meets everyone of my requires in a president. And it's not Obama and its definitely not most of the republican turds. They are all fake.
I want someone prove, trust worthy and not bought out by special interests. In fact he cares so much about his country and not his own power that he returns money from his congressional budget.
He's even for a good portion of what both conservatives and liberals want.
That man is Ron Paul.
And before you go off on his budgetary ideas destroying the country take a look at this article which has nothing to do with him but proves a point that he is right.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cpr32n3-1.pdf
You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rpillerNov 9, 2011
"You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themselves".
Yes, you can. People can get put into states where they don't want to help themselves and it's been shown that you can help bring them out of that place. Humans are not black and white with their emotions and reactions and we are all different. Some experience do much bad that they don't know anything else and to them they think what's the point. By helping them you can show them the point again.
There are no lazy people, only people in a dark place in their life. There is always an underlying issue that can be helped. Always. But it's easier and cheaper to label and throw away.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
A question then. How is it best to help them. Give them money from the government so they can continue being self destructive or maybe a more positive way would be to show them how they can succeed and do things on their own.
You give a man a fish and he eats for a day. You teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
So maybe instead of giving them welfair we could give them job training instead? I would be relatively ok with that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rpillerNov 9, 2011
I agree 100% krusty47, but again we run into this gray area. I can teach a man to fish but while I'm teaching him he needs to eat and survive and feel human. He won't catch a fish right away so we need something to help him while we are teaching him. The expression is misleading in this case because you can learn to fish and catch your own fish in about a day. That's not the case when teaching skills to enter the workforce and to generally show why it's good to be a productive member of society.
Enter welfare. A good idea gone bad, but the alternatives are unthinkable to some. So what do we do then?
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
Well I would let private charities handle it. I believe they are much better suited to deal with weeding out fraud than the government is. Also, instead of taking money from other people the money is donated freely and I believe that more people would be willing to volunteer to assist also. I can say for sure that I would be donating more money if I didn't have to pay 310 dollars a month in Federal income tax.
What are your ideas? I interested in someone with ideas on either side. How would you best handle it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rpillerNov 9, 2011
I think private charities is a nice thing to think will work but I suspect the risk to finding out is to great to even try at this point. Some people like yourself might be apt to take your savings from welfare cost and put it to the charity but I'm betting a good number of people won't.
Personally I think a "hybrid" approach would be nice. Still take the money out as a "tax" but let the individual decide what charity it goes to. Let them see monthly updates about where their money is going towards. If I give $50 a month I want to see the flow of that $50 and see that it made it to help pay for some persons heating bill. We are in an age where it's easy to follow the trail of money. Even if it's not really my specific $50 but a big pool, I want more transparency about my $50 than I get today.
I don't think people get pissed so much because money is taken from them in the form of taxes, I think people get pissed because the money seems to go into this endless pit where they see no results from it. Who can be happy about that? Here, take my money and I notice no change, or feel no pride about you taking it from me. Sounds pretty crappy to do that.
I don't need to know the name of the person that got my $50, but I want to know specifically what it went for. I want to see the difference I'm making with my $50 even if it was taken from me via a tax. Let me choose my breakout % between x, y, z programs. Don't just take it and expect me to be happy about it. You can take it, but give me something back that makes me feel good about you taking it at the very least.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
Here we have an example of the modern-day Internet propagandist. It doesn't matter if what they say is meaningful or even if it makes sense. The purpose is to make the conversation so ugly, vile and irrational that no rational person would want to stick around for the conversation.
How many people are there out there who used to use Digg, but stopped using it because the conversations were so childish and irritating? We won't know, but I'll bet these guys do.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
Why do you say that only about people who are coming from a conservative point of view? Not everyone is a liberal. Heck I'm not even a republican but it's ok to label someone for speaking their mind right. Seems a little bit childish to be but your are welcome to you opinion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
You posted a comment that added nothing to the conversation. You used a stupid, offensive nickname whose only purpose is to turn people off from the conversation. You are a conservative. Over my YEARS of using Digg it is PREDOMINANTLY conservatives who make up these ugly nicknames and who add nothing to the conversation. While you may see an occasional "liberal" do so, it is rare in comparison with the conservative anti-rational vile.
krusty47Nov 9, 2011
Really? I could go through most of the articles on the front page and find liberals making jokes and making fun of people who don't agree with their points. And that's far more often than the conservatives do.
And to say that conservatives are anti-rational...well you might want to look into a mirror.
You bury stories regularly that are actually factual just because they don't suit your liberal views. At least I can take a objective look at an article and then determine whether its worth a dig or not.
You digg down people when they have something valid to say.
Yes this comment from early was meant to get people riled up. Obviously it did. Well that's a good thing.
You honestly can't even have a rational conversation with the liberals on digg without them turning into children and resorting to insults. Keep drinking the kool-aid Tree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Nov 9, 2011
I challenge you to point me to a single article on the front page where a "liberal" makes a stupid-ass comment that is not relevant to the conversation and is only posted to insult the "conservatives" who might be reading.
I am rational, and I am calling you out. Do you deny using insulting language and irrelevant posts? Do you deny that you do so with the purpose of preventing a rational, mature conversation from taking place.
You posted an insulting name against the President. I have responded without insulting you, yet you irrationally accuse me of turning into a child and resorting to insults. Your ability to use objective reasoning has either not developed yet, or it being distorted through some force.
rpillerNov 9, 2011
We first have to realize that everyone is an individual and calling names and bashing is just what some people do. It matters not who does it more. Caring about that is what hurts this country. Responding negatively to a person who does that solves nothing. You can only keep trying to talk calmly and respectfully to that person over and over again. Persistence, patience, and manners will always win out.
mitchellkNov 9, 2011
We don't need your congratulations, we need your pity. This was the only way to keep state taxes and costs under control, and it was working, preserving state jobs and creating private sector jobs, but of course, what would Obama or Biden know about that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kamtsaNov 9, 2011
It's there problem, unless if you live in Ohio.
partrowNov 9, 2011
The unions won. The citizens will pay through the nose, and the public employees will start seeing the inevitable layoffs.
mrteflonNov 9, 2011
And you Rght Wingers are Absolutely Foaming at the mouths that the Citizenry Bitch slapped you.
We can tell by the rabid amount of posting, FUD and Topic Derailing in these threads today.
A bunch of children throwing a huge tantrum would describe you all better.
vbdonNov 9, 2011
Like Obama said, "f**k Ohio, they're just a bunch of union losers anyway."
letsgetreal50Nov 9, 2011
They are pissing all over themselves.
candycornpornNov 9, 2011
Yeah, the unions won and in reality, it is the way it should be. There are a number of parts of the legislation that was actually favorable. The problem is, items such as collective bargaining and the ability to strike are over the line and the ramrod way they pushed this through was less than ideal.
The state government officials and the unions can get together and come up with a more viable solution now.
spider_manNov 10, 2011
And the next thing the democrats have to figure out is how to blame all the layoffs of public employees that will now happen in Ohio next year on the republicans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Billy_JackNov 10, 2011
@ spider...Unfortunately, that is the reality of it. The people basically, voted down the mechanism that would have saved jobs...Reality will now slap them upside the head when they get the pink (or is it yellow for laid off) slip. Let me see, get to keep a job and lose bargaining rights, or keep bargaining rights and get laid off...These people will be crying the blues when they are on the unemployment line perhaps they'll think back while they are in the soup line...LOL
jackphone88Nov 9, 2011
Keep going Obama, i love you
kamtsaNov 9, 2011
Hey, it's not 2008 anymore, wake up.
jackphone88Nov 9, 2011
im still sleepppp zzzzz
partrowNov 9, 2011
Only 1.5 of each 7.0 citizens is a government employee.
Every government employee can only be paid from the money earned by the private sector.