The Wisconsin Recall Election

There’s a really interesting dynamic at work in Wisconsin, in the run up to the June 5th recall election of Governor Scott Walker.

The majority of polls show Walker once against beating Barrett, with a recent Public Policy Polling poll showing Walker garnering 50 percent of the vote to Barrett’s 45 percent.

This 5 percent margin was unchanged since PPP last polled Wisconsin voters in April, showing that the May 8 Democratic primary did nothing to help boost Barrett’s chances at beating Walker in June.

However, Barrett’s failure to catch steam might be at the fault of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In an exclusive report by the Washington Post, top Wisconsin Democrats are furious at the DNC for not helping to fund Barrett’s gubernatorial bid against Walker.

“We are frustrated by the lack of support from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Governors Association,” a top Wisconsin Democratic Party official told the Washington Post. “Scott Walker has the full support and backing of the Republican Party and all its tentacles. We are not getting similar support.”

One has to wonder just what development has stalled the near hysterical fervor of Democrats to get rid of Scott Walker.  The secret could well lie in recent revelations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics may have knowingly or unknowingly represented a false picture of the jobs and unemployment situation in Wisconsin (gee, where have we heard that allegation before?)  I had read a while back that unemployment in Wisconsin had dropped from 7.8% to 6.9% in Walker’s first year in office, and figured that would be a plus in the recall election.  So I was more than a little surprised when Democrats began charging that, under Walker’s leadership, Wisconsin had the WORST job creation record in the entire country.  Sounded like fuzzy math to me, until a read this piece today:

Relying on an alternative set of jobs numbers, embattled Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker is touting job creation during his term in office, saying numbers from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics — which show Wisconsin losing jobs during that period — are not accurate.

The new numbers from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, released by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, calculate that Wisconsin added more than 23,000 jobs between December 2010 and December 2011, the first full year of Walker’s term.

During his campaign, Walker promised to add 250,000 private sector jobs in his first term as governor.

The numbers diverge sharply from BLS stats, which showed Wisconsin lost 33,900 jobs over that same period. That put the Badger State in last place for job creation nationwide.

Wisconsin’s number-crunchers claim their numbers are more accurate because they are based on data from “nearly all Wisconsin businesses.” The BLS numbers, by contrast, are an estimate based on data from 5,500 Wisconsin companies, which comprise just 3.5 percent of the Wisconsin workforce.

“It looks like 160,000 Wisconsin employers helped show us the thousands of new jobs that BLS estimates missed last year,” Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Secretary Reggie Newson said in a press release. “The bottom line is Wisconsin added jobs in 2011.”

Obama’s only chance at getting reelected is for published national unemployment figures to come down at least another percentage point, since no president since FDR has been reelected with unemployment over 7.2%.  It’s pretty clear that what we need on the national level is a coordinated effort on the part of the Departments of Workforce Development from each state to come up with a comprehensive report and then compare it to the figures presented by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.  My sense is that most thinking Americans already know that the 8.3% unemployment and the 4.1 million jobs created or saved are simply made up figures, but it would be nice to have something besides a NewsMax headline telling them that their intuition is right.
About these ads

127 thoughts on “The Wisconsin Recall Election

  1. neocon1

    Love the lefts verbiage……alinsky 101

    the Republican Party and all its tentacles

    1. Retired Spook Post author

      Yeah, the Donks are skilled at imagery, that’s for sure. but, then, when you can’t compete in the arena of ideas, you’ve gotta have a Plan B.

    2. neocon1

      The man was legally elected once in spite of the donks cheating, why would the people who put him in change their minds?
      Only the left noise and cheat and slime machine at work for them.

      PS
      how is that donk presidential candidate’s trial coming?
      Pfffftttttttt LOL

      yeah john there are “two Americas”.
      those in prison and those of us NOT ….ROTFLMAO

      1. neocon1

        Rut Ro
        can we recall a POtuS ?

        Report: Obama‘s 1991 Literary Agency Described Him as ’Born in Kenya and Raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’

        Breitbart: Agency used “Born in Kenya” language as recently as 2007

      2. Amazona

        Is there any possibility at all that the Narcissist in Chief failed to read every single word in a publicity article about him as he was starting to work so hard to gain national fame?

        Really?

        That it was not sent to him for vetting before being published?

        Maybe it’s time for you to look at that oceanfront property near Denver………

  2. tiredoflibbs

    The DNC is too busy trying to save the re-election of their AMATEUR-In-Chief!

    Since obAMATEUR does not have a positive record to run on they are in full reshaping and attack mode (unsuccessful “war on women”, lukewarm gay marriage support, FORWARD!!! etc. etc.) and cannot be distracted by something as trivial as a gubernatorial race.

  3. Cluster

    Wisconsin is just one of the democrats headaches. They will be reeling once the SC upholds AZ 1070, and strikes down Obamacare. That will complete the trifecta of losses for them which will culminate with the defeat of Dear Leader in November. I think Rush was right on today when he said that the internal polling at the white house is not good, so they will run a scorched earth campaign.

    1. Retired Spook Post author

      so they will run a scorched earth campaign.

      At the end of the day that may be all they have, but it’s a losing strategy. That’s what Lugar tried in the Indiana Senate primary, and, in the last 30 days of the campaign he turned a 7 point advantage into a 22 point loss. People are tired of vicious personal attacks, especially if they don’t have a shred of factual basis.

      1. Cluster

        I also think that Americans, and I mean a lot of Americans, are tired of Washington thinking that they’re stupid. Take the 8.1% unemployment, which everyone knows is a manufactured number and that it is only a result of a lot of people leaving the work force, yet the Obama regime will try and convince everyone that it is progress. The war on women is another completely manufactured issue and so many people get that, yet it doesn’t stop the regime and their media minions from pounding the drum.

        I really think that liberals have over reached big time here, as they are often to do, thinking that once they are in power everyone will surely see the wisdom of their policies and how smart they are and applaud them endlessly. What they forget are the results of their misguided compassion and desire for power.

  4. Mark Edward Noonan

    All the BLS numbers appear rather bogus to me. When they come out, there are two sources you can rely on for a corrective: Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis and Zero Hedge. They always dive in to the reports and look at the underlying data and frequently bring in vital bits of information which are not contained in the official report. And before any of you liberals out there start saying they are just GOP sources – Mish is an anti-GOP libertarian while Zero Hedge is, well; impossible to describe…you’ll have to go experience it and see.

    I don’t think all the fudging will work, though – people who are actually unemployed will be unimpressed by a good number. Ultimately, I think the fudging their doing is not so much an effort to get it below 7.2% before November, but to prevent it from going to double digits…with the recession back on, unemployment will start to rise…and better for Obama if it rises from 7.9% to 8.6% than if it rises from its real rate of 11.1% to 13.5%.

    1. Mark Edward Noonan

      It is in keeping, though, with a clear trend in Obama’s life to be whatever he needs to be to get ahead at a particular moment. He’s all narrative, no substance.

      1. Martin

        Fair enough. However, I believe if the GOP is still debating as to whether or not he was born in this country or is a Muslim and still brings up good ole’ Jeremiah Wright it’s not going to get very far.

        Those issues didn’t get John McCain elected and I don’t think they will work for Romney either.

      2. Amazona

        I don’t think the GOP is debating Obama’s birthplace. That ship has sailed, he is inaugurated, he is confirmed, we can’t unring the bell, and it is what it is. Right now I think the GOP is going to refuse to talk about anything that is a distraction from the reality of the failure of the Obama presidency and the cost of allowing it to continue.

        The Dems would like nothing more than to have the focus shift to Obama’s birthplace. They’d even prefer to have us talking about him eating dogs. I’ll bet they send Michelle and 500 of her closest friends to Europe this summer, just to give us something to talk about besides the economy. Anything—-ANYTHING—but the failure of his presidency and the toxicity of his political ideology and agendas.

        How much political traction did he get from his tepid “I’m kind of for gay marriage as long as all I have to do is talk about it in front of small crowds and empty seats” declaration? As if those people weren’t going to vote for him anyway. It was just an effort to stir something up, get people talking, get some people worked up against other people.

        He is reduced to marginally more sophisticated versions of what I used to do to steal a french fry from my husband—“Look! It’s a duck!!” But now it’s “Look! It’s a homophobic, woman hater, dog abuser, wife-who’s-never-worked, grandson-of-a-polygamist, too-rich, economic vampire!!!”

        They are running scared, not just from his record but from the fear that Americans are going to start looking at that record and examining how it relates to Leftist ideology, and that it is not a fluke of just Obama being a bad president but is a symptom of the entire political system he represents. Uh-oh.

      3. Amazona

        As for Jeremiah Wright, I think some attention to his race-baiting anti-America rhetoric might have more traction now that it did when the nation had a crush on that cute Barry from Chicago.

        After all, it’s almost four years later, and we’ve had a chance to see the results of being immersed in anti-white hatred—such as appointing an AG who declares he will not go after black-on-white crime, who overlooks blatant hate crimes of blacks against whites and then threatens George Zimmerman with federal charges. Now it’s not an abstraction, a speculation about the influence of people like Wright. Now it’s in our faces.

        Now we’ve seen an American president push back against the idea of American Exceptionalism, and tell the world that we are no better as a nation than anyone else, and that we have a lot to apologize for, so now we have Wright’s hatred of America in context.

      4. tiredoflibbs

        “… with a clear trend in Obama’s life to be whatever he needs to be to get ahead at a particular moment.”

        As we have seen in his self-admitted past, he befriends Ayers and announces his political career in Ayer’s home with like-minded Marxists. Ayer’s was never “some guy who lived in my neighborhood”.

        And as we have seen, he embraces Wright and his “theology” and uses that relationship to further his Chicago/Illinois political career. After 20 years and then becoming too much political baggage, he threw Wright and his church under the bus.

      5. bozo

        Judging PURELY by the outcome of the 2008 election, Palin was a bigger liability to McCain that Wright was to Obama. Interesting that Mittens has condemned this “pastor resurrection” but Ammo champions it…

        Can’t you Repubbos just get along?

        Mark’s “clear trend in Obama’s life to be whatever he needs to be to get ahead at a particular moment” epiphany could not be more “IKWYABWAI” considering Mitt’s political positional prestidigitation.

        BTW, Mark: I think you’re punking me. I’m into Book 3 – Christian Behavior of “Mere Christianity” and after starting with disclaimers out the wazoo, Lewis repeatedly slams everything you conservatives stand for, ESPECIALLY your commandment to NOT judge Obama’s Christianity.

        He writes: “I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian ‘denominations.’ You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic.” Interesting that Mormonism is NOT included in CS’s list of acceptable Christian religions.

        This is a real epiphany quote: “What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could “be like gods”—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.”

        Lewis puts “classes” in the same sinful, hopeless, miserable outcome of man’s ambition with poverty and prostitution, ambition and empires. Fascinating.

        Another great quote:“when you have grasped that the earth and the other planets all go round the sun, you would naturally expect that all the planets were made to match—all at equal distances from each other, say, or distances that regularly increased, or all the same size, or else getting bigger or smaller as you go farther from the sun. In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either the sizes or the distances; and some of them have one moon, one has four, one has two, some have none, and one has a ring. Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity.”

        Excellent reasoning. He doesn’t see reason in his observable reality, so…Christianity it is. BTW, there is “rhyme and reason” to the size and path of the planets, but it would be a LOT easier to ace the astronomy test by answering “God did it.”

        I could be evaluating too soon. I’ll finish this in a few days and get back to you. It’s enlightening so far, maybe not as intended…maybe so. God works in mysterious ways, a good quote when facts and reason fail.

      6. neocon1

        martinfrommars

        the man is a fake, a fraud, an illegally elected usurper. NOTHING about him but his homosexuality, drug use, marxism and butt UGLY wookie of a wife are real.
        America should know the truth about the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of the world. Men should be tried, convicted and hanged for treason.

      7. Cluster

        Bozo,

        I am looking forward to your continued evaluations. You are obviously much smarter than those morons who have Faith, and that God guy needs to be brought down a peg or two, am I right?

        Job well done – keep at it.

      8. Amazona

        Run through the freaky filter, this mild observation— “…I think some attention to his race-baiting anti-America rhetoric might have more traction now that it did when the nation had a crush on that cute Barry from Chicago.” becomes a CHAMPIONING of a “pastor resurrection”.

        You are not the first person to read Christian theologians to try to find gotchas, freakzo, and you will not be the last. Many who have done so have come away from the experience with a newfound respect for faith and even with the beginnings of faith, themselves. I doubt that your mind is open enough to allow anything but your snark and spite in, but then people far more intelligent than you have discovered and admitted the error of their ways so there is always a possibility.

        Yeah, you just keep “evaluating” and you just keep pretending that anyone gives a flip about your notions. Yeah, that’s the ticket……

        And in the meantime you can pretend that PDS is sooooo much better than BDS, that sniping at religion and people of faith will cover up your political illiteracy, and that you have any relevance at all to anyone.

      9. Amazona

        BTW, the reason I thought that revisiting Wright might have some traction this time around is less about his influence on Obama’s perception of race, or of America, than about the effort to buy him off before the last election. and Obama’s effort to set up a secret visit with him.

      10. Mark Edward Noonan

        Martin,

        We won’t bring it up for debate – but, face it, when you saw it, you were shocked, too. Either he was lying in 1991 or he’s lying now; I don’t buy the nonsense that in what was one of his first public notices he didn’t take action to correct the record, if it was incorrect as far as he was concerned. The only way Obama can get out of “liar” in this is to show documentary evidence that back in 1991 he advised the literary agent that he had the notice wrong. Absent that, then Obama was either born in Kenya (unlikely) or was lying about being born in Kenya because he felt that advanced his career.

      11. Mark Edward Noonan

        Bozo,

        I appreciate the fact that you are reading it.

        I don’t believe, though, that I have ever judged Obama’s Christianity. I could be fooling myself – judgement does slip so easily out of all of us – but if Obama say’s he’s Christian then I take that at face value, even as I often wonder how my brother in Christ can hold some of those views of his.

        It is true, as Lewis points out, that everything that is wrong in the world is the result of our falling for that first lie of hell, “you shall be as gods”. Had we never done that, the world would be an astoundingly different place – though as you read through that book, you’ll find that a truly Christian society would be quite startlingly different from what most people (including most Christians) initially assume it would be like.

        Keep at it – your next step should be The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton. You’ll have fun with it:

        SCIENCE is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an airplane even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own backyard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own backyard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a caveman like a cat in the backyard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if be finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything.

        But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the Scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the airplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvelous and triumphant airplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.

      12. tiredoflibbs

        “Palin was a bigger liability to McCain that Wright was to Obama.”

        Ah, the creepy assclown chimes in, regurgitating the same mindless, dumbed down talking points all drones do on the subject of Sarah Palin.

        Two things:
        1) Sarah Palin revived a pathetic campaign – McCain’s spike was due to her and her message. McCain is the reason he lost.

        2) McCain did not throw Wright under the bus, the way obAMATEUR did – as he does all his ‘friends” when they become liabilities.

  5. Cluster

    I find it interesting that Romney’s teenage pranks are front page news, but yet the media still bristles when Obama’s past is brought up. Rev. Wright is still relevant – Obama wrote about him, called him his mentor, sat in his pews for 20 years, and had him baptize his children and now it’s racist to bring him up? I find it incredulous how protective the media is of tis empty suit. Christie Matthews was nearly having a breakdown last night claiming how wrong it was for Romney’s super PAC to even mention Wright.

    This current crop of liberals are a strange, extreme, and dangerous crop of morons.

    1. Amazona

      Well, the Complicit Agenda Media have their instructions, which of course jibe with their instincts anyway, so we will hear from them what they think they need to give us to get the outcome they and their minders want.

      I for one am loving it—-the sillier, the more superficial, the more petty their focus is, the more they telegraph the internal readings of the Left and let us know how panicky they are. We can look forward to a lot more of this silliness, this junior high level of petty attack, and every time it happens the subtext will be “Because We Got Nothing Else !!!”

      It’s interesting that they are trying to reframe this alleged attack on this kid some 40 years ago as homophobia, when anyone who was around at the time will know that it had nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with the social divide between long-hairs and what we would now call preppies. And that went on for decades, just with different terminology. The surfers and their long locks—remember Murph the Surf and his shaggy sun-bleached hair?—-made fun of the frat rats, and vice versa. The cheerleader/jock types made fun of the greasers with their DA’s and their baggy jeans and cigarettes rolled up in their T-shirt sleeves—they even made a stage play about it, then a movie, then put it back on stage, where it still tours, a retro little play called “Grease”.

      Now the Libs and their mindless PL lackeys are trying to rewrite history ( a classic Lefty maneuver) and play back this alleged, but unsubstantiated, hair-motivated prank as (cue sinister music……) HATRED OF GAYS.

      And it’s just a coincidence that a couple of days later Barry comes out with his (to paraphrase the freaky clown) “I Love The Gays” speech.

    2. Mark Edward Noonan

      Gotta feel for Wright – for 20 years Obama attended his church in order that he, Obama, could become more “black” than his white, upper-middle class upbringing allowed. Obama did all that he needed to get his street cred and did it by dancing to Wright’s racist, anti-American tune…and just as soon as Wright sees his most famous protege’ make good, Obama throws him under the bus. I’ll bet dollars to donuts the two men haven’t spoken since 2008. Wright is what he is, but he is the injured party, here…Wright clearly takes his nonsense to be the truth, Obama has shown the world (now, many times) that whatever it takes to advance Obama, it will be done.

  6. bagni

    hey mark
    this is easy solution to prevent ‘bamtser reelection
    all deeply committed repubs and b4v’ers should quit their jobs
    if enough go for it unemployment goes up
    and bingo
    romney gets in……
    ::))

    1. Cluster

      But bags, we would then receive unemployment checks which according to Pelosi is a great way stimulate the economy, so that might actually help Obama. Creating government dependence is a goal of Obama, so again it just plays right into his hand.

      Nice try though.

    2. Amazona

      Did baggy Fox-Pivens just finally write a relevant post?
      A funny post?
      A less-than-moronic post?

      Nope.

  7. GMB

    John McCain refused to bring up the character issues against barky. barky’s character is the reason our economy is still in the tank. If you fight a battle without using all weapons available you are going to share John McCain’s fate.

    How do seperate the character from the results of the character?

    1. watsonredux

      Meanwhile, we find that staunch conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts, the man considering funding the Jeremiah Wright based attack ads, is also the patriarch of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs, which is trying to work out a deal with the city of Chicago to use $150 million in city taxes to renovate Wrigley Field.

      How on earth could a conservative such as Joe Ricketts even consider using tax dollars to renovate his private property? Oh, I forgot. Handouts that benefit conservatives themselves are good; handouts that benefit others are bad. Just another conservative hypocrite. What were you saying about character?

      1. tiredoflibbs

        If Chicago wants him to stay in Chicago, then they need to cough up some dough to keep him there!

        Chicago does not own the Cubs, Rickets can go anywhere with his team. Chicago makes plenty in taxes and if they want more they can just simply raise them with absolutely no consideration or negotiation with the Rickets family.

        It is capitalism nothing more….. but then again proggies, especially mindless ones regurgitating dumbed down themes would not know that.

        Pathetic.

      2. watsonredux

        Yeah, right, tired. You really think the Cubs will leave if they don’t get that $150 million from the taxpayers? Regardless of whether that’s true or not, where are your principles?

        At least you admit that taxpayer funding of private enterprise is good when it’s a business you think should be funded. Good for you. Such a principled conservative.

      3. Cluster

        Watson,

        Do you ever think things through? Or is it just reflexive ignorance on your part? You again lean on the cartoonish notion that conservatives oppose all government and all taxes, so please scrub that notion from your small, demented mind. Secondly, the tax revenues and impact fees generated from a new sports facility more than often far exceed the funds invested. So Chicago will be the ultimate winner in this venture by attracting more people, more business and overall more economic activity to the area.

        One thing America has grown tired of – is stupid liberals like yourself.

      4. Cluster

        Oh and Rickett’s is right on by continuing to expose Rev Wright. Jeremiah Wright is a vile piece of human trash and Obama considered him to be a mentor and sat in his pews for 20 years, that is until Wright became a liability, at which point the incompetent narcissist threw him under the bus, which speaks to Obama’s loyalty, no?

      5. GMB

        What was I saying watson? Why don’t you ask dorhn and ayres about character, you know a couple of barkys close friends might be able to tell you.

      6. watsonredux

        Cluster said, “Do you ever think things through?” Do you ever read?

        I didn’t say that “conservatives oppose all government and all taxes.” I was talking about using taxpayer funds to directly benefit a specific private enterprise that is owned by a billionaire family. I guess that’s part of the conservative philosophy, eh? Since you think this is such a swell idea–and came up with all kinds of justifications for it–could you explain to us which businesses should receive taxpayer giveaways and which should not?

        Bailout of General Motors? Socialism! Bailout of the Chicago Cubs and their billionaire owners? Capitalism!

        Next we’re going to hear from Spook that this is merely a part of that meritocracy he was talking about. You see, in America we believe in “meritocracy fairness,” which means that once you become a billionaire, it is incumbent on the taxpayers to give you more money to make sure you remain a billionaire.

        In the immortal words of tiredoflibbs, taxpayer giveaways to private enterprise is “capitalism nothing more.” Glad we got that straight.

      7. GMB

        If the people of Chicago are stupid enough to vote for a tax levy to update Wrigly Field that is thier problem. However it won’t work that way. The whole state will end up paying for it.

        I have been a Cubs fan for life, no other loyalty at all. It is my opinion that Wrigly should be torn down and a whole new stadium built. How do you think that idea would was with the people of Chicago.

        Sox fans do not count. :P

      8. tiredoflibbs

        Again, watty I go by the principles of capitalism.

        If Chicago want the team to stay, then they should pony up. PLUS, they make money off of every game through taxation and they have no expenses or overhead to worry about. It is free money for the city of Chicago. Under the principles of capitalism, Chicago should pay up for a portion of THEIR INTEREST to maintain their tax revenue.

        I love it when proggy drones regurgitate the “principles” talking point without so much as a thought to the BIG PICTURE. They are just pettily looking for their pathetic gotcha moments.

        So when obAMATEUR and the Democrats hand out almost $1 trillion in so-called stimulus to every liberal wish list out there, you proggies had no problem of tax payer money going to private enterprise (and mostly for political reasons) and don’t forget about the green energy schemes like Soyndra and GE!

        Personally, I don’t care what Chicago does, that is up to the people and their voting on the referendum. I know when a similar referendum comes up in my city/home state I vote NO. But as I said, if Rickets wants to move (he is willing to take his team elsewhere with a higher potential for earnings) and Chicago protests (they will), they need to pony up some cash to make it worth it to him to stay. Again, such a concept of capitalism is foreign to you mindless proggy drones.

        A pitiful attempt, watty, but thanks for playing. I needed a good laugh at your expense.

      9. watsonredux

        Once again tired demonstrates that his conservative principles consist of doing the same things those dirty liberals do because they did it first. At least you’re consistent, tired.

        But at last we now understand that conservatism calls for taxpayer bailouts of private enterprise when it suits you. When it doesn’t, well then it’s socialism!

      10. Cluster

        I was talking about using taxpayer funds to directly benefit a specific private enterprise that is owned by a billionaire family. – watson

        That billionaire family pays A LOT in taxes, and the investment of public funds as a joint venture with them will grow the treasury of the municipality. AND IT’S NOT A BAIL OUT. This is why you and your ilk will lose in November. You’re just too f**king stupid to live.

      11. Cluster

        Watson,

        in your infinite f**king wisdom, explain to us how the joint venture with the Cubs is a bail out. C’mon rocket scientist – don’t let me down know, how in your small distorted liberal mind can this be construed as a bail out?

      12. Cluster

        Here’s a great example of how f**king stupid watson is, and of course this includes most liberals:

        …could you explain to us which businesses should receive taxpayer giveaways and which should not? – watson

        So this proposed joint venture with the Cubs is a “give away”. Mind you, throwing $500 million to Solyndra to enrich Obama supporters, and increasing welfare is perfectly fine, but investing in a corporate enterprise that stands to reap rewards for the City of Chicago is now a “giveaway”

      13. watsonredux

        Cluster, the billionaire owners of the Chicago Cubs don’t want to pay for the renovations of the stadium THEY OWN, so they are asking the taxpayers of the City of Chicago to foot half the bill of renovating the stadium owned by a private corporation. And this is merely capitalism in your book?

        Then you point out that the billionaire owners pay a lot of taxes, as though that justifies getting some of it back in the form of a direct payment from the City of Chicago taxpayers. Is this your philosophy in general? Pay enough taxes and the taxpayers should put money directly in your pocket? I pay taxes. I want a new car. I guess according to you, taxpayers such as yourself should just give me half the money to buy my new car because I need one, I pay taxes, and having a car will benefit the community at large. But only if I’m a conservative.

        Then you bring up the example of Solyndra. I’m not arguing that one is different from the other; you are. And therein lies your hypocrisy. That’s how f**king stupid you are, to put it in your terms.

        It’s really quite amusing to see you fall all over yourselves claiming that this is merely capitalism at work. You guys practice situational politics. Political relativism. The one that IS clear from your responses is that you support direct payments of taxpayer dollars to private businesses and individuals–but only when it suits you. That is hypocrisy with a capital H. Own it.

      14. Cluster

        And this is merely capitalism in your book? – watson

        It’s a JOINT VENTURE rocket scientist – look it up. And speaking of billionaires who don’t pay taxes, look at GE and Jeffrey Immelt. I have never seen you criticize them, of course he is good friends with the one you wear knee pads for, so no surprise.

        And yes, if corporations like the Cubs, who pay huge amounts of taxes, need some concessions to grow and expand, then that is done a lot. Try and pay attention to reality other than your distorted liberal, selfish, juvenile view of matters.

      15. Cluster

        Oh and watson, I am not going to let you escape your “bail out” assertion. Care to explain that to us?

        I will bring this up a lot when you post from here on out just to highlight your ignorance. So OWN that moron.

      16. Cluster

        It is my opinion that Wrigly should be torn down and a whole new stadium built. – GMB

        No, no, no. Wrigey Field is much more than a ball park, it is an institution and part of Americana that is irreplaceable.

      17. GMB

        Point One. If the owner of the Cubs can get the money it will come from the tax payers of Illinois. Tenth Amendment anyone? If the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago want the Cubs to stay in Chicago they will have to pony up some taxpayer money. This is the right of the State to do so or to not do.

        I am personally against any use of taxpayer moneey to support sports teams at all. I would vote no any any tax levey that would do so.

        Tear Wrigley to the ground an build a new stadium. They have never won a World Series while playing there. 99 years and counting.

      18. tiredoflibbs

        Watty, too, suffers from the same reading incomprehension affliction that affects so many proggy drones.

        No, watty, that is not what I said. I never said or alluded that it is okay since “liberals do it too”.

        But, that is your simple-minded mentality. If you have to lie to yourself so that it makes you feel better and prevent damage to your delicate ego then go for it.

      19. tiredoflibbs

        “Tenth Amendment anyone?”

        This is another reason proggy drones like watty does not understand the difference between the Cubs receiving tax payer money and private companies like Solyndra and GE receiving tax payer money.

        One comes from the state…..
        … the other from the federal government.

        Show us in the Constitution, watty, where the authorization for “bail outs”, as you put it, to companies like Solyndra and other green companies that received BILLIONS in federal dollars?

        I won’t hold my breath for the answer, you may be a while unless you copy and paste the dumbed down proggy talking points or other mental midgetry absurdities.

      20. watsonredux

        tirdy said, “No, watty, that is not what I said. I never said or alluded that it is okay since “liberals do it too”.” Of course you don’t actually say it–that would be too honest. Instead, you simply bring up examples of liberals who previously did whatever dastardly deed you want to do as justification for doing it yourself.

        So Cluster, exactly how much of my money should be confiscated to pay for the renovation of the Ricketts family’s private property?

      21. tiredoflibbs

        watty fails again: “tirdy said, “No, watty, that is not what I said. I never said or alluded that it is okay since “liberals do it too””

        Uh, I guess you are either more dense than I thought or just being plainly dishonest …. oh wait, why sugar-coat it …. A LIAR.

        ALLUDE – verb [ intrans. ] ( allude to)
        suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at.

        I did not do that either. Again, you and the ability to comprehend the written word is a foreign to you as success is to obAMATEUR.

      22. Retired Spook Post author

        Next we’re going to hear from Spook that this is merely a part of that meritocracy he was talking about.

        The though hadn’t crossed my mind, Watson. What I do find disingenuous about your comments is comparing the GM bailout to a joint venture between a private company and the city of Chicago. If Mayor Emmanuel were to fire the CEO of the Cubs and appoint his own CEO, and if he were to screw the bondholders (if there are any) in favor of the union, then you might have a point — but he didn’t and you don’t. In fact, I can’t think of a single parallel between the GM bailout and a Cubs/Chicago joint venture.

        What’s that you were saying about situational politics and political relativism? You’ve got it down to a science.

      23. Cluster

        So Cluster, exactly how much of my money should be confiscated to pay for the renovation of the Ricketts family’s private property? – Watson

        Still not getting it, are you sport? Do you live in Illinois? If so, then your tax contribution will be commensurate with your rate. Not too difficult to figure out, yet your premise is false which is typical liberal.

      24. Cluster

        Spook,

        Don’t forget that Watson first called the joint venture with the Cubs a bail out – so I am not sure if he even understands what a bail out is.

      25. Amazona

        “You really think the Cubs will leave if they don’t get that $150 million from the taxpayers? ”

        You don’t? Watch and learn. From moving to another big city altogether to just moving to suburbia, the franchise will go or stay depending on what works best for it.

        You do realize, don’t you, that this kind of thing has happened before ???

        And for a political movement that sucks in so many of its lemmings through its constant bleating of the buzzword “choice”, this is just a great example of real choice. Chicago can choose what to do, and Ricketts can choose how he will respond to Chicago’s decision, and everyone gets a “CHOICE”.

        In Colorado, the venerable National Western Stock Show is thinking of moving from Denver to suburbia, to eastern Aurora, and Denver is outraged. So, say the National Western people, what’s in it for us to stay? Antiquated buildings, no parking, no nearby hotels or restaurants, really just some tradition. Make it worth our while to pass up a better, new, facility, with all the bells and whistles.

        It’s a business decision for Denver, just as the Cubs thing is a business decision for Chicago,

        Which brings home another point—good government often IS business. The RRL anti-capitalist, anti-business, cult of personality crowd that sneers at a desire to have someone with business experience in the White House will never be able to wrap their minds around this. But a successful city is based upon sound business decisions.

      26. dbschmidt

        I really hate to say this but after living in Miami which built stadium after stadium for 5 teams, and having a great deal of business in Philadelphia / Pittsburgh seeing all the new stadiums sitting next to their rusting counterparts–I would have to agree with GMB and somewhat Watson. GMB because he believes it to be a bad business decision and somewhat Watson because he has the right idea just no concept of how he got there. The old “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.”

        All I can say is we could have powered most of Miami and the Beaches off of Joe Robbie considering how fast he has been spinning in his grave.

  8. GMB

    I will guarantee you one thing. Rahmmyboy will give Mr. Ricketts everything he wants by hook or by crook. Rahmmyboy lets the Cubs move from Chicago, even to the burbs, he will go down as the most hated mayor of Chicago ever.

    In fact I go as far to say that that happens Rahmmyboy would probably join blago in the federal pen.

    Unfortunately it is us Illinois taxpayers that will have to pay for it.

    1. Amazona

      GMB, I’m not going to ask you for any personal information, but I am just going to say that on my way back from CPAC a couple of years ago I made a little pilgrimage to Princeton, Illinois, to visit the grave of a young man I once dated and considered marrying, who was killed in a car wreck while we were “on a break” and to whom I had never been able to say goodbye. He had been close to my brothers as well, and I brought back copies of pages from his high school yearbooks and newspaper clippings of his athletic career and then death notice, and we all had our own memorial for him, all these many years later, and finally got grieve for him.

      It’s the only part of Illinois I know much about, but I really liked the area.

      1. watsonredux

        So please, tell me how much money should be confiscated from each taxpayer in the City of Chicago to pay for the renovation of the Ricketts family’s private property. And tell me how paying to renovated someone’s private property with taxpayer money abides by conservative principles.

        Apparently for Amy, the principle is that it happened before in other cities. That’s about as pathetic as tired’s lame justifications.

        And Cluster, if handing over $150 million of taxpayer money to a private enterprise owned by a billionaire family isn’t a bailout, then what exactly do YOU call it? A handout? Good governance? Again, you all are hypocrites. I’m not surprised.

        dbschmidt says, “Watson because he has the right idea just no concept of how he got there. The old ‘Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.'” Nice try, db. I know exactly how I got here. I simply asked how it is that a staunch conservative billionaire such as Joe Ricketts could ask the City of Chicago to give him $150 million. Lo and behold, B4V conservatives think it’s just swell. That squirrel you were talking about could have predicted the collective B4V response. All I had to do was raise the question and watch you all fall all over yourselves justifying it. Had the owner of the Cubs been a Democrat, you all would be singing a different tune. And since you agree with me “somewhat,” exactly what part do you disagree with me?

      2. watsonredux

        And since Cluster refuses to say how much money should be confiscated from each taxpayer in the City of Chicago, let me help him. According to the 2010 census, the population of the City of Chicago was 2,695,598. So good ol’ staunch conservative Joe Ricketts–along with Cluster, tired, Amy and Spook–expects every man, woman and child in the City of Chicago to pony up $55.65 each to pay for the renovations of the Ricketts family’s place of business. That’s $222.60 for a family of four.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        At least watty got something right this time. The city of Chicago can confiscate money from the taxpayers, the CUBS and the Ricketts anytime they want and increase it anytime they want.

        As I said before, if they want the Cubs to stay and maintain their supply of free money from each and every Cubs game and fan, they will “have skin in the game” and contribute to keep the Cubs in there through their joint venture agreement.

        Of course, then watty falls back into usual mindless dialectic and reminds us all what a fool he is.

      4. tiredoflibbs

        Since you did that number experiment watty, why don’t you try another?

        How much has obAMATEUR charged for each person for his >$5 trillion debt? How much will they confiscate from each person to pay for his four years of failure?

        I don’t expect each Chicagoan to pay anything. Since they voted in their representative and senators, who will vote on a referendum, then they will have their representation before new taxes are put in place. At least, you proggy drones regurgitated that talking point when it came to obAMATEUR’s passage of health care and stimulus spending, that we must accept their decision since we put them in office.

        But watty still wants to compare apple to oranges in this case with Chicago/Cubs/Ricketts. At least, he changed his meme and does not wrongly refer to it as a bail out, but he still gets it wrong anyway.

        Pathetic gotcha attempts will always bite him in his rear end.

      5. Cluster

        Watson,

        Hard to believe you still don’t get it, but then again you are a bone deep stupid liberal so asking you to understand a private business venture that will actually increase tax revenue for the city is probably asking too much.

        I am glad that you parsed out some numbers, I hope that didn’t hurt you too much, but take a look at these numbers sport:

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/73000-debt-american-under-obamas-budget-plan_635499.html

        Obama will have added $43,000 per person by 2022. Those are YOUR policies and yet you quibble over $55 per person – hilarious.

      6. Cluster

        Hey Watson,

        Wanna see some more numbers sport?

        California
        State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest)
        Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest)
        Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest)
        Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest)

        “California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country,” the study found. “In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person.”

        These are again, the results of YOUR favored policies – high level of poverty, high unemployment and basically massive failure. Tell you what sport, unless and until you can prove that your policies are at the very least non destructive, maybe then can you lecture others, until then please stop embarrassing yourself

      7. tiredoflibbs

        Cluster, just 4 years ago, we heard, ad nauseum, about how the Republicans under GWB was saddling our children, grandchildren and further future generations with $4 trillion in debt (in 8 years).

        Now that their pResident has saddled us with over $5 trillion in just under 4 years, what do we hear?

        Crickets! Mindless drones like watty are especially silent unless of course the criticism is pointed at ANY non-proggy.

        Pathetic.

      8. Cluster

        It’s mind boggling isn’t it tired? Just this morning on MSNBC, Chris Hayes was bleating on with another guest on how the debt is not an issue, and how Romney is trying to scare everyone about the level of our current debt.

        I not only want to defeat these annoying parasitic liberals like Watson, but I want also want to exclude from any future debate and watch them bleed from their ears. Is that wrong?

      9. tiredoflibbs

        No, it is not wrong. It is unbelievable how their stances change depending upon who is in the White House or who has control of Congress.

        For example, Denny was whining how the REPUBLICANS deregulated the banks by repealing parts of the Glass-Steagle Act but it in reality Bill Clinton signed it and a majority of the DEMOCRATS voted for it. REPUBLICANS did not have control of both houses to pass it like the DEMS had for obamacare.

        Another is Clinton and the surpluses (projected and little realized) – when the Republicans took control with simple majorities, they held Clinton’s feet to the fire and forced him to stop deficit spending. Clinton’s first two budgets were the typical tax and spend liberal proggy crap as before. But the proggy drones like denny and watty give Clinton sole credit for the projected surpluses.

        Now we have these proggy drones whining constantly about the criticism of the DEMOCRATS and obAMATEUR driving up the debt and their failed policies which have done nothing to ease the recession. They blame the prior administration for their failure. They blame the REPUBLICANS for their failure to “do enought” even after obAMATEUR and the proggy looters had sufficient majorities to cram anything they wanted down our throats (health care and the stimulus).

        I guess when Romney wins in November their attention will turn once again to the debt and “responsible and reasonable spending legislation” and worry about the debt passed on to our children and grandchildren.

        These losers are so predictable and transparent. With their ideology, they do not deserve to have any seat of power. The pathetic state of the rest of the world with their proggy policies is proof enough.

      10. Amazona

        As usual, the wattle is completely clueless, but it is interesting (though frustrating) to see how much of their confusion is based on simple ignorance.

        Point of Ignorance # 1. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Check it out. It’s in the Constitution, right there in the Bill of Rights.

        Point of Ignorance # 2. Chicago is a city, in a state, and therefore not constrained by the 10th Amendment. The phrase “…” delegated to the United States by the Constitution…” refers to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The States, and the People, can do pretty much whatever they want, as long as whatever they want is not prohibited to them by some other part of the Constitution.

        Point of Ignorance # 3. There is no prohibition in the Constitution regarding the ability of any state, or any city, to make a decision about supporting or not supporting any business venture in the interest of the state or city.

        So a decision made by the city of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, to advance the interest of any private enterprise with the goal of increasing city and/or state revenue, is their own, solely their own, and whichever decision they make has no impact whatsoever on the Constitutional Conservative position that The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        As James Madison said: “”The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.”

      11. neocon1

        tired

        if mitt wins the Afghan death toll will take up 5 minutes of the nightly news, we will have wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over 7.5% unemployment, the deficit will be blasted in headlines weekly and we will be in a GOP RECESSION for four years.

        It is how the commie donks roll.

        PS
        Im not for any tax payer money going for sports franchises personally yet I have seen some good results from that money spent.

      12. neocon1

        As usual, the wattle is completely clueless, but it is interesting (though frustrating) to see how much of their confusion is based on simple ignorance.

        BINGO…..on that,

      13. Amazona

        And, wattle, when I said that things like this have happened before, I was talking about franchises leaving one city to move to another.

        Duh

      14. tiredoflibbs

        Excellent post, Ama!

        I am afraid such details and the mental acuity it takes to understand them are a little too challenging for drones like watty.

      15. Jeremiah

        Oh Amazona, I feel soooo bad for you! That is such a SAD story!! Makes me want to hold you, carry you, and feed you, and bring flowers to you. You are so special, to me!

        Oh dear God in heave, help Amazona and I to get together sometime in the near future!

    2. tiredoflibbs

      “Here’s an NYT article from 1999, clearly showing that the Clinton administration initiated the housing crisis by encouraging sub prime loans.”

      Cluster, this fact was shown to these proggy drones (denny, velma, watty, etc. etc.) dozens of times and they still regurgitate the same old lying crap as before. They will regurgitate their dumbed down talking points, we point out this fact, they run from the arguement, then several days later in another thread, they will state their lies all over again. Then they whine if we become frustrated and point out the fact that they cannot think for themselves and question their intelligence and honesty.

      It is pathetic.

      1. neocon1

        another of Ubomas “sons”
        waspstooge is dat you?

        Man With 30 Kids — By 11 Different Mothers — Seeks Child Support Help

        “I had four kids in the same year. Twice.”

      2. neocon1

        I love it…….go Sheriff Joe!!

        Ariz. Secretary of State Threatens to Keep Obama’s Name Off Ballot Without Birth Certificate Verification

      3. neocon1

        verrrrrry interrrrrresting

        In reply to Broomhead’s question: “Will you exclude the President from the ballot?”, the AZ official said that is a possibility, or he may ask all candidates to submit valid birth certificates. When CIR called both Bennett and his communications director, they both were either not at their desks or not in the office.

        A commenter on this story said, “Why can’t this guy produce the real documents, college records, etc. Is he afraid to show he received financial aid as a foreign student?”

        Florida‘s eligibility challenge is still alive with Attorney Larry E. Klayman representing Citizen Mike Voeltz in a case that already has gone through 19 preliminary motions, hearings, and filings, since being put on the docket of Judge Terry Lewis on 2-15-2012. Case No. 37 2012 CA 000467 has eight different attorneys…….

      4. Cluster

        I do hope the POS president is not on the ballot here in AZ. Of course he will lose anyway, much like he will lose his lawsuit against AZ 1070, as well as losing on Obamacare.

        He is a loser, period. Or a better description of that asshole comes from his own physician – Obama is an incompetent with a messianic complex.

      5. James

        As of now James will have every post deleted. No more warnings, no more chances. //Moderator

      6. Cluster

        cluster, you’re a no good prick. Arizona, your beloved racist state won’t be a GOP state much longer. look at the demographics genius.

        Well good morning James. Have you ever looked into quantitive easing? And tell us how simple demographics determine which ideology wins – oh that’s right, liberals believe that the skin color of someone determines how they vote. For a moment there I forgot how racist liberals are.

        Carry on

      7. tiredoflibbs

        Awwwww…… poor Tommy-boy (aka James) has his panties in a twist.

        “I love how you have so much anger for your President and his policies when in reality, they have brought us back from the brink.”

        Brought us from the brink of prosperity and success….. to massive debt, higher unemployment, lower labor participation, more families on food stamps, unemployment insurance extended for two years, higher health care costs, higher energy costs, higher food costs etc. etc.

        Oh, yeah …. the brink … why don’t you just mindlessly regurgitate, “out of the darkness and into the light”.

        what a drone.

  9. watsonredux

    I just love all these rationalizations for why money can and should be confiscated from every taxpayer in the City of Chicago in order to pay for the renovation of a billionaire (and fellow conservative) family’s private property.

    Let’s summarize the conservative principles you all have offered, shall we?

    Cluster: “If Chicago wants him to stay in Chicago, then they need to cough up some dough to keep him there!” In other words, extortion is a conservative principle so long as it is a conservative doing the extorting.

    tiredoflibbs: “If Chicago want the team to stay, then they should pony up.” Extortion again.

    tiredoflibbs: “if Rickets wants to move (he is willing to take his team elsewhere with a higher potential for earnings) and Chicago protests (they will), they need to pony up some cash to make it worth it to him to stay.” Apparently extortion is very popular among conservatives, although this time tired simply asserts that it is capitalism at work.

    Cluster: “That billionaire family pays A LOT in taxes.” Ah. This is the conservative principle that says that rich people pay a lot in taxes, so they should get a lot of it back as an outright gift from the taxpayers. I think this is some of that meritocracy fairness that Spook explained to us a couple of posts ago.

    Cluster: “Mind you, throwing $500 million to Solyndra to enrich Obama supporters, and increasing welfare is perfectly fine, but investing in a corporate enterprise that stands to reap rewards for the City of Chicago is now a ‘giveaway’.” This is the conservative principle that says that if liberals do it first, it’s perfectly fine for conservatives to do it, too.

    Cluster: “Wrigey Field is much more than a ball park, it is an institution and part of Americana that is irreplaceable.” This is the conservative principle in which confiscation of taxpayer money is justified in order to save real America.

    GMB: “If the owner of the Cubs can get the money it will come from the tax payers of Illinois. Tenth Amendment anyone? If the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago want the Cubs to stay in Chicago they will have to pony up some taxpayer money.” This is the conservative principle in which money can be confiscated from taxpayers so long as it isn’t done by the federal government.

    Amazona: “You do realize, don’t you, that this kind of thing has happened before ???” Let’s play the extortion card again. (And yes, Amazona, I got it the first time. Duh.)

    tiredoflibbs: “The city of Chicago can confiscate money from the taxpayers, the CUBS and the Ricketts anytime they want and increase it anytime they want.” Once again, confiscation by the government is perfectly acceptable among conservatives so long as it isn’t done by the federal government.

    Amazona: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Once again, anything done by a government is fair game so long as it isn’t the federal government. Such a principled stand, Amazona.

    Cluster: “Wanna see some more numbers sport?” This is the conservative principle of changing the subject when you know you are wrong.

    1. Amazona

      Oh, wattle, you really didn’t need to go the trouble of identifying the many ways you are sooooo wrong. We already got it.

      For one thing, every time a conservative comments on the Leftist scheme of confiscating the property of some for redistribution to others, the RRL and PL lackeys howl in concerted outrage: TAXATION IS NOT CONFISCATION !!!!!!!

      Now that you have a bone in your teeth, you have simply redefined taxation as, you guessed it, confiscation.

      Not once, but several times.

      So stop right here and address this, as you are the one who insists on bringing it up.

      If it is wrong to “CONFISCATE” (your terminology) the money of some to redistribute to others, when the money in question will go to a joint venture with a sports franchise, why would it be OK to CONFISCATE money of some for any other purpose?

      If spending the money CONFISCATED through taxation is supposed to be considered an INVESTMENT by the government, as we are constantly told, then why is it OK to INVEST this CONFISCATED money on some projects and not on others?

      What is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable INVESTMENT of CONFISCATED funds?

      Housing developments? But….but….but…..millions in CONFISCATED funds, taken from Illinois taxpayers, went into funding projects like Cabrini Green, which resulted in no improvement in housing for the poor but enriched already-rich people like Rezko. The alleged goal of this INVESTMENT of this CONFISCATED money was to improve the lives of Chicago’s poor, it involved partnerships with some very shady and wealthy players, and it served only to make those players richer.

      What is the goal of refurbishing Wrigley Field? As I understand it, it is to encourage the baseball team to remain in Chicago, and thereby contribute to the tax base of Chicago, providing revenue (CONFISCATED money) for the governance of Chicago in the interest of the citizens of Chicago.

      It’s always hard to sort through your hysteria, your shrill outrage, and your chaotic thought processes, but it appears that you have simply invented a whole new category of taxation, which you find offensive, solely on the grounds of class resentment, and that you have decided to mount your class-based attack on this proposed venture by the use of lies and personal attacks on those who do not necessarily agree or disagree with the plan but who simply point out that it is legal and it is a policy decision to be made by those involved.

      So now you are squealing in outrage at this new category of taxation, which, when the money is tagged for a joint venture with a (cue ominous music……) BILLIONAIRE !!!! must now be called CONFISCATION, and on the basis that the joint venture would be with someone who already has too much money and through this joint venture might make more.

      You remind me of a brainless Lib who, when Bush wanted to reform Social Security, fought the idea with great vigor and venom. Yes, citizens would get a better return on their money—BUT THE STOCKBROKERS WOULD GET RICH !!!!! This is the mentality of the surly resenters drawn like flies to the stink of Leftist demagoguery—–who CARES if the city, and therefore the people, of Chicago, benefit? All that matters is that a rich guy might get richer? Poke yourselves in the eye, Chicago, if that’s what it takes to slow down the profits of this (gasp!!) BILLIONAIRE .

      And, you being what you are, you are also trying to spin this into some weird sort of ‘gotcha” of conservatives, in spite of your abject ignorance of what conservatism really is, what the Constitution really says, etc.

      1. Cluster

        You know that’s a great point Amazona and one that watson needs to address. Tell us Watson, how do you feel about the tax payer money that was confiscated to enrich Rezko, which in turn benefited Obama in a sweetheart land deal? Anxious for your comments.

    2. Cluster

      Watson is stuck on stupid. He is a good example of what’s wrong with America. Regardless of how many times he has clearly been proven wrong, he just can’t seem to comprehend anything outside of the distorted liberal prism, and that is why we need to just shut stupid people like him down and banish them from any further debate.

      Oh and Watson, the first quote you ascribed to me is also wrong and not my quote. But I guess it does make sense considering you have gotten everything else wrong too.

    3. Amazona

      Another brainless whine by the wattle: “Amazona: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Once again, anything done by a government is fair game so long as it isn’t the federal government. Such a principled stand, Amazona.”

      Now the wattle is complaining about adherence to the Constitution! Sorry you find it so offensive. Well, at least it is out in the open, now, and not part of a typical Lefty dodge of “Oh, I do believe in the Constitution, it’s just that….”

      Yes, wattle, I do believe that a state can pass its own laws. Beyond that, my opinion of what the State of Illinois, and/or the City of Chicago, vote to do is not my concern. I don’t live in Illinois, I don’t live in Chicago, I don’t have a voice in what they do or do not want to do. I can sit back and watch what some other state or city votes to do, and I can decide if I would vote for or against that action if something similar were to come up where I DO have a say, but otherwise it is none of my business.

      You keep bleating about “extortion”. Do you believe that the owners of the team have the right to move it to another location if they are not happy with the facility where they are now? Yes or no.

      Do you believe that the team should or should not allow the city and state to make its own decisions about whether or not they want the team to move? Should or should not.

      Do you believe that it would be “FAIR” to the city and state to just up and move with no notice and no opportunity to correct the conditions that prompt the decision? Yes or no.

      You assert that my position is “Once again, anything done by a government is fair game so long as it isn’t the federal government.” What is YOUR position? Do you feel that the governments of Chicago and Illinois should be prevented from participating in a joint venture with the Chicago Cubs? By whom? On what legal grounds?

      Do you believe that states, like the federal government, should be restricted as to size, scope and authority, by a statement of enumerated duties and a limitation to only those duties? Yes or no.

    4. tiredoflibbs

      watty continues to make an a$$ of himself with his pathetic attempts at GOTCHA!

      He still does not understand the concept of capitalism or the fact that if they want to keep the Cubs in Chicago and benefit financially from it then they have to contribute as well.

      If watty thinks that the Cubs will stay just because … (insert favorite reasoning here) then he should ask the Baltimore Colts, New Orleans Jazz, Oakland Raiders, hell even the Brooklyn Dodgers… oh wait!

      Now above you have summarized (many taken out of context) …
      … but you stated nothing. Oh well, you did do a good job of copy and paste … which is about all you can do .. no original independent thought whatsoever, just mindless regurgitation of talking points designed for the ignorant and dumbed down proggy masses.

      1. Cluster

        The Seattle Supersonics is a good analogy here. Seattle refused to help them build a new stadium, so off they went to Oklahoma, and are now on the verge of a championship, which will mean A LOT of added revenue to Oklahoma City.

      2. neocon1

        Tampa built one, went from the most sorry azzed team to a Super bowl champion.
        brought in TONS of money as well as hosting 2-3 super bowls in our new stadium.

      3. Cluster

        Watson, smart use of tax payer money is when there is a measurable return on investment. Poor use of tax payer money is when there is not a measurable return on investment, and in fact the initial problem becomes even bigger. Nobody has to decide that, it is black and white. Liberals favor poor use of tax payer money, conservatives support smart use of tax payer money.

        Did I dumb that down enough for you?

    5. watsonredux

      Amazona said, “If it is wrong to “CONFISCATE” (your terminology) the money of some to redistribute to others, when the money in question will go to a joint venture with a sports franchise, why would it be OK to CONFISCATE money of some for any other purpose?”

      Yes, that is a good question, Amazona. I was hoping to find a principled response here from you so-called conservatives, but I guess I have to give up, as you have yet to provide one.

      To me, the principle is that using taxpayer dollars to fund the improvement or renovation of someone’s private property is wrong, regardless of the level of government.

      If the Chicago Cubs is such a cherished cultural institution to the City of Chicago, then concerned citizens can create a non-profit foundation to solicit the funding needed to help the billionaire owners refurbish their property.

      If I was cynical, I would conclude that the reason you all think it’s just swell to confiscate people’s money in this case is because the billionaire is one of you. Nah. Couldn’t be.

      P.S. I use the word “confiscate” here because that is the word you all frequently use when you object to your money being taxed by the government. It’s a term you know doubt understand.

      1. Cluster

        Watson, your response clearly shows the divide between liberal and conservative thought. Liberals oppose smart use of tax payer money, preferring instead to chase perceived social injustices with little or no success

        Partnering with the City if Chicago will ultimately increase revenue to the city via higher ticker sales, higher concession sales, higher vendor sales, etc, which will exceed the initial investment in a few years. Not too mention the aesthetic improvement to the city and neighborhood. This you oppose because of your blind envy.

        On the other hand, you fully support throwing tens of millions dollars a year, and growing, to keeping people dependent on government via food stamps, welfare, etc, which has little to zero return. In fact, poverty levels have increased since your favored policies have been in effect, and this you support because of your misguided compassion

        You are very transparent Watson and honestly too stupid to have any voice in the debate. Of course that includes most liberals, so don’t take that personally.

      2. Amazona

        Right, cluster. Have you noticed that when the wattle got called on his repeated use of the word “confiscate” he spun around to claim that well, that’s not how HE sees taxation but you see he only used the word, often, as a rhetorical tool because it is used by conservatives.

        Sure, right, uh-huh.

        So he is fine with using OPM for handouts to some people, but not for investment in joint ventures which will have a return on investment. Could there BE a clearer explanation of the Liberal mindset?

        Redistribute OPM for social engineering experiments, take from some to give to others to buy and keep a dependable voter base, confiscate private property all you want as long as the “spreading of the wealth” fits into surly class resentment pathologies, but for goodness’ sake do not, under any circumstance, allow government at any level to participate in anything that might benefit or enrich the wrong people.

        Not all rich people, because some rich people are OK. Just SOME rich people.

        What’s funny is that the wattle is beside himself with outrage at my alleged support for the plan—-support which does not exist, which was never stated, and which was never even implied.

        All I said was that it’s perfectly legal, the state and the county and the city can do whatever they want, and believing this is hardly contradictory to a belief in following the Constitution. And what does the wattle bleat about? That believing in the Constitution is not a “principled position”.

        Yeah, like the wattle is in any way qualified to pass judgment on principle.

        He is certainly entitled to his opinion that the city, county and/or state should not participate in private ventures, and he is even entitled to hold this opinion because it chaps his donkey to think of government contributing to the financial enrichment of anyone but the chosen ones. He has every right to be as shrill, as strident, as worked up as he needs to be to satisfy his drama-queen pathology.

        All I object to is his silly effort to spin this into a partisan issue, supported by conservatives and therefore branding us as hypocrites. Chicago is a Leftist city. He has his panties in a wad because one of the most radically Leftist cities in the country is thinking about doing a rather Leftist thing and having the government decide how to spend OPM.

        His only real objection is that a rich man, the WRONG rich man, will become richer if they do this. That is all it is about. He didn’t come on this blog to hoot and holler about the bailout and takeover of GM. He didn’t flip out over the handout to Solyndra, which was not only a loan to private enterprise but which was noted as a bad risk before it was made, and which was then illegally modified to make the government last in line for repayment in case of default.

        No, the wattle has a few sacred cows for which no government handout is too large, no government intervention or involvement is too much, and no amount of OPM is outrageous. His line in the sand is, quite simply, he doesn’t give a damn how much money Chicago makes on the deal, how much the city will continue to rake in long after the amount of its participation has been recouped, because the wrong rich man will also benefit.

      3. Amazona

        Any idea what jobs will be lost or diminished if the Cubs move to another city?

        Ticket and program printing.
        Ticket and program sales.
        Ticket sellers and program sellers.
        Vendors providing food.
        Vendors providing beverages.
        Vendors providing paper plates, napkins, cups, etc.
        Sellers of food.
        Sellers of beverages.
        People who clean the ballpark before and after games.
        Groundskeepers.
        Laundry companies.
        Parking lot attendants.
        Maintenance staff.
        Paint suppliers.
        Staffs of businesses which depend on ballpark traffic, such as local hotels and restaurants.
        Advertising sales.

        And so on.

        These people all pay taxes, revenue which will disappear if the Cubs move. If these people lose their jobs, they will not only not be paying taxes, they will not be buying cars or refrigerators or movie tickets or new windows or vacations or restaurant meals or new clothes.

        It’s not a trickle down effect, it’s a cascade.

        And this doesn’t even take into consideration the loss of revenue from the high salaries of the players and team staff, in taxes and in purchasing power.

        No, I am not saying I am in favor of the idea. It’s not my decision and I don’t have a position on it. I am merely pointing out some of the things the city will be considering. Perhaps they will give these aspects of a possible move more consideration than a petty desire to stick it to Ricketts.

      4. watsonredux

        Cluster said, “Watson, your response clearly shows the divide between liberal and conservative thought. Liberals oppose smart use of tax payer money, preferring instead to chase perceived social injustices with little or no success.”

        Oh, okay. That’s your principle. Who decides whether spending taxpayer money is smart? Why, conservatives, of course. Because they are the only smart ones, right?

        Seriously, Cluster (and Amazona). This is the conservative principle that you base your decisions on? Good grief.

      5. watsonredux

        Amazona said, “Have you noticed that when the wattle got called on his repeated use of the word “confiscate” he spun around to claim that well, that’s not how HE sees taxation but you see he only used the word, often, as a rhetorical tool because it is used by conservatives.”

        More name-calling from Amazona. So mature of you. As for the word “confiscate,” it is one you all use over and over. I knew you’d be familiar with it. It’s hilarious that you now try to disown it.

        Then you said, “Yeah, like the wattle is in any way qualified to pass judgment on principle.”

        I guess I expected more from you, of all people. You prattle on and on about conservative principles, but in the end we find that you basically haven’t really got any. So long as it isn’t done by the federal government, you’re just fine with local governments spending tax dollars any way they want.

        Do you have any principles–any guidelines–that you use to judge whether a candidate for local or state office is worthy of your vote? Apparently not. Ho hum. At least your responses have been revealing. I branded you a hypocrite because clearly you are.

      6. Amazona

        wattle, you are really stunningly stupid. And that is not name-calling, that is merely observation.

        You whine: “Do you have any principles–any guidelines–that you use to judge whether a candidate for local or state office is worthy of your vote? Apparently no”

        What absolute utter crap, as well as an outright lie.

        Remember, wattle, I am the one who insists on understanding the ideology of candidates, the actual nature and definition of the political system they represent and will be part of. To any sentient being this would be the clearest possible message that I have quite clear principles, and guidelines, for who I can find “worthy of my vote”.

        And no, I am not denying using the word confiscate. I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy in whimpering about it when it is used to describe taxation to fund social engineering experiments and vote-buying to keep the RRL in power, and then finding it the only appropriate word for YOU to use when describing possible taxation that might, while adding to state and local revenues, also have the loathsome effect of enriching the wrong man.

        This litany of complaints from you has had one effect—-it has highlighted your petty class resentments and your dependence on lies to make a fuss about something. So you just keep repeating this lie: “I guess I expected more from you, of all people. You prattle on and on about conservative principles, but in the end we find that you basically haven’t really got any. So long as it isn’t done by the federal government, you’re just fine with local governments spending tax dollars any way they want.” It is mental excrement, but you seem quite infatuated with the smell, as you keep circling around to sniff at it and admire it.

        All you do when you spew this kind of goofiness is point out, yet again, your attitude that the Constitution can and should be ignored or discarded when it interferes with one of your drama queen hissy fits.

        A “conservative principle” , by the way, is respect for and allegiance to the rule of law in this nation, whether or not I agree with it. A “conservative principle” is to not just look the other way when something is allowed by the Constitution, if I don’t happen to find it desirable. A “conservative principle” is an objective position, not one that is flexible according to the whim of the day. So yes, I do have conservative principles, which I have stated and explained quite clearly, as well as explaining quite clearly that I have no personal opinion on what you seem to think the most important thing in the world, and can only refer back to the fact that the suggested action by the city of Chicago seems to be well within Constitutional boundaries.

        You are the one who is so shrilly hysterical about this whole thing that you are reduced to a gibbering fool, inventing positions never stated by others and then having fits and hurling insults about things that were never said.

        You need to take a pill and lie down in a dark room for a while. Your high-pitched squealing probably has all the dogs within miles of you howling in pain. Get over it. Chicago has the right to do this, if they want to do it. I have no opinion on its rightness or wrongness. It is not my issue.

        Do you believe that the owners of the team have the right to move it to another location if they are not happy with the facility where they are now? Yes or no.

        Do you believe that the team should or should not allow the city and state to make its own decisions about whether or not they want the team to move? Should or should not.

        Do you believe that it would be “FAIR” to the city and state to just up and move with no notice and no opportunity to correct the conditions that prompt the decision? Yes or no.

        You assert that my position is “Once again, anything done by a government is fair game so long as it isn’t the federal government.” What is YOUR position? Do you feel that the governments of Chicago and Illinois should be prevented from participating in a joint venture with the Chicago Cubs? By whom? On what legal grounds?

        Do you believe that states, like the federal government, should be restricted as to size, scope and authority, by a statement of enumerated duties and a limitation to only those duties? Yes or no.

      7. Cluster

        Watson, smart use of tax payer money is when there is a measurable return on investment. Poor use of tax payer money is when there is not a measurable return on investment, and in fact the initial problem becomes even bigger. Nobody has to decide that, it is black and white. Liberals favor poor use of tax payer money, conservatives support smart use of tax payer money.

        Did I dumb that down enough for you?

      8. Cluster

        I wonder if Watson has thought of this (what am I saying?). The improvement to the Cubs stadium will very likely increase the property values of the adjacent properties which will in turn increase property taxes benefiting the local school districts. So ultimately this joint venture will have many positive dividends. If only we had smarter liberals we might have better communities.

      9. watsonredux

        Amazona said, “Remember, wattle, I am the one who insists on understanding the ideology of candidates, the actual nature and definition of the political system they represent and will be part of.”

        Yes, we’ve heard you squeal about it over and over. And in this matter we see what the conservative principle ultimately is: Conservatives can spend taxpayer money on their buddy’s private property because we want to. That’s really it in a nutshell.


        Do you believe that the owners of the team have the right to move it to another location if they are not happy with the facility where they are now? Yes or no.

        Of course. Don’t you? It’s a private business after all. And let’s remember that the Chicago Cubs OWN Wrigley Field. It’s not like they’re playing in a publicly owned facility. If they don’t like THEIR OWN facility, why don’t they fix it up THEMSELVES?


        Do you believe that the team should or should not allow the city and state to make its own decisions about whether or not they want the team to move? Should or should not.

        What a dumb question.


        Do you believe that it would be “FAIR” to the city and state to just up and move with no notice and no opportunity to correct the conditions that prompt the decision? Yes or no.

        It’s not a question of fairness. The Chicago Cubs is a private business, conducting their business in their own facility. If they want to move and sell Wrigley Field to someone else, that’s up them. Or do you think we should place limits on what city they do business in? If they want to fix up Wrigley Field, that’s up to them, too. If they want the taxpayers to pay to fix up their property, that’s a different matter.


        You assert that my position is “Once again, anything done by a government is fair game so long as it isn’t the federal government.” What is YOUR position? Do you feel that the governments of Chicago and Illinois should be prevented from participating in a joint venture with the Chicago Cubs? By whom? On what legal grounds?

        I’m not questioning the value of public-private partnerships, and some of you have brought up examples of privately owned sports teams playing in publicly owned facilities. That’s not the case here. The Cubs OWN their facility. In 2009 the Ricketts family bought the Cubs AND Wrigley Field for $900 million. Now they want the taxpayers to give them $150 million to fix it up. I don’t think that’s an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars any more than I think it would be appropriate to use tax dollars to spruce up your ranch. Frankly, I’m amazed that you are defending it. If the Cubs want to give the city part ownership of the facility in exchange for the use of taxpayer dollars, then that’s a different question.


        Do you believe that states, like the federal government, should be restricted as to size, scope and authority, by a statement of enumerated duties and a limitation to only those duties? Yes or no.

        I think they already are.

      10. tiredoflibbs

        Come on guys, you give watty too much credit!

        Using simple and logical common sense is beyond his abilities!

        It is a waste of money (and against watty’s beliefs) that the RICH Chicago Cubs receive any sort of tax payer money.

        Instead, the money should go to the RICH politicians and they distribute it as they see fit in order to purchase the votes necessary for their reelection!!! Or, give the money to obAMATEUR’s political supporters who will turn that cash around in the form of campaign donations – can you say stimulus? or green energy investments?

        Giving it to someone who will generate tax revenue would be unheard of!!! If they need more tax revenue, they should do what all good proggies do and raise their taxes because they are not paying their fair share. The city of Chicago only has to vote for tax increases, they don’t need to truly invest their tax payer money for real returns just, as watty put it, confiscate it more than before.

        It is still paifully obvious that watty does not know anything about the first rule of holes.

      11. watsonredux

        Once again turdy resorts to his favorite tactic–those dirty liberals did it first. Congratulations on your consistency.

      12. tiredoflibbs

        Leave it to Watty to stick with the same mindless, dumbed down talking points that have been disproven.

        At least he quit using “bailouts”, that is progress. Now, if he could only understand the difference between state/local authority and federal powers defined in the Constitution.

        Amazing how he is concerned for a measly $150 million, while his looting cronies have spent over $5 trillion in more worthless schemes.

        And watty, again you fail in reading comprehension (you are very consistent in that, lying is a close second), I never alluded to your simple minded reduction of my arguments -that Democrats did it first so it is okay. As before, you will need to look up the definition of “alluded”.

        I know it is hard but try.

      13. Retired Spook Post author

        those dirty liberals did it first.

        Well, Watson, at least you understand how we feel about Liberals. That’s a step in the right direction.

      14. Amazona

        “That’s really it in a nutshell. ”

        What that IS, in a nutshell, is that you don’t have a clue and furthermore couldn’t care less because truth and fact are both so alien to your thought processes, such as they are. I keep telling you, repeating a lie doesn’t make it true, it just makes you look stupider every time you do it.

        “If they don’t like THEIR OWN facility, why don’t they fix it up THEMSELVES? ”

        That wasn’t my question. No wonder you are always off in the weeds somewhere.

        The actual question was: Do you believe that the owners of the team have the right to move it to another location if they are not happy with the facility where they are now? Yes or no.

        And you said yes and then veered off into your tiresome old rant again.

        Do you believe that states, like the federal government, should be restricted as to size, scope and authority, by a statement of enumerated duties and a limitation to only those duties? Yes or no.

        I think they already are.

        Now THIS is what we have in a nutshell—your total understanding of the Constitution of the United States of America. And it’s a very very small shell.

        Why don’t you bring us all up to your exalted understanding of the Constitution, and tell us just where, and what, the enumerated duties of the States ARE?

        Silly me, when I read The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I think it makes it pretty clear that the States have quite a bit of leeway in what they can do, constrained only by prohibitions within the Constitution.

        And when I read the words of the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, who said: “”The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.” I took that to support what you now seem to claim is my erroneous understanding of the 10th Amendment.

        So you would be doing me quite a favor to explain what I missed.

      15. Amazona

        Frankly, I’m amazed that you are defending it.

        And I’m amazed that you keep insisting that I do.

        Well, not really so amazed, having had so much exposure to your indifference to the truth.

        This is what I have said all along, and this is what has you shrilly squealing in outrage: All I said was that it’s perfectly legal, the state and the county and the city can do whatever they want, and believing this is hardly contradictory to a belief in following the Constitution. And what does the wattle bleat about? That believing in the Constitution is not a “principled position”.

        Maybe my so-called “defense” of a proposal which is of no interest to me is in the same place as those enumerated duties of the states…..

      16. Amazona

        Another direct question ignored by the wattle:

        Do you feel that the governments of Chicago and Illinois should be prevented from participating in a joint venture with the Chicago Cubs? By whom? On what legal grounds?

      1. neocon1

        Cluster

        remember there are thousands of construction and construction related jobs brought into the area also which is an immediate boon to the city.

  10. Retired Spook Post author

    Watson dug one of the deepest holes on this thread that I’ve ever seen. What’s the definition of someone who says the same thing over and over, hoping that eventually it will become true? I’ve gotta say, though; he seems to be a good sport to put himself up to ridicule like that. Now get back on the short bus, watty, and head on home to Mommy.

  11. watsonredux

    Amazona said:


    Why don’t you bring us all up to your exalted understanding of the Constitution, and tell us just where, and what, the enumerated duties of the States ARE?

    I don’t know about you, but the state I live in has a constitution. Not only that, it can’t pass laws that violate the United States constitution, but maybe your state is different.

    Amazona also said:


    Another direct question ignored by the wattle:

    Do you feel that the governments of Chicago and Illinois should be prevented from participating in a joint venture with the Chicago Cubs? By whom? On what legal grounds?

    First off, you couldn’t pass up another chance at name-calling and personal insults. Congratulations on showing your maturity yet again.

    But to address this question again, I already said I’m not questioning the value of public-private partnerships. But in principle, I am opposed to giving taxpayer money directly to private property owners in order to improve their property. You, in principle, believe that states and local governments can use taxpayer money in any way they like. It’s been a revealing conversation.

    1. tiredoflibbs

      watty reveals what a fool he is and removes all doubt: “I don’t know about you, but the state I live in has a constitution. Not only that, it can’t pass laws that violate the United States constitution, but maybe your state is different.”

      You well know that Ama was not talking about your state’s Constitution.

      It is obvious that you have dug a hole for yourself from which you cannot escape. Hence, the dancing and dodging you do as illustrated above.

      Pathetic.

      “I am opposed to giving taxpayer money directly to private property owners in order to improve their property.”

      So can we expect your criticism of the obAMATEUR administration for deals like Solyndra, GM, GE, etc. etc. etc.????

      I won’t hold my breath, you do not have the guts to respond properly. You will continue with the lie that I am stating “Democrats did it first.”

      “You, in principle, believe that states and local governments can use taxpayer money in any way they like. It’s been a revealing conversation.”

      They can, unless prohibited by law and/or not approved by the voters. Then you would have no argument from anyone. But instead, we have reality and your PATHETIC attempt at GOTCHA has once again risen up and bitten you on the a$$.

      It is amazing still that you dodge every challenge of why you condone the same activity of your party on the FEDERAL level (of which we oppose and not authorized by the Constitution) while opposing that of the Cubs, where it is not prohibited by law.

      Are you part of the wealth envy crowd too? Can you be anymore of a drone and a hack?

      1. neocon1

        @ watty……….Can you be anymore of a drone and a hack?

        OOH YEAH, this Moron is just lifting his skirt a bit. WAIT for the full monty

      2. watsonredux

        turdy, I said that the states already have limited powers, at which point Amazona claimed I know nothing about the constitution. But of course states do have limited powers, which even you seem to understand. You just want to play semantic games to make yourself feel bigger.

    2. Amazona

      And you still didn’t answer my question. Do you feel that the government(s) SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM PARTICIPATING in a joint venture?

      Not whether you think it is a good idea or a bad idea, or for what reason.

      Should the government be prevented from participating? It’s a simple yes or no question.

      And if the answer is yes, prevented by whom, and on what legal grounds?

      Why do you keep tapdancing around the question? No, it is not about whether you think the joint venture is appropriate. Get over that.

      And while you’re at it, get over your insistent lies that I “….believe that states and local governments can use taxpayer money in any way they like..” I never said that, and correct you every time you lie and say I did. I merely point out that there is no legal barrier to doing anything a state or local government wants to do, if it is not prohibited by the Constitution—I have no opinion on the justification of this particular venture.

      Which brings us back to the first of your dodges in your latest post. Why can’t you just answer a question? You said that you think states are already limited by enumerated duties, just as the federal government is. I asked which duties are delegated to the states by the Constitution. And now you are gibbering on about how your state has a constitution. Duh. But OK, go there. Does your state constitution enumerate the duties of the state government and limit its options to only those enumerated duties?

      (Because if it does, it is contradictory to the 10th Amendment, and you claim that YOUR state cannot pass a law that violates the United States Constitution. Clearly, if the Constitution says your state can do something and your state constitution says it can’t, it is by definition violating the Constitution of the United States.)

      Just in case your Constitutional illiteracy was not clear enough, you spout: “Not only that, it can’t pass laws that violate the United States constitution, but maybe your state is different.”

      Maybe you ought to take a moment or two to re-read the 10th Amendment, which was kind enough to post for you so you wouldn’t have to go look it up, and which I will post again, for the same reason,

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      No state can pass any law that is prohibited by the national Constitution. It says so right here. Too complicated for you? Let’s take out some of those confusing words, OK? How about this: Any power not prohibited to the States by the Constitution is reserved to the States. Or to the people.”

      There. Easier? This says that if a power is not specifically forbidden (prohibited) by the Constitution, then it is OK for the State.

      No enumeration there. Or do you need a definition of “enumeration”?

      This amendment points out that certain powers are delegated, within the Constitution, to the Federal government, and that any power not so specifically delegated (assigned) to the Federal government is allowed to the States, or to the people, as long as it is not prohibited in the Constitution.

      So, to go back to the original exchange, let’s take another look at it:

      “ Do you believe that states, like the federal government, should be restricted as to size, scope and authority, by a statement of enumerated duties and a limitation to only those duties? Yes or no.

      I think they already are.

      I asked how and where these enumerations and restrictions are listed, and you refused to answer, just coming up with some silly snarky non-response about how YOUR state has a constitution (WOW!) and can’t pass laws that contradict the Federal Constitution (DUH) while implying that it actually DOES contradict the Federal Constitution by having a state constitution that goes against the 10th Amendment.

      Give up, wattle. All you have is your silly whine about your nickname. Not a point, not a clue, not an argument, just a silly whine about this or that or the other that, when examined, proves to be without any foundation other than your hyperemotional resentment of the wrong rich guy, going into overdrive.

      Fine. You get to have your opinion on this particular issue. I know a lot of people who would agree with you—but I am smart enough to know that just because I FEEL a certain way does not mean the act I don’t necessarily agree with is legally wrong. And playing devil’s advocate is hardly the same as taking a position. I merely pointed out the obvious—-that no matter how strongly you feel about the issue and no matter how loudly you squeal about it, it is the legal right of the government in question to do it.

      1. watsonredux

        Amazona said, “And you still didn’t answer my question. Do you feel that the government(s) SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM PARTICIPATING in a joint venture?”

        And I said twice that I am not questioning the value of public-private partnerships. It does’t take a rocket scientist to infer that I do not think that state and local governments should be prevented from participating in all public-private partnerships.

        I said that in principle, I am opposed to using taxpayer dollars to directly fund the improvements of private property. And I was surprised that die hard conservatives would not only support such a use of taxpayer dollars, but would request it for their own property.

        That is not the same as whether it is legal or not, and I haven’t addressed the legality of it. Whether it is legal or not, I would not support elected representatives that advocate such uses of my tax dollars because I think it’s wrong. Apparently this is a liberal position.

        The whole point is that I thought conservatives were, well, conservative in how your and my tax dollars are used. Evidently not. Like I said, it’s been illuminating.

      2. Amazona

        The whole point is that I thought conservatives were, well, conservative in how your and my tax dollars are used.

        AHA! We finally have the wattle trying to define “conservative”! After all these years of trying to get a PL troll, any PL troll, to tell us what he or she thinks “conservative” means, we finally have one telling us HIS definition of the term.

        And guess what? It is wrong. Yes, folks, the wattle has come right out and defined “conservative” as being “how your and my tax dollars are used”.

        This would be a good time to point out that the actual ideology of “conservative” has been outlined, defined and explained many many times here, so there is really no excuse for being so wrong, but that being a fact means it would not have much significance in the wattle’s view of the world.

        This would be a good time to point out that “how….tax dollars are used..” is an ISSUE, not an IDEOLOGY. But that would be soooooo confusing to one who is probably not intellectually equipped to know the difference, no matter how often it is explained to him.

        After all, he got to where he is now, haunting a conservative blog to hurl invective at this misunderstood yet effectively demonized foe, by sniffing along after ISSUES, and by believing that issues ARE politics.

        OK, one more time. Do try to follow along, wattle.

        To be a political conservative in 21st Century America, one simply believes that the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land, the absolute framework for all government within the nation.

        Period.

        This is the ideology. This is the conservative blueprint for how best to govern this nation.

        Now, if you can understand this simple philosophy, and if you then can understand the Constitution, you can probably connect the dots and be able to see that actually following the Constitution will mean, by definition, severely limiting the size, scope and power of the Federal Government, which in turn means that the Federal Government does not have the legal authority to spend money on things that are not enumerated duties delegated to it within the binding law of the document.

        See? That wasn’t so hard, was it? This IDEOLOGY thing is not as scary or complicated as you thought, is it?

        People who share an ideology can differ on ISSUES, but the first criterion for any ISSUE has to be whether it meets the standard of the IDEOLOGY.

        In this case, the ISSUE is the possible investment of public funds in a private company venture. The PRINCIPLE is that yes, doing so is well within the Constitutional limits of what the government in question can legally do. So the PRINCIPLE of consistent ideology is sound.

        From there it gets into far more subjective territory, but any opinion on this is not a matter of political PRINCIPLE, it is a matter of personal PREFERENCE.

        What the hyper-emotional Left can’t ever seem to figure out is the difference.

        But thanks again, wattle, for speaking up and telling us just how off-base you are, regarding how you define our political ideology. I have a feeling you are even more in the weeds regarding your own, identifying IT by issues instead of ideology as well.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        watty fails again: “The whole point is that I thought conservatives were, well, conservative in how your and my tax dollars are used.”

        Well, if they are used in a way that would INCREASE tax revenue (conservative) vs. if they are used in a way that is equivalent to burning it (buying votes, political dependency, political paybacks, wasteful, etc. etc. – proggy), then your limited definition would apply.

        Reading your posts, watty, reminds me of the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs movie, especially when the dwarfs sing, “We dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig the whole day through……” but unlike you, they actually accomplish something.

      4. tiredoflibbs

        Whoa, Ama, watty cannot understand much simpler explanations, now you hit him harder with that!

        If he gave a damn, that post would occupy his time for the next few weeks (with help). But sadly, watty will pick out some sentence, distort it, deflect, and just keep repeating the same lie believing eventually it will become truth.

    3. tiredoflibbs

      Again, watty your reading comprehension has gone from poor to pi$$-poor.

      Another misrepresentation of what I said plus, your “states have limited powers” does not address the FACT that this type of deal is legal in the state of Illinois and the FEDERAL government has no authorization for such activity.

      All you have done is keep beating your dead horse hoping to get somewhere. You can’t even realized that you have left the first hole you dug for yourself. There is no “playing semantics”, as you wrongly say. There are FACTS which we presented. And there are pathetic attempts at “gotcha games” which you continue to play.

      “Oh, I answered many questions in the previous thread.”

      No you did not. You just kept repeating and regurgitating the same thing over and over and over, ad nauseum. Remember, repeating a lie does not make it the truth.

      Give it up watty, you are clearly outmatched and out-brained – blame your government school education and the party that is in the White House right now.

Comments are closed.