Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

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

I understand that only white people can be racist... and that only Republicans can be violent and threatening towards progressives and democrats. Ok, so I know this isn't true, but some of the people around here have echoed this sentiment in the past as if screaming, "I'M LIBERAL AND PROGRESSIVE" means you can do no wrong.

Scott Walker wins Wisconsin AGAIN and people are sooooooooo mad. To quote my cousin, "There was a time when I had hope, that perhaps people could wise up and realize that corrupt capitalism, greed and ignorance were not the way to run a government. That perhaps Wisconsin could start a wave of enlightenment, and political reform. But it's clear that blindly following the party lines and partisan extremism is how America is run. What was the point of the re-call? All we did was stroke an already colossal ego, and provide hundreds of thousands of people thoughts of "Remember that one time when we almost changed things?". So enjoy your "victory", rejoice that you "beat" all the heretics, gloat and know that your corrupt, hyper capitalistic, neo libertarian fascist state will still be here to make you feel superior. Congrats. Welcome back to the Middle Ages."

Who would've thought there could be so much anger, hate and violence from the anti-racist, peace loving, democratic, liberal and progressive base!?

i guess you'd have to live in wisconsin to truly know how we feel.

I don't know about this. But I saw this interesting graph on Battletard's FB status:

that's because rich fuck fellow republicans will just throw money at other rich fuck republicans, just because they're in the rich fuck republican club regardless if he's under investigation and has completely decimated an entire state's economy and work force.

I don't see the problem. Barrett could've raised money from Democrats outside Wisconsin, but he didn't. Who's fault is that? Barrett's campaign manager? Who knows... but, if they didn't realize they were being outpaced then they had to do something... and they didn't. (If out-of-state donations is an interesting statistic, I'd be interested to know the Union breakdowns.)

Realistically, it's not like rich Republicans are the only ones who back rich Republicans, because politicians on both sides of the aisle get huge donations. It's been said that our President is going to have over $1,000,000,000 to play with this upcoming election... and that's not from Republicans.

Edit: Weren't 70% of those out-of-state 'rich republicans' donating in denominations of $50, or lower?


Unless this article is wrong...

Wisconsin had job growth in 2011 and 2012.
Wisconsin is on course to fix their budget deficit.
Wisconsin had an increase in personal income... which was higher than the national average for that year.

Maybe I'm not seeing the decimation of an economy and workforce?

Strawman --- a terrible one, at that.

Societal dregs like @__SupaMcNASTY__ and "AHH FACK IM BASED!" aren't the ones criticizing the Fox News base --- which, mind you, is much more likely, as a white-dominated subgroup, to pull a Breivik or De La Beckwith out of its hat --- for its often overt death threats to liberals. Said dregs are (generally speaking) politically uninvolved unless their local news is running rampant with the overly politicized campaign messages of someone like Walker or election-era Obama; the same cannot be said of many conservatives who are, for all their malice and misappropriation, almost always looking to oust --- however violently --- liberals from office.

Social commentary aside, though, I'd like to see a shred of hard evidence that proves the existence of even the slightest attempt to assassinate Walker or attack Walker supporters. Until then, you're just as much of an alarmist dolt as you've always been.

Also, a note post scriptum: Have you seen the racist, hateful commenters on this joke of a blog? These people are infinitely more likely to go on a shooting spree than the loudmouth punks they're deriding, and yet you're instead pointing the finger at nameless, leaderless street thugs. Pity.

But...

Oh jeez.

I don't follow state politics. I don't know who these people are.

But the article is wrong. And you're wrong for believing it.
*insert Mark Twain quote here*



"In January, Wisconsin had an employed work force of 2,833,068, while in December it had reached 2,843,199 — an increase of 10,131 – so it is accurate to claim that the state ended the year with a larger employed work force than when the year began."

This works out to job growth amounting to...0.3%.
On the heels of years of losses.

What you're looking at is small statistical gyrations and generally poor long-term trends. This is tea-leaf reading plain and simple - looking at chaos, and trying to find order suitable to one's beliefs. Politicians of both parties do it, and the truth is that American politicians have basically no control over employment.

"Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, lower than the national average of 8.2 percent, and a percentage point below from when Walker took office in January 2011."

Ok. But why did unemployment go down, when there was so little change in the number of jobs?

The answer lies with the curious definition of "unemployed". "Unemployed" is defined as "out of work for less than 48 weeks and actively seeking employment". The number of individuals in WI, just like in most of the US, who meet this criteria, has been steadily dropping as people simply give up looking and/or become long-term unemployed, thus "leaving the workforce" and no longer counting as unemployed.

Fwiw, your much-maligned Obama exploits this same fallacy to pump up a national economic picture that is much bleaker than he would have us believe.

Proof can be found here:



http://wiskids.blogspot.com/2012/04/des ... yment.html



So there you have it. With statistical borking, Walker managed the most statistically marginal gains imaginable...and in real terms, an effective loss in jobs.



http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/p ... udget.html



This is especially true since much of the "savings" come from cutting education.

Fwiw, politicians aren't the only ones who use this trick. Nor are they even the most egregious cookers of books using one-time gains. General Motors, for example, got by for decades on one-time benefits; many other corps do the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_raid

This is why skilled investors look at the balance sheet and not statement of cash flows to determine a firm's health.



"In 2011, the average income in Wisconsin was $40,073, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Budget Project, slightly lower than the national average of $41,663. Wisconsin’s average personal income rose higher in 2011 than the national average – 4.8 percent compared with 4.3 percent."

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in ... ion-rates/

Annual inflation for 2011 was 3.2%.

Given a 4.8% increase in gross income and a net loss in employment as a percentage of population, this simply means that the rich are getting richer, cashing in on the situation and hence bringing up the average by a meek 1% (again, following years of reduced employment), and the middle class is getting wiped out, as fewer are employed and their earnings yield a lower standard of living.

Now don't get me wrong. I honestly don't believe a Democrat could or would have done much better, although a Dem might not have made Walker's most dangerous decisions such as cutting education and hosing benefits for families with children, decisions that will have serious ramifications in a decade or two. I simply understand that his leadership did not positively affect the economy at all.

But here's the real question for you, Eturnal. Given that I have demonstrated why these statistics are lies by other means, completely debunked them with reference to objective facts and simple logic...why were you so inclined to believe them in the first place?

Is it possible that you are being manipulated?
If you so easily believe a claim that is clearly untrue - isn't that the logical conclusion?
If not, why not?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

White supremacists talk a lot of game. Street thugs talk a lot of game. The difference between the two is that the former has the propensity to back its game up with targeted and racially (or politically) motivated attacks --- note that there has never been, in the history of the United States, a political assassination by a black American. Almost all were carried out by white conservatives, typically Christians.

Of course, I'm not targeting (pun not intended) Christians in particular. To do so would be wrong, given that the majority of today's white Christians aren't violent, hateful people. But when you assume, based on the demagogic propaganda that you apparently see as news, that a handful of angry (and as I've already pointed out, leaderless) minorities are in any way capable of assassinating a well-guarded political leader, you're merely once again falling victim to the blatant fearmongering of the conservative hivemind.

I have history on my side. You have naught but a disgruntled blogosphere filled with mistruths.

'Minority' isn't a qualifier for someone wanting to assassinate someone, as anyone is capable of doing it and race doesn't bar that action. But, angry, leaderless people can assassinate politicians if they want... just matters which weapon they use and how good their strike is.





...To name a few.

And yet every one of those assassination attempts were carried out by deluded, and mostly politically-motivated, white Christian males. You're not helping your case.

Lincoln was shot by some guy angry he freed the slaves, at a time when political assassinations by solitary losers were considered unthinkable, so that breaks any comparison.

Reagan was shot by a random psychopath. The motivations were not political, he was just completely insane. This is really the only example of a successful assassination according to your "loser with a gun takes out high-profile figure" model.

JFK was murdered by the CIA (circumventing his defenses) so the "solitary loser with a gun" argument doesn't even fit here.

Giffords was assassinated by a Tea Partier, again, "solitary loser" argument doesn't fit. She was a US representative and not a prominent figure, so she doesn't fit either, especially since Reps need to mingle closely with their small constituencies to do their jobs.

The only one of those shootings:
1. by leaderless individuals
2. trying to take out a prominent, well-defended figure
3. comparable to the situation of the present-day

was the Reagan shooting.

In all cases, the perpetrators were right-wing nuts (or just plain nuts) and never leftists.

The fact stands that the only people in this county who have ever used violence as a means of effecting political change are organized elements of the far right. Guns are pretty impotent at effecting political change in any form in this country, and the only people who try to use them towards that end are the same right-wing crazies obsessed with guns.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

To say Walker "spurred economic growth in Wisconsin" means that you should be MORE than pleased with national economic growth thanks to Obama.

No? Didn't think so.

Though I do agree with Aestu's assessment that a democrat wouldn't have fared too much better if elected in.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

As I stated, race isn't even a factor in trying to assassinate anyone, as anyone who is pissed off could do it. Some black kids on twitter are saying they want to kill the Governor. Does that mean it's impossible for a black person to kill a white person, just because it's been white people assassinating white people before? Nope, and you guys are fucking delusional if you think that. The reason I posted those people is because you, Dagery, said these leaderless kids were incapable of assassinating any public figure and, each of these people were assassinated (or almost assassinated) by singular people who were pissed off or just plain crazy -- which these loud-mouth black kids just might be. The motivation doesn't have to be the same.

PS: Aestu, the dude who shot Gabby Giffords wasn't some right-wing Tea Party nut, although you would like to believe otherwise. And the CIA hurhurhur CONSPIRACY THEORIES LALALALALALALA I'm AESTU YHES!

So you're saying leftists could kill people but don't? OK, so what does that prove about the leftists?



At the very least, he responded to a call to violence by a local Tea Party branch.
At worst, they contrived to manipulate an unstable person into killing her.

The latter is plausible speculation, but the former is just a cold hard fact.



Even the US Senate said it was "probably a conspiracy".

The CIA had good reasons to want JFK dead and there's many reasons to believe based on the facts of the case that they were behind it. And it's not like they've ever been reluctant to kill or otherwise violate American citizens.

Moving away from the obsession with guns and shooting people, you didn't address my question to you. Why do you so readily believe an op-ed piece that is so clearly lies, yet refuse to believe you're being manipulated?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.