I am not sure replacing that with the federal government is a great answer either.
Computer Overlords is the way to go. And I am not entirely joking about that.
The funny thing about computer overlords. They either get too cold, calculated and start right up on the mass-murderin' with possible torture. Or they get all unbalanced and creepy emotions and tend to turn into stalkers. We need a robot overlord that's smart, understands/shares healthy emotions, and won't go nuts and kill us all due to a minor glitch when someone spills their Pepsi on it! ;p
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I am not sure replacing that with the federal government is a great answer either.
Computer Overlords is the way to go. And I am not entirely joking about that.
The funny thing about computer overlords. They either get too cold, calculated and start right up on the mass-murderin' with possible torture. Or they get all unbalanced and creepy emotions and tend to turn into stalkers. We need a robot overlord that's smart, understands/shares healthy emotions, and won't go nuts and kill us all due to a minor glitch when someone spills their Pepsi on it! ;p
seriously this state used to be awesome and now thanks to the tea party we're the laughing stock of the usa
All the libertarian sites that cheered Walker will, of course, temper and qualify their support somewhat and will certainly push this story as hard as Solyndra. Because libertarian sites aren't douchey corporate shills at all.
I am not sure replacing that with the federal government is a great answer either.
Computer Overlords is the way to go. And I am not entirely joking about that.
The funny thing about computer overlords. They either get too cold, calculated and start right up on the mass-murderin' with possible torture. Or they get all unbalanced and creepy emotions and tend to turn into stalkers. We need a robot overlord that's smart, understands/shares healthy emotions, and won't go nuts and kill us all due to a minor glitch when someone spills their Pepsi on it! ;p
So you're saying we need Multivac? I've heard worse plans.
So I'm proud to report that Walker has created at least one (temporary) job, mine!
As of yesterday I'm now working at the not-so-secret recall center verifying signatures.
Let us know if you find any funny entries. Yes I *am* asking you to help us make fun of people who were saddled with terrible names by their parents, I have no shame.
Yesterday in Wisconsin, a hidden camera caught a certain Republican voter ID law advocate violating the assembly rules to cheat and vote for colleagues who were not present. This is also referred to as vote fraud.
...
If this happened on a federal level, there would be holy hell to pay. One has to be on the floor to vote, that is why they hold votes open. A member has to be there to vote. The Republicans are manipulating the electronic voting machine in the chamber, casting votes for people who are NOT present. There was no absentee voting. This is against the rules of the assembly and constitutes vote fraud.
The fact that this fraud is being committed by a Party member who just pushed Voter ID laws because he was so worried about non-existent voter fraud only deepens the divide; if they care about election integrity, why don’t they care about legislative vote integrity?
That Assemblymen was Joe Kleefisch, husband to Lt Governor Rebecca Kleefisch who the recall staff has just got done validating all her signatures. Currently we are entering them into the database and current estimates is that we'll be done in about 8 days or so
Okay, that story does it for me. I'm certain that at some point in the future Walker himself is going to be indicted. There is no way there could be this level of corruption going on in the state house and not have the Governor in on it. What I really wonder is why it's only Wisconsin this is happening in? Is it the Cheese hats? Do they imbue politicians with a pair of brass balls or something? Because that's the only way I can describe both the cartoon villain shit from Republicans as well as the fact the entire Democratic Senate was willing to flee the state in a gambit to keep collective bargaining alive.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Okay, that story does it for me. I'm certain that at some point in the future Walker himself is going to be indicted. There is no way there could be this level of corruption going on in the state house and not have the Governor in on it. What I really wonder is why it's only Wisconsin this is happening in? Is it the Cheese hats? Do they imbue politicians with a pair of brass balls or something? Because that's the only way I can describe both the cartoon villain shit from Republicans as well as the fact the entire Democratic Senate was willing to flee the state in a gambit to keep collective bargaining alive.
Wisconsin has become a banana republic, somehow. Completely unbelievable.
Okay, that story does it for me. I'm certain that at some point in the future Walker himself is going to be indicted. There is no way there could be this level of corruption going on in the state house and not have the Governor in on it. What I really wonder is why it's only Wisconsin this is happening in? Is it the Cheese hats? Do they imbue politicians with a pair of brass balls or something? Because that's the only way I can describe both the cartoon villain shit from Republicans as well as the fact the entire Democratic Senate was willing to flee the state in a gambit to keep collective bargaining alive.
It's not just Wisconsin. Plenty of other states are corrupt. It's just that we're paying attention to Wisconsin, but in other places, Republican shenanigans like this aren't even newsworthy.
It's not just Wisconsin. Plenty of other states are corrupt. It's just that we're paying attention to Wisconsin, but in other places, Republican shenanigans like this aren't even newsworthy.
Stop making me weep for humanity. ;_;
If only California were more like Wisconsin, at least you're kicking them out now! We're about to collapse as a state because Republicans can always manage just enough obstruction to prevent us from ever raising Revenue. Stupid Prop 13! Not only that but we just spent $2 million to pay for the legal defense of a ban on violent video games which was struck down. Which the damn Governator insisted on pursuing in court despite the fact that this shit has been struck down every time it's been tried. I'd hate to think about what's lurking in OUR state house now.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Okay, that story does it for me. I'm certain that at some point in the future Walker himself is going to be indicted. There is no way there could be this level of corruption going on in the state house and not have the Governor in on it. What I really wonder is why it's only Wisconsin this is happening in? Is it the Cheese hats? Do they imbue politicians with a pair of brass balls or something? Because that's the only way I can describe both the cartoon villain shit from Republicans as well as the fact the entire Democratic Senate was willing to flee the state in a gambit to keep collective bargaining alive.
Wisconsin has become a banana republic, somehow. Completely unbelievable.
Edit: Not so much fraud, but more an act of "Vote for me while I go take a shit." It would be fraud if he voted for someone not there, or didn't put the vote they (presumably) discussed beforehand
There's gotta be official methods of doing that, still. It is a damn slippery slope between, "Hey, Joe, vote for me while I drop the kids off at the pool" to "Hey, Joe, vote for me while I'm on vacation in Cabo."
Not a good precident, and displaying a lack of concern for the rules by which society has governed for its lawmakers.
"Oh yes, I know all fourteen Democrats fled the state to prevent quorum, but Bob (D) just called me and wants me to vote on his behalf to eliminate collective bargaining..."
I don't know how many times I can say it's like reading a god damned onion article. It's a race to the fucking bottom between the two. Somehow I think the repugs are winning.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
There's gotta be official methods of doing that, still. It is a damn slippery slope between, "Hey, Joe, vote for me while I drop the kids off at the pool" to "Hey, Joe, vote for me while I'm on vacation in Cabo."
Not a good precident, and displaying a lack of concern for the rules by which society has governed for its lawmakers.
"Oh yes, I know all fourteen Democrats fled the state to prevent quorum, but Bob (D) just called me and wants me to vote on his behalf to eliminate collective bargaining..."
For the current "vote for me" system, the representative has to be within the chamber, which the lawmakers apparently commonly consider the bathroom and eating area as part of the chamber. This has been going on for years, and both sides have been doing it.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is not as bad as people here are assuming.
And in this round of "what the fuck were they thinking?" I just came across the name of Luv Seamon, and upon looking it up for authenticity, it's a real person
There's gotta be official methods of doing that, still. It is a damn slippery slope between, "Hey, Joe, vote for me while I drop the kids off at the pool" to "Hey, Joe, vote for me while I'm on vacation in Cabo."
Not a good precident, and displaying a lack of concern for the rules by which society has governed for its lawmakers.
"Oh yes, I know all fourteen Democrats fled the state to prevent quorum, but Bob (D) just called me and wants me to vote on his behalf to eliminate collective bargaining..."
For the current "vote for me" system, the representative has to be within the chamber, which the lawmakers apparently commonly consider the bathroom and eating area as part of the chamber. This has been going on for years, and both sides have been doing it.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is not as bad as people here are assuming.
After watching the clip, I feel kind of stupid for being mad about it in the first place.
Provided, you know, that what he says happened is what actually happened.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
I assume that in small towns (like, under 1000 people small) people have more interaction with their elected representatives than those in larger towns/cities, thus resulting in more government scrutiny, but like I said if you know everyone in your town and interact with them often I could see people not caring about what the government does because they know the person in office and just assume theyll do the right thing. I assume its also easier to build voter blocks making it easier for people to stay in power which wont really be affected by scrutiny. Like, if theres a town of 500 with 300 people eligible to vote and if only half those people vote you and your 5 friends are a little over 3% of the vote which is fairly substantial.
Scrutiny is good, but it alone cant result in change.
But I wouldnt be surprised if local activity receives less scrutiny.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
I assume that in small towns (like, under 1000 people small) people have more interaction with their elected representatives than those in larger towns/cities, thus resulting in more government scrutiny, but like I said if you know everyone in your town and interact with them often I could see people not caring about what the government does because they know the person in office and just assume theyll do the right thing. I assume its also easier to build voter blocks making it easier for people to stay in power which wont really be affected by scrutiny. Like, if theres a town of 500 with 300 people eligible to vote and if only half those people vote you and your 5 friends are a little over 3% of the vote which is fairly substantial.
Scrutiny is good, but it alone cant result in change.
But I wouldnt be surprised if local activity receives less scrutiny.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
I assume that in small towns (like, under 1000 people small) people have more interaction with their elected representatives than those in larger towns/cities, thus resulting in more government scrutiny, but like I said if you know everyone in your town and interact with them often I could see people not caring about what the government does because they know the person in office and just assume theyll do the right thing. I assume its also easier to build voter blocks making it easier for people to stay in power which wont really be affected by scrutiny. Like, if theres a town of 500 with 300 people eligible to vote and if only half those people vote you and your 5 friends are a little over 3% of the vote which is fairly substantial.
Scrutiny is good, but it alone cant result in change.
But I wouldnt be surprised if local activity receives less scrutiny.
Nah, not really.
How is that possible though? I live in a city of over a million people (and a really really large geographic area) and Ive run into elected representatives.
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
I assume that in small towns (like, under 1000 people small) people have more interaction with their elected representatives than those in larger towns/cities, thus resulting in more government scrutiny, but like I said if you know everyone in your town and interact with them often I could see people not caring about what the government does because they know the person in office and just assume theyll do the right thing. I assume its also easier to build voter blocks making it easier for people to stay in power which wont really be affected by scrutiny. Like, if theres a town of 500 with 300 people eligible to vote and if only half those people vote you and your 5 friends are a little over 3% of the vote which is fairly substantial.
Scrutiny is good, but it alone cant result in change.
But I wouldnt be surprised if local activity receives less scrutiny.
Nah, not really.
How is that possible though? I live in a city of over a million people (and a really really large geographic area) and Ive run into elected representatives.
Right, but when you run into them, do you question them thoroughly on their behavior in office? Do you watch council sessions all the time? Do you even know what they are doing at work most of the time?
Running into the mayor on the street =/= scrutiny of local government
Chicago politics, more like Wisconsin politics amirite.
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
I assume that in small towns (like, under 1000 people small) people have more interaction with their elected representatives than those in larger towns/cities, thus resulting in more government scrutiny, but like I said if you know everyone in your town and interact with them often I could see people not caring about what the government does because they know the person in office and just assume theyll do the right thing. I assume its also easier to build voter blocks making it easier for people to stay in power which wont really be affected by scrutiny. Like, if theres a town of 500 with 300 people eligible to vote and if only half those people vote you and your 5 friends are a little over 3% of the vote which is fairly substantial.
Scrutiny is good, but it alone cant result in change.
But I wouldnt be surprised if local activity receives less scrutiny.
Nah, not really.
How is that possible though? I live in a city of over a million people (and a really really large geographic area) and Ive run into elected representatives.
Right, but when you run into them, do you question them thoroughly on their behavior in office? Do you watch council sessions all the time? Do you even know what they are doing at work most of the time?
Running into the mayor on the street =/= scrutiny of local government
Right, but I live in a large city where Im left with basically chance encounters with elected representatives, but in a smaller town my interactions would be more frequent and Id have a basis for a relationship with that elected official I see every Tuesday buying milk at the grocery.
Posts
Am I allowed to laugh in the face of people wanting to give more power to the individual states yet?
I am not sure replacing that with the federal government is a great answer either.
Computer Overlords is the way to go. And I am not entirely joking about that.
The funny thing about computer overlords. They either get too cold, calculated and start right up on the mass-murderin' with possible torture. Or they get all unbalanced and creepy emotions and tend to turn into stalkers. We need a robot overlord that's smart, understands/shares healthy emotions, and won't go nuts and kill us all due to a minor glitch when someone spills their Pepsi on it! ;p
The philosopher-king is the way to go.
I loved that movie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
seriously this state used to be awesome and now thanks to the tea party we're the laughing stock of the usa
All the libertarian sites that cheered Walker will, of course, temper and qualify their support somewhat and will certainly push this story as hard as Solyndra. Because libertarian sites aren't douchey corporate shills at all.
So you're saying we need Multivac? I've heard worse plans.
As of yesterday I'm now working at the not-so-secret recall center verifying signatures.
Let us know if you find any funny entries. Yes I *am* asking you to help us make fun of people who were saddled with terrible names by their parents, I have no shame.
It's well known that The Onion and reality are waging a war of satire against one another.
The onion was also started here in Madison by 2 UW students...
Not sure if ironic.
We also get the onion paper for free throughout the city, some lawmakers must have thought it was solid journalism
Edit: as for odd names, the best I've come across today is Epiphany Jones
Wisconsin has become a banana republic, somehow. Completely unbelievable.
It's not just Wisconsin. Plenty of other states are corrupt. It's just that we're paying attention to Wisconsin, but in other places, Republican shenanigans like this aren't even newsworthy.
Stop making me weep for humanity. ;_;
If only California were more like Wisconsin, at least you're kicking them out now! We're about to collapse as a state because Republicans can always manage just enough obstruction to prevent us from ever raising Revenue. Stupid Prop 13! Not only that but we just spent $2 million to pay for the legal defense of a ban on violent video games which was struck down. Which the damn Governator insisted on pursuing in court despite the fact that this shit has been struck down every time it's been tried. I'd hate to think about what's lurking in OUR state house now.
Shit dude, I was saying that a year ago.
Edit: Not so much fraud, but more an act of "Vote for me while I go take a shit." It would be fraud if he voted for someone not there, or didn't put the vote they (presumably) discussed beforehand
Not a good precident, and displaying a lack of concern for the rules by which society has governed for its lawmakers.
"Oh yes, I know all fourteen Democrats fled the state to prevent quorum, but Bob (D) just called me and wants me to vote on his behalf to eliminate collective bargaining..."
For the current "vote for me" system, the representative has to be within the chamber, which the lawmakers apparently commonly consider the bathroom and eating area as part of the chamber. This has been going on for years, and both sides have been doing it.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is not as bad as people here are assuming.
After watching the clip, I feel kind of stupid for being mad about it in the first place.
Provided, you know, that what he says happened is what actually happened.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The smaller the town, the less scrutiny it has and the more you can get away with.
I mean, look at all the ridiculous stuff Palin got away with as mayor of a small town in Alaska.
Well, that smaller town was (is?) the meth capital of Alaska.
Logically the smaller the town the more scrutiny the government will receive, since youre closer to your actual elected representatives. But I guess if your neighbor is your mayor and his neighbor is your chief of police you may be more likely to just trust whatever theyre doing and not scrutinize.
No, that's not how it works.
The smaller the government, the less people vote, the less people care and the less people pay attention.
Local politics make national politics look like the domain of educated cultured renaissance (wo)men and philosopher kings.
I assume that in small towns (like, under 1000 people small) people have more interaction with their elected representatives than those in larger towns/cities, thus resulting in more government scrutiny, but like I said if you know everyone in your town and interact with them often I could see people not caring about what the government does because they know the person in office and just assume theyll do the right thing. I assume its also easier to build voter blocks making it easier for people to stay in power which wont really be affected by scrutiny. Like, if theres a town of 500 with 300 people eligible to vote and if only half those people vote you and your 5 friends are a little over 3% of the vote which is fairly substantial.
Scrutiny is good, but it alone cant result in change.
But I wouldnt be surprised if local activity receives less scrutiny.
Nah, not really.
How is that possible though? I live in a city of over a million people (and a really really large geographic area) and Ive run into elected representatives.
Right, but when you run into them, do you question them thoroughly on their behavior in office? Do you watch council sessions all the time? Do you even know what they are doing at work most of the time?
Running into the mayor on the street =/= scrutiny of local government
Right, but I live in a large city where Im left with basically chance encounters with elected representatives, but in a smaller town my interactions would be more frequent and Id have a basis for a relationship with that elected official I see every Tuesday buying milk at the grocery.