Wisconsin to pass right to work. link. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter FIELDARTILLERYDAWG
- Start date
The quote from Dumocrat Latoya is pefect example of socialist BS her party
spews constantly. She's really only concerned about her campaign contribution that comes from forced union dues.
"Rep. LaTonya Johnson, D-Milwaukee, and a member of AFSCME, said she cares about people more than freedom."
It really translates as, "I need people enslaved to crooked unions in order to have the campaign money to keep my cushy elitist job."
spews constantly. She's really only concerned about her campaign contribution that comes from forced union dues.
"Rep. LaTonya Johnson, D-Milwaukee, and a member of AFSCME, said she cares about people more than freedom."
It really translates as, "I need people enslaved to crooked unions in order to have the campaign money to keep my cushy elitist job."
Too bad the RINOs are working with the dems in congress ..
Boehner really oughta be SHOT. And if they thought the danger with Obama was as perilous as we do, Mitch would have gone nuclear on regular legislation and be loading the President's desk with bills to veto. Put the traitorous bastard on the record. Instead, all we get is keystone, and let's face it, at the end of the day, that is really just a symbolic fight.
And also, if the court uses the congress's funding of the immigration portion of DHS as a reason for upholding Obama's exec amnesty, then I really am through voting because it just doesn't matter. They won the senate and increased their house numbers partly (I'm not so sure it's not primarily) because they said they would fight Obama tooth and nail on amnesty. That was pure BS from them, at least on the part of leadership. You can't just count on the court. Chief Justice Roberts has been compromised (I believe) or he just was never what he said he was in the first place.
But at least Walker and Rubio are now talking right. I might be able to get behind Rubio. I don't know why, but I just kinda think he might have learned his lesson on this immigration DEAL. I think Walker is probably bought and paid for by the chamber types and is lying on immigration, but I'd probably vote for him anyway. I'm just not going to vote for Jeb under any circumstances, but I'm thru joking around about voting for that criminal, Hillary. But I still don't think he is any better and he could be worse because he is all in on amnesty 100% and then they could just have a RINO dream run. With Hillary, you at least get the appearance of gridlock. I want somebody to get in there and at least try to change some things.
Boehner really oughta be SHOT. And if they thought the danger with Obama was as perilous as we do, Mitch would have gone nuclear on regular legislation and be loading the President's desk with bills to veto. Put the traitorous bastard on the record. Instead, all we get is keystone, and let's face it, at the end of the day, that is really just a symbolic fight.
And also, if the court uses the congress's funding of the immigration portion of DHS as a reason for upholding Obama's exec amnesty, then I really am through voting because it just doesn't matter. They won the senate and increased their house numbers partly (I'm not so sure it's not primarily) because they said they would fight Obama tooth and nail on amnesty. That was pure BS from them, at least on the part of leadership. You can't just count on the court. Chief Justice Roberts has been compromised (I believe) or he just was never what he said he was in the first place.
But at least Walker and Rubio are now talking right. I might be able to get behind Rubio. I don't know why, but I just kinda think he might have learned his lesson on this immigration DEAL. I think Walker is probably bought and paid for by the chamber types and is lying on immigration, but I'd probably vote for him anyway. I'm just not going to vote for Jeb under any circumstances, but I'm thru joking around about voting for that criminal, Hillary. But I still don't think he is any better and he could be worse because he is all in on amnesty 100% and then they could just have a RINO dream run. With Hillary, you at least get the appearance of gridlock. I want somebody to get in there and at least try to change some things.
I'm always suspicious when someone who is a high-ranking politician...
... makes a public statement, saying that they have changed their views on a topic or a matter, especially something as clear-cut as legal immigration versus illegal immigration.
I understand having sympathy for people who get themselves caught in a situation of their own doing, like being in the U.S. illegally and then facing the prospect of being deported, families being separated, etc.
But where it concerns making and enforcing the law, we don't base that on how we feel about a person going through self-made consequences and decide that we should either look the other way or change the law. The law is the basis from which things work (or don't work). The law sets the bar. It draws the line which determines what is right and what is wrong.
Illegal immigration is a no-brainer. It is wrong, completely, from one end of it to the other. I don't see how a person can one day say that they support giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and then decide, later, that no, they shouldn't be granted amnesty.
What was the deciding factor that suddenly changed their mind on such an important matter? What changed their "Duh" to "Oh, OK, now I understand"?
Throw in the fact that said politician is now looking at running for the office of president, and all of a sudden things start looking very "coincidental," you might say. They sort of changed their mind all of a sudden.
Yeah, right.
... makes a public statement, saying that they have changed their views on a topic or a matter, especially something as clear-cut as legal immigration versus illegal immigration.
I understand having sympathy for people who get themselves caught in a situation of their own doing, like being in the U.S. illegally and then facing the prospect of being deported, families being separated, etc.
But where it concerns making and enforcing the law, we don't base that on how we feel about a person going through self-made consequences and decide that we should either look the other way or change the law. The law is the basis from which things work (or don't work). The law sets the bar. It draws the line which determines what is right and what is wrong.
Illegal immigration is a no-brainer. It is wrong, completely, from one end of it to the other. I don't see how a person can one day say that they support giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and then decide, later, that no, they shouldn't be granted amnesty.
What was the deciding factor that suddenly changed their mind on such an important matter? What changed their "Duh" to "Oh, OK, now I understand"?
Throw in the fact that said politician is now looking at running for the office of president, and all of a sudden things start looking very "coincidental," you might say. They sort of changed their mind all of a sudden.
Yeah, right.
If the average American wasn't so gullible and if the American media...
... wasn't so hardcore socialist, working hard to persuade those gullible average Americans, a person like Cruz would not only have a prayer to win, but they'd be highly favored to win.
I don't care to play the chess match on the socialist's terms, you know... try to outsmart them at their own game and only vote for a candidate that has their approval but is the best one of the bunch who they allow to pass through their socialist filter, thinking that I am using the best strategy to try to get at least a semi-decent candidate elected.
I think conservative voters should vote for the most conservative of the bunch and get behind them and get them the nomination and then work hard in the national election to get them elected president.
I don't think it helps us, at all, to keep electing socialist-lite faux conservatives. We keep moving in the same direction as we do with flame-on communists like Obama.
... wasn't so hardcore socialist, working hard to persuade those gullible average Americans, a person like Cruz would not only have a prayer to win, but they'd be highly favored to win.
I don't care to play the chess match on the socialist's terms, you know... try to outsmart them at their own game and only vote for a candidate that has their approval but is the best one of the bunch who they allow to pass through their socialist filter, thinking that I am using the best strategy to try to get at least a semi-decent candidate elected.
I think conservative voters should vote for the most conservative of the bunch and get behind them and get them the nomination and then work hard in the national election to get them elected president.
I don't think it helps us, at all, to keep electing socialist-lite faux conservatives. We keep moving in the same direction as we do with flame-on communists like Obama.
