Walker, Walker, Walker, Walker!!!
************************************************************************
MOVING THE GREAT STATE OF WISCONSIN "FORWARD"
****************************************************************
FINALLY; FORWARD ------->
*********************************************************

I don't care if you like Walker or not, I only see 2 people fighting for the spot in the 'likely to be successful' recall election who have stated no plans on how they intend to accomplish anything. Falk wants to strong arm the budget with a republican controlled assembly, that will only manage to keep the walker budget in place by failing to put a new one in place. To the democrats in the audience that means more Walker budget with or without Walker. Barrett can't seem to come up with anything, I'm not sure if that is the same as Falk or not. Both candidates likely to replace Walker don't seem to have a clue what they will do and have yet to answer questions on how they will accomplish their promises, yes I have been emailing them questions to no avail. This is just going to be a chaotic future including a likely republican driven re-recall petition for the rest of the angry Wisconsinites to sign.

The Education Action Group will release their movie, "Anarchy 101: How Wisconsin's Left Embraces Chaos," this May Day.

http://youtu.be/OD6xc_QZoxo

MadeinUSA Apr 29, 2012 at 6:18 p.m.
According to federal election campaign laws 441a-1.a:
Excess campaign funds must be returned to the doner within 50 days of the election.

I'm sure you're dressed in black and not going out of the house for a month, wislady in mourning.

A Mournful Milestone
Senate Democrats “celebrate” three years without a budget

Sunday, April 29, 2012, is an anniversary unprecedented in the history of American politics, marking three years since the Democratic-led Senate last complied with federal law by passing a budget.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 stipulates that Congress must approve a budget resolution by April 15 of each year. In the Senate, only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget, as budgets are one of the few pieces of legislation invulnerable to a filibuster. Democrats currently control 53 seats.

http://freebeacon.com/a-mournful-milesto...

Can someone tell me this then, why is it that the Obama administration is paying their woman 18 percent less then the men. The report came out on the day he called Equal Pay Day. Call it what you want and conspire all day long. It is what it is. Life sucks. Get over it. Stop crying and work. Leave the work force. I don't care what you do, but don't play political games with this apparently they all do it. It makes no difference who is in office. Wake up people.

RAF, the conflict between Cato and Koch should force anyone with an established opinion of both parties to reexamine their assumptions. Kaveat Kochster, IMHO.

Mouse why the silence over criminal chris, your idol?

FOTH in the eyes of the media and most on the left cato is hardly unbiased now. Not sure this would change anything in the least.

RAF: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/thin...

LOL you are nothing more than a sheep being led by the nose by greenwald and his brave new films propaganda. You can catch his other work on the huff post were he is also a blogger. He has also given thousands to the dem party, hmmm imagine that.

Mouse is using all caps your way of saying something less ignorant or more ignorant? Why the silence over criminal chris?

Yes wiggle I believe you think nothing changed in your tale, that would explain your comments. The fact remains at many times when you were confronted you did infact say conflicting points. I never stated there has never been cases of misconduct but I did and still do question YOUR sexism and racism in regards to your story. Combine this with your false statements on what was and now is current Wisconsin law and it begs the question if you are indeed just a shill unable to think for yourself on the issue or you just want to deceive others about the law on purpose.

RAF- due to your apparent ignorance and need to spin spin spin I am done providing you with the facts of this case, I have nothing left to provide you cept the facts of names of those who heard her case. I could supply the names of the EEOC who reviewed her case, I have provided the fact that repub Grant Woods was head of AZ EEOC, I could provide you with facts as to when these EEOC employees, Rep Grant Woods Attornry General of AZ during this case, and the 4 company owners went golfing and on what course, I could provide the names of the three company lawyers (all white repub men) that dragged the case out for over a year, and the judge the case was brought before.
But your washing machine spin cycle has had a work out over the past few days and I prefer to let your spinning ignorance have a rest. I will not be back to this story again so spin all you want, I am done with your back tracking of ignorant lies, examples of such are listed below. enjoy

original post-
wiggle
Apr 21, 2012 at 1:30 a.m.
Another personal story of discrimination to help you understand the war against women.
-
I worked for a co, employed were 31 middleaged men 6 new college grad men, 4 new college grad women, and 9 women between 30 and 50. The 6 new men made 2.25 more than the women with the same education and experience. When one of the new women found out after 8 months she filed a complaint, she was promptly fired
(this was in AZ a 'right to work state') the other 3 women kept quite and the company hired another new college male grad. The women filed a suit for discrimination, the rich co had their lawyers drag out, resched, postpone court dates for over a year and a half. The women did just what the owners thought, she ran out of money for lawyer fees and gave up. Bully bully!

0)RetiredAirForce
Apr 21, 2012 at 2:32 a.m.
Under federal law what you claim is not legal and the EEOC handles these cases. If the federal agency finds no violations then a person can sue, this may cost money depending on what attorney is hired
-
wiggle
Apr 22, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
RAF- "as soon as you started declaring non-elected state and federal agency employees are just like"
First I never made the above statement what I said was -
what state or federal agency would take it upon themselves to bring a case of discrimination before the courts without being paid to do so?
Also I will ask you -
How do these non-elected state and federal workers get their jobs if not elected by the people?
I would assume these state and federal agency workers get hired by the head of the agency.
next question-
How do these state and federal agency heads get their positions? If not elected they are either appointed or hired by?
ELECTED OFFICIALS
And since you are clueless I will point out the walker doe investigation. Walker appointed the state agency heads and they are as corrupt as he is

Yes your right.
EEOC at that time was rich white men, of course they found no violations against their golf buddies, so on to a court fight it went.

I suggest you go back to AZ and look up the members of EEOC, you will find rep woods did in fact fill the most of the postions with his buddies. The whole EEOC does not hear every case, just all judges do not judge all cases, they are split up. In this women's personal case repub white men were the decision makers on her case, no women or man of color heard her case, repub white men who played golf with the employers decided her case had no fact of discrimination, would you like me to supply you with names?

1)wiggle
Apr 22, 2012 at 11:54
RAF - In case you didn't know -Rep Grant Woods served as Arizona's Attorney General from 1991-1999.
And I mention the walker doe criminal nvestigation to prove the leaders hire their friends.
The EEOC as we know it today was not the same as in 1998, where under funding and back log was a nightmare! Cases were rushed through without proper investigation just to get rid of them. They would 'find no evidence' just to get it off their table and allow the party to bring it before the courts.
Even those agencies with the public's best interst in mind could not keep up so they just 'got rid of them' ASAP.
The AZ EEOC employees may have wanted to fight for the people but the decisions were made to eliminate the back log ASAP by non other than Rep Grant Woods - the one in charge of EEOC in AZ in 1998.

RetiredAirForce
Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42 p.m.
I guess you just decided to forget I never said she was the attorney general during 1997, all I said was she was the attorney general when I left Az; this was to dispute your silly claim that rich white guys who play golf run these things. You also said your friend’s case went to the federal level. At that time the Clinton appointed person in charge of EEOC was a Hispanic person not a white person, how does that fit in your preconceived ssertions?
-
Silly as you may think it is, yes rep white men heard her case, in AZ federal court. Just because a spanish man in WASHINGTON was head of EEOC does not mean HE had her case put before him for judgement, spin spin spin.

2) RetiredAirForce
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
wiggle, your story is changing yet again.
I asked you directly, on Apr 21, 2012 at 10:34, "So the fed eocc found no problems and you want to blame it on racism and sexism? I suspect your version of events might be different than the investigation found. Btw, i didnt know the federal eocc was all white and male I suggest you call the media"
Your responce to that was "Darn right! When a group making a decision if there was disrimination is mostly white men it doesn't matter"
Now you further state that "And not to mention you trying to spin in the Head of WASHINGTONS EEOC was a spanish man (Gilbert F. Casellas) has no bearing on a case being brought in AZ."
When in fact it does because you are the one that stated the case went to the federal level and you are also the person that said the federal level was mostly white men.
-
again your more a fool than thought if you think the washington head of EEOC flies around to every federal court in every state in America to personally judge every discrimination case brought up in federal courts. Wow you just keep proving how ignorant you really are!

-
wiggle
Apr 25, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
My story stays the same but RAF-
well this is his idea of keeping the story straight-
"I guess you just decided to forget I never said she was the attorney general during 1997, all I said was she was the attorney general when I left Az"
RetiredAirForce
Apr 24, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Wiggle which story are you talking about? Was it the one with the rich white sexist racist guys who worked for the female attorney general?

3)RetiredAirForce
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:14 a.m.

More twisting of the story by wiggle "and then when that women brings her case before the proper federal agency, you know the one that's run by a white repub man".

The truth is the federal agency at the time was run by democrat hispanic male placed there by a democrat president Clinton.
-
OMG RAF you have done nothing but put your ignorance and your words "sexist and racist" (words I NEVER used) into your spin cycle.
So after your spin cycle was done this is what you have,
Because the Women filed with the EEOC (a federal agency) you are trying to say that Gilbert F. Casellas who works in washington as head of all states EEOC hears all cases from every city in ever state. Wow you sure know how washinton heads work don't you. NOT! I can guarantee while Mr Casellas was head of EEOC in washington he did not hear/judge one case brought before the EEOC of AZ in the Phoenix court - which is a federal court. (The head of AZ EEOC was non other than rep Grant Woods.)
You statement saying Mr Casellas does makes all you bantering lose it's credibility!
I Satated the EEOC members her case was brought in front of were in fact white rep men, would you like the names? Would you like me to go though my records of when these EEOC members and the GA of AZ rep woods went golfing with the 4 company owners?

More twisting of the story by wiggle "and then when that women brings her case before the proper federal agency, you know the one that's run by a white repub man".

The truth is the federal agency at the time was run by democrat hispanic male placed there by a democrat president Clinton.

wiggle, or should I say poo, your story is changing yet again.

I asked you directly, on Apr 21, 2012 at 10:34, "So the fed eocc found no problems and you want to blame it on racism and sexism? I suspect your version of events might be different than the investigation found. Btw, i didnt know the federal eocc was all white and male I suggest you call the media"

Your responce to that was "Darn right! When a group making a decision if there was disrimination is mostly white men it doesn't matter"

Now you further state that "And not to mention you trying to spin in the Head of WASHINGTONS EEOC was a spanish man (Gilbert F. Casellas) has no bearing on a case being brought in AZ."

When in fact it does because you are the one that stated the case went to the federal level and you are also the person that said the federal level was mostly white men.

Your whole yarn fits perfectly into title of this story. Every time you are encountered with problems with your story you change it. Every time you are faced with facts over the truth of the wisconsin law change you want to ignore it. Just like your alter ego, poo, you get yourself caught in circular logic.

Facts from the Department of Workfore Development:
(1) There are 1.3 million working women in WI
(2) DWD gets about 4,000 discrimination complaints per year
(3) Only 82 gender discrimination lawsuits have been filed last year. 92 were filed in 2010.
(4) How many of those 174 gender discrimination complaints in the last 2 years were valid? Only 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzLH9qBiG...

Then I get the joke saying-
joker
Apr 25, 2012 at 2:39 a.m.

wiggle dont you ever get tired of blaming everything on WHITE MEN look back through your posts. its in every article you comment on. take some personal responsibility. Maybe you wont be so bitter Your posts are nothing but sexist race baiting.
-
Be honest with me - is this topic not about 'war on truth'? So when someone (myself) posts a factual account of white repub men discriminating against another women, the joke trys to spin it with "take some personal responsibility. Maybe you wont be so bitter Your posts are nothing but sexist race baiting"
What was I personally responsible for? spin spin spin
Oh but if I take "personal responsibility" for these white repub men discriminating against another women "Maybe you wont be so bitter Your posts are nothing but sexist race baiting"
I don't understand how telling a factual account of discrimination proves I'm "bitter and nothing but sexist race baiting"
If jokes post was correct I'd be posting EVERY discrimination I have encountered in my 50 plus years, but I'm not, I put out ONE factual example and BAM I'm ""bitter and nothing but sexist race baiting"
Sounds like the joke is the bitter one.

Yes, Wiggle. Another person commenting on another article said, "RAF, you are making my point for me."

RAF has a way of doing that; a pattern of forgetting his originally stated position and after a few days of debating himself he ends up adopting your position -- the one he originally opposed. You simply have to keep him talking.

My story stays the same but RAF-
well this is his idea of keeping the story straight-
"I guess you just decided to forget I never said she was the attorney general during 1997, all I said was she was the attorney general when I left Az"
RetiredAirForce
Apr 24, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Wiggle which story are you talking about? Was it the one with the rich white sexist racist guys who worked for the female attorney general?

Poobah my favorite is - "But based on your previous comments blaming it all on rich white racist sexist guys who play golf I tend to believe there is much more to this than we know."
So because I have facts to prove "rich white guys" who play golf with the AZ AG, a rich white repub man, it's too much to swallow so he says "I tend to believe there is much more to this than we know." LOL LOL No the facts I posted were all there was/needed to prove my point, but is IMPOSSIBLE for RAF to believe. Why is that? Hummmmm could it be because RAF refuses to believe 4 rich white repub business owners could possibly discriminate against a women? and then when that women brings her case before the proper federal agency, you know the one that's run by a white repub man the owners play golf with and send campaign contributions to, all of the sudden he spins out "I tend to believe there is much more to this than we know."
LOL LOL I tell one story about one company's discriminating against a women, and it's like I shot his brain full of holes because he just can't understand?

Wiggle, you have RAF spinning in tighter circles than his Spandex pants in the clothes dryer.

RAF the says "So far you have changed your story on the date, on the racist sexist people who work there, on the white guys in charge who are also women and hardly white. As soon as you and your other personality No2 figure out your story let me know. I will gladly address the issue with you."
Go back and please point out where my story changed?
The post I discribed this case had a year on it, please find the posts after that where my date changed? I stated from the first post on this that the CDR/EEOC head was a rich white repub man, YOU are the one saying it was a white women, which is your spin, not mine.
If you can't keep up with what I have posted about this case maybe you should stop your BS about me changing the story when it is YOU changing it to spin it around to your desired story.
And not to mention you trying to spin in the Head of WASHINGTONS EEOC was a spanish man (Gilbert F. Casellas) has no bearing on a case being brought in AZ.
Again just because you are confused by the facts of my posts and can't keep it straight, you spin it to "So far you have changed your story on the date, (no the year has always been the same in my posts) on the racist sexist people who work there,( no I have always stated it was 4 white repub men) on the white guys in charge (no I stated from the first post rep white man 'woods' was in charge)"
Not one of these have changed in my story, only in yours honey.
Spin baby spin

RAF try this site
http://www.workplacefairness.org/file_AZ...
It states that if you must bring your case before the courts you may wish to hire an attorney.
You comment "So why the need to hire an Attorney?" Have you ever tryed to sue 4 rich white repubs who discriminated against you because you are a women? No didn't think so. If you do not have a law degree and are fighting against rich white men with high paid lawyers I would think you would have even have the smallest of intelligence to know your gonna need a lawyers help. Duhhhh
The you state "From the AZ Attorney General website "The Civil Rights Division will investigate the complaint and request a response from the responding party. If the Division finds reasonable cause that discrimination has occurred, it may file a lawsuit on behalf of the complaining party"
The CRD division (in 1997)is run by non other than Rep Grant Woods, another rich white repub. Guess what 4 white repub men contributed large amounts of money to Woods? So is it to hard to believe the CRD would not "find reasonable cause that discrimination has occurred"? Nahhh repub politicians NEVER take 'favors' do they? So that couldn't have been an issue with the CDR (repub woods) not finding cause in this case.

joker
Apr 25, 2012 at 2:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
wiggle dont you ever get tired of blaming everything on WHITE MEN look back through your posts. its in every article you comment on. take some personal responsibility
-
Well clueless one - my posts fit perfectly with the story topic wouldn't you say?
Unlike the righties who change the topic by dumping everything in the spin cycle, I'm good staying with the topic.
And only personal reponsibility I had was writing the checks for this women's salsry and insurance preimiums. Yeah I caused this women to be discriminated against. Considering my posts were posts on facts of ONE company's discrimination your post proves you would just wish it was all swept under the carpet. If you don't like the topic at hand and the posts, don't read it just do as you do and pretend it doesn't exist. There feel better now?

wiggle stated "The women filed a suit for discrimination, the rich co had their lawyers drag out, resched, postpone court dates for over a year and a half. The women did just what the owners thought, she ran out of money for lawyer fees and gave up. Bully bully!"
-
From the AZ Attorney General website "The Civil Rights Division will investigate the complaint and request a response from the responding party. If the Division finds reasonable cause that discrimination has occurred, it may file a lawsuit on behalf of the complaining party".

A link to the federal EOCC on how to file. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/howtofil.html

So why the need to hire an Attorney? Both of these can be done without an attorney. I'm not trying to get personal information on the person and I suggest you don't provide any, but just because the person decided to hire one doesn't mean anything. If it got through the state and the state didn't file I suspect it was for a reason--not a clear cut case. I am not saying the person had no claim. But based on your previous comments blaming it all on rich white racist sexist guys who play golf I tend to believe there is much more to this than we know.

wiggle not so coincidently caught in the circular logic argument of your close partner No2...big surprise.

So far you have changed your story on the date, on the racist sexist people who work there, on the white guys in charge who are also women and hardly white. As soon as you and your other personality No2 figure out your story let me know. I will gladly address the issue with you. Until then talk amongst yourself, should be pretty easy, just grab a mirror.

wiggle dont you ever get tired of blaming everything on WHITE MEN look back through your posts. its in every article you comment on. take some personal responsibility. Maybe you wont be so bitter Your posts are nothing but sexist race baiting.

Just as I suspected another account of No2.

Wiggle, I think he should have headed to the clubhouse after nine holes; way too much of that Arizona sun beating down on his head.

wiggle
Apr 21, 2012 at 1:30 a.m.
I worked for a co, employed were 31 middleaged men 6 new college grad men, 4 new college grad women, and 9 women between 30 and 50. The 6 new men made 2.25 more than the women with the same education and experience. When one of the new women found out after 8 months she filed a complaint, she was promptly fired
(this was in AZ a 'right to work state') the other 3 women kept quite and the company hired another new college male grad. The women filed a suit for discrimination, the rich co had their lawyers drag out, resched, postpone court dates for over a year and a half. The women did just what the owners thought, she ran out of money for lawyer fees and gave up. Bully bully!
In that same post I said I quit that company in 1998.
So that means the case had to have happened in the 3 years I worked for the co. To help you I'll count the years backwards, 1998, 1997, 1996. so your statement -
"the first time you mentioned 1997 was Apr 24, 2012 at 12:09 in this comment section" is of course inaccurate, just like -
RAF first said, "...they can still sue in state court, that didn't change."
RAF then said, "correction, not really sue in state..."

And the best RAF quote on this subject so far, "Okay I'm confused again"

You sure are!

Speaking of spin, the first time you mentioned 1997 was Apr 24, 2012 at 12:09 in this comment section. More holes in your needles?

"I guess you just decided to forget I never said she was the attorney general during 1997, all I said was she was the attorney general when I left Az"
RetiredAirForce
Apr 24, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wiggle which story are you talking about? Was it the one with the rich white sexist racist guys who worked for the female attorney general?
-
Never said it? Sounds like you said it to me, spin baby spin!
You should see the doc about that confusion you have.

I could provide you with the case number and the judge the case went before but it wouldn't matter, repub white men are master spinners so their ignorance -or with you, confusion- won't seem so prelivant.
Goodnite, don't spin to much you might get dizzy and confused again!

wiggle stated "BTW you never answered as to if you golfed at the clubs you asked me to list."
-
Nope, I played more west valley courses. The only regular private club was the Wigwam. The only courses I played on the east side of 17 was on the north side closer to the loop.

wiggle you are starting to sound much like No2, coincidence? I guess you just decided to forget I never said she was the attorney general during 1997, all I said was she was the attorney general when I left Az; this was to dispute your silly claim that rich white guys who play golf run these things. You also said your friend’s case went to the federal level. At that time the Clinton appointed person in charge of EEOC was a Hispanic person not a white person, how does that fit in your preconceived racism assertions? If your needle has no holes you have an option. Look at them before you purchase or put a hole in it. At this time claiming the hole wasn’t there due to sexist and racisit white guy(s) who play golf has more holes in it than your needles do.

btw the guy in charge during that time at the fed level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Cas... following him was an Asian male http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Igasak...

You can see the whole list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Emplo... An intersting fact of this list, only 3 white guys; not sure if any played golf.

Here's some truth for y'all:
Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 45 states and the District of Columbia, decreased in 4 states, and was unchanged in Alabama. The largest over-the-year percentage increase occurred in North Dakota (+6.5 percent). The largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment occurred in Wisconsin (-0.9 percent).

RAF - to help you sort out your confusion here is a partial list of the attorney generals for AZ.
Robert Morrison 1955 - 1960
Wade Church 1960 - 1961
Robert Pickrell 1961 - 1965
Darrell F. Smith 1965 - 1968
Gary K. Nelson 1969 - 1974
N. Warner Lee 1974 - 1975
Bruce Babbitt 1975 - 1978,
John A. (“Jack”) LaSota, Jr. 1978 - 1979
Bob Corbin 1979 - 1991
Grant Woods 1991 - 1999
Janet Napolitano 1999 - 2002
Terry Goddard 2002 - 2011
Tom Horne 2011 - present
Now RAF go to the above chart and find the year 1997, the year of the dicrimination case I was giving you facts to, as you move your finger up the list to see who was AG for AZ in 1997 you will have the fact that it was a rep white man slap you in the face.

Oh but wait there has been two more male attonery generals in AZ since the women RAF is so fixated on, the one after this women he can't get out of his mind was a demo and the current AG is a repub. He's really confused!

Poobah - your so dead on the mark when you talk about how confused RAF is! He seems to think that because the AZ attorney general is NOW a women that during a 1997 discrimination suit the attorney general was a women.
I truly hope this confused man doesn't drive a car!

RetiredAirForce
Apr 24, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wiggle which story are you talking about? Was it the one with the rich white sexist racist guys who worked for the female attorney general?
-
Take it out of the spin cycle honey, I blew you out of the water whith the facts already, BTW you never answered as to if you golfed at the clubs you asked me to list.

-
wiggle
Apr 22, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF - In case you didn't know -Rep Grant Woods served as Arizona's Attorney General from 1991-1999.

RAF said, "I see you have the typical problem of trying to keep up."

Your problem is trying to keep up with yourself, RAF. Other people's problem is trying to keep up with your most recent position on an any given issue.

RAF first said, "...they can still sue in state court, that didn't change."

RAF then said, "correction, not really sue in state..."

RAF then said, "...women can still sue just like they have done for the past ~50 years."

And the best RAF quote on this subject so far, "Okay I'm confused again"

Wiggle which story are you talking about? Was it the one with the rich white sexist racist guys who worked for the female attorney general?

No2 yeah I see you have the typical problem of trying to keep up. Federal and state laws are giving you trouble.

RAF first said, "...they can still sue in state court, that didn't change."

RAF then said, "correction, not really sue in state..."

RAF then said, "...women can still sue just like they have done for the past ~50 years."

And the best RAF quote on this subject so far, "Okay I'm confused again"

You sure are!

RAF - OMG do you need me to once again say -
You can't give the tools (ex: needle thread and cloth) and then tell women they can't complain because the needle has no hole.
I gave you one case where the tools given were useless yet you still repeat like a parrot "the tools are available, very hard to use, but available"

As i suspected just more empty rhetoric. "Equal pay law"? You mean the federal eocc law from 1963. Yeah that hasn't changed still there not cancelled women can still sue just like they have done for the past ~50 years.

EVERY single law that they support(republicans) are to benefit employers, not employees. The equal pay act was put in place to allow women to sue for discrimination. The federal law is simply not enough.
Its folks like RAF and Ron Johnson that would rather we followed the Chinese business model with no labor/environmental regulations.RAF will you go on record like Ron Johnson and say that you prefer the business model of a communist nation?

Ill make it easy for you. there was NO need to repeal this law, NONE! You may not like the rhtoric that surrounds this but this WILL cost him votes. In a season of which will undoubtedly be a close recall election, why do this? Walker, like RAF is showing the holes in his intelligence. Whomever is advising Walker should be fired. They are failing, terribly.

Empty rhetoric raf? You are the master of JUST that!! Icould get you going for 40 posts right now on nothing, LOL. DOnt feed the troll.

fear was there anything else besides your typical empty rhetoric and repeated comments or was that it...

RAF _ there is no need arguing with a person who thinks he know all. Your posts are just you "Claiming" others arguments are lies and false based on Politifact? Now thats funny. Again your own arrogance defines you. I dont need to argue with you, I am enjoying watchin wiggle , YKM , and poobah do it for me!
Your tactics of telling others that that they are lying and you are the one that reads between the lines? You will continue to make bad arguments and defend them until everyone just gets tired of trying to respond. Not because you are right in any way, but watching your tactics stretching arguments out to 500+ posts on a thread to get the last word to prove that you know everything about everything, is laughable. I can tell it really makes you feel good to "think" you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Do any of you that are arguing with the Hulkster really think he will admit that he is wrong? Thousands of posts and its never happened, not once. Condesceding, insults, and claiming facts as lies unless they are posted on his Bible of truth Politifact?? Retired defense lawyer is what it should be, not AF. Maybe Retired BS artist, dunno but arguing with RAF is about as interesting as talking to a brick wall.

Evan Wynn wrote: "...much more lucrative than standing on their failed economic policies that led to massive job losses..."

Who is using the straw-man argument now? Also, how does the passage of this law help the job situation? Is this an attempt to attract businesses that discriminate against their employees?

RAF said, "If there is such a deliberate act that is terrible why limit a fine to just the amount set in a law."

Oh boy, your Republican overlords that have spent lots of their money lobbying for tort reform and limits to malpractice awards aren't going to be happy with you straying so far from the flock, RAF! Back in line. Baaaaaaaa...

YKM, the only thing changed was the automatic fine structure above and beyond real losses. Why should there be an automatic fine structure built into a state law between two parties above real losses? If there is such a deliberate act that is terrible why limit a fine to just the amount set in a law. What is wrong with recouping real losses and then if there is some terrible employer make them defend these actions in a federal court where a large penalty can be imposed? And the flip side why impose a fine for all grievances?

So much for state's rights and control, huh? Republicans continue to throw people and programs back onto the Federal Government and then complain how bad Big Government is. Walker is doing this with BadgerCare, Medicare, state healthcare exchanges and affiliates and now with worker discrimination laws. That's only the tip of the iceberg.

RAF, earlier you wrote - "The current law reads, "Any person aggrieved by noncompliance with the order may have the order enforced specifically by suit in equity. If the examiner finds that the respondent has not engaged in discrimination, unfair honesty testing, or unfair genetic testing as alleged in the complaint, the department shall serve a certified copy of the examiner’s findings on the complainant, together with an order dismissing the complaint."

What that means is, the state (department) will only engage in enforcement to dismiss on behalf of the employer!! Republicans erased the following language in the 2009 law, "If the examiner finds that the respondent HAS engaged in discrimination, unfair honesty testing... the complainant may bring an action as provided ...by the state." In other words, the state washed its hands to help it's own citizens in local discrimination cases. They can still sue, but the 2009 law offered remediation without a suit. That was repealed.

correction, not really sue in state. They file in state to recoup real losses. Same as they did before.

youkillme...they can still sue in state court, that didn't change. What changed was the fine structure built into the law impossed above real losses at the state level.

Why do the sheep never think?

"The GOP bill would make it harder on victims of employment discrimination because it is easier to sue in state court than in federal court."

So why would republicans want to make it harder on discrimination victims? Who are republicans serving?

fear was there anything else besides your typical empty rhetoric and repeated comments or was that it?

wiggle you continue to be unable to think for yourself. The talking point put forth by graeme zielinski, and re-uttered by falk and yourself, is a lie. TO make it more interesting the left-leaning Pulitzer prize winning politifact even says falk lied.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...

From Politifact:
Our rating ---
Falk said women facing pay discrimination can't "do something about it" under a bill passed by Wisconsin Republicans. But of the four legal options available under the current law, only one would be eliminated by the bill.

***We rate Falk's statement False.***

So wiggle you can either start thinking for yourself or keep following the sheep, your choice.

DrTalk, that video you posted is very amusing. Here we a a republican legislator, Michelle Litjens, claiming liberal democratic women attack her for getting a college education and choosing to be a stay-at-home-mom to raise her kids, all the while she is a state legislator living on the government dole. Must be nice.

excellent Wiggle, I am certain the Hulkster will find a way to insult you from behind his anonymous handle without making a single legitimate point. Old angry people make me chuckle!

RTF EZOR-

Falk sends Walker request to explain himself

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Democratic candidate for governor Kathleen Falk has sent Republican Gov. Scott Walker a letter asking him to explain why he signed a bill making it more difficult for discriminated workers to sue.

Falk and Democratic state Reps. Chris Taylor and Christine Sinicki sent the letter Monday.

The bill Walker signed earlier this month takes away the right of discriminated workers to sue employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages. That right was extended in a 2009 law passed when Democrats controlled the Legislature.

A variety of business groups supported the law's repeal, while trial attorneys and other advocacy groups supported keeping it.

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie says Walker signed it because it removes a "duplicative and unnecessarily costly process" and discrimination victims can still sue in federal court.

-
MikeF
Apr 23, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
To sue in federal court - $350 filing fee and travel to Madison, Milwaukee, Eau Claire, or Green Bay.
To file in state court - $265 and travel to your local county courthouse.
Yes, I can see how the federal system is so much better than the "duplicative and unnecessarily costly process" in the state system.

=
wiggle
Apr 22, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'll ask a 2 simple questions.
Last year if I wanted to file a discrimination suit against my employer I could do so in my state circuit court system, correct?
If I wish to file a suit tomorrow could I file in the state circuit court system?

-
DrTalk
Apr 22, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
wiggle,
The answer to both of your questions is "yes"

-
RetiredAirForce
Apr 22, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Todays lie of the day (so far). wiggle stated " Just like walker removing the state courts from having to hear the WI cases of discrimination, a complaint must now go straight to federal court."

-
RAF and dr talk talk
Who's wrong? Call the Circit court and inquire about fileng a discrimination suit there.
Typical repub ignorance trys to hide behind lies

""problem is, voters are smarter today than in recent history.""
Now THAT is e more programmed now than ever,one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Voters are dumber tan ever. THAT is the goal of unlimited contributions i.e.. citizens united. Judging by many of the repetetive posters in these blogs, your statement that voters are "more educated" is laughable at best. Are they "more educated' by the propaganda news channels (Fox and MSNBC) or the many websites(maciver, mediatrackers,huff post)? Is that where they are looking? Or is it the very informative TV commercials?
That type of statement deserves ridicule. I am guessing redder is a Pro-wrestling fan anyways so what does it really mean?
Let me guess redder smaller government and tax cuts are the answers to ALL of our problems right? And all of those damn entitlements. Would you like a cracker?

Its not just on women! The democrats have "spun" everthing that is current into this pit of desparation to try and sway voters. The problem is, voters are smarter today than in recent history. They are checking into things. Maybe not all issues but the ones that have relavance to themselves. It takes seconds to find out the truth, but this outdated, and flagrant cummulation of lies, in this election, goes far beyond what I have seen in elections past. Maybe they should give credit to the American people, for actually taking part in the election, and understanding more of the issues. Now, I am certainly possitive that there is still alot of ignorance on the issues. I hope they start wakeing up, the American people are certainly. Or maybe I don't...maybe they will piss off loyal democrats, and maybe they will vote useing their heads not their liberal hearts. It only makes complete sense. Lets face it with Pelosi on their side, I could understand that line of logic. The hatred of women that is.

The only war I see is wiggle has missed her bi-polar medication and her anger management group meeting.

Crickets, crickets, crickets

mouse since you follow Chris Liebenthal's every word it explains more about your ignorance. I wonder why you post links to and read Chris seeing he was convicted of doing the same thing on government time as Darlene Wink?

Crickets, crickets, crickets.

wiggle what DrTalk said was correct. Based on your previous comments I don't think it matters what is true or not...

lisp (noun): a speech defect consisting in pronouncing s and z like or nearly like the th- sounds of thin and this, respectively.

What's not nice about that, vatoloco? A person with a lisp would typically pronounce the word mouse as mouth. I didn't call anyone a name or make fun of anyone. It was the comment I was replying to that you should have criticized -- Rick_Raff calling Mouse a mouth.

mouse-Minnie is not a real women so your opinion is worthless on humans. Please stick to rodents. (Kudos for not mentioning Walker or Koch bros.-did you forget?)

wiggle,
The answer to both of your questions is "yes" as long as it's legitimate. But people were abusing the law and filing frivolous lawsuits. This bill was designed to cut down on those.
Here's a Wisconsin representative explaining exactly what the bill does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvY9ThFg4...

RAF- quite honestly I'm growing board with your Rep white man syndrome.
You will never understand what any one other than a rep white man has to go through. Life is all peachy for you, you have little restrictions, little discrimination against you if any.
So I could waste my time pointing out facts one after the other and you would never understand.
Discrimination? How could that be? I've never seen it?
See you on the next story......

"The only change to the law enacted in 2009 was ADDITIONAL preset fines in addition to reparations for any grievances found guilty."
-
I'll ask a 2 simple questions.
Last year if I wanted to file a discrimination suit against my employer I could do so in my state circuit court system, correct?
If I wish to file a suit tomorrow could I file in the state circuit court system?

Another of today's lies, wiggle stated "Walker is making it harder and harder for women to live free."
-
False!

The current law reads "Any person aggrieved by noncompliance with the order may have the order enforced specifically by suit in equity. If the examiner finds that the respondent has not engaged in discrimination, unfair honesty testing, or unfair genetic testing as alleged in the complaint, the department shall serve a certified copy of the examiner’s findings on the complainant, together with an order dismissing the complaint."

In addition at any time if an employee wants to sue for damages ABOVE AND BEYOND real damages, hint hint hint Punitive and Compensatory, they can take the case straight to a federal court and sue for cause under the 1963 law........JUST LIKE BEFORE.

Another of today's lies, wiggle stated "...by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges."
-
The only change to the law enacted in 2009 was ADDITIONAL preset fines in addition to reparations for any grievances found guilty. There were NO MORE avenues for charges.

Poobah- your good!!! :)

I did read it honey- have you read it?
Do you know why walker repealed it?
-
The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the LESS COSTLY, MORE ACCESSIBLE state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.
Walker is making it harder and harder for women to live free. Making poor women basicly walk away from bringing their cases before a judge for judgement.
Walkers way, I gave you the thread, I gave you the needle, I gave you the cloth, now stop complaining that the needle has no hole to thread the thread through.

Wiggle if you took the time to READ the bill you see it is exactly what I stated. The only thing that changed was taking the law back to what it was in 2009. ALL workers can still file for grievance what changed was the preset fines put into law by the trial attorney's. Workers can still file just like they have always been able to at the state and local level. Btw there is no way the state can repel federal law, the one in effect from 1963 protecting all workers including women.

Rick_Raff said, "Mouse is not a mouse…She is a MOUTH."

Only if you speak with a lisp.

Act to repeal 111.39 (5) (d), 111.397 and 893.995; and to amend 111.39 (4)
2(d) and 814.04 (intro.) of the statutes; relating to: elimination of compensatory
and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing.

RAF pease use your repub white man way of thinking to explain how removing a women's right to collect for damages when discrimination is found to be a true fact is NOT discrimination on it's own?

He repealed a women's right to sue for damages making it easier for a company to do what is illegal because the company no longer has fear of it costing the company anything when they do this illegal act.

So sorry repub white man, but you will NEVER get your pre 1920's America back. You know the era when women were propety.

RAF said, "Okay I'm confused again."

We already knew that! Please contribute something new to the discussion, RAF.

RAF - both - the rich white rep telling the under funded back logged employees to get it off the table.
So sorry your tiny brain can't figure things out with out the ABC's being spelled out Aaa, Bee, Cee.

Todays lie of the day (so far). wiggle stated " Just like walker removing the state courts from having to hear the WI cases of discrimination, a complaint must now go straight to federal court."
-
FALSE!

what changed was the automatic fines in ADDITION to restitution if found guilty. Perhaps you need to read what was changed and not the left wing lies over the changes. That would clear up much of the confusion, well except for the back log under funded racist sexist rich white guy thing.

Mouse, ignoring the truth again? Why follow Chris after all he did the same thing, for a longer time, than the lady did? Maybe you and Chris are sexist too...who knows?

Okay I'm confused again. Is it because of under funding and back logs or rich white racists and sexist guys? I'm just trying to figure out your ever changing story. Perhaps I have read it wrong, just trying to make sure. Thanks for the help.

RAF - In case you didn't know -Rep Grant Woods served as Arizona's Attorney General from 1991-1999.

And I mention the walker doe criminal nvestigation to prove the leaders hire their friends.
The EEOC as we know it today was not the same as in 1998, where under funding and back log was a nightmare! Cases were rushed through without proper investigation just to get rid of them. They would 'find no evidence' just to get it off their table and allow the party to bring it before the courts.
Even those agencies with the public's best interst in mind could not keep up so they just 'got rid of them' ASAP.
Just like walker removing the state courts from having to hear the WI cases of discrimination, a complaint must now go straight to federal court.
See how that works - a repub official just passing the buck.
The AZ EEOC employees may have wanted to fight for the people but the decisions were made to eliminate the back log ASAP by non other than Rep Grant Woods - the one in charge of EEOC in AZ in 1998.

mouse since you follow Chris Liebenthal's every word it explains more about your ignorance. I wonder why you post links to and read Chris' seeing he was convicted of doing the same thing on government time as Darlene Wink?

No2 if correcting misspelling is your idea of a contribution pat yourself on the back, then take a rest break. That is the most you have contributed in days, I'd hate for you to burn out when you're on a roll.

RAF said, "wiggle perhaps I miss-interpreted your earlier comments."

Imagine that!

Oh, by the way, it's "misinterpreted" and not "miss-interpreted." RAF, I corrected your error so you couldn't credibly accuse me of contributing nothing.

wiggle what exactly does walker have to do with an incident you claim happened in Arizona? Btw when I left Arizona it wasn't a rich white guy in charge of the state equal justice office(s) it was Janet Napolitano. In case you didn't know the attorney general in that state is in charge of those offices, but the workers/employees are state hired.

wiggle perhaps I miss-interpreted your earlier comments. You stated "EEOC at that time was rich white men", "Darn right! When a group making a decision if there was disrimination is mostly white men", and "those agencies do nothing about discrimination unless you are paying a heap of money to stand before them".

The people who work at those agencies are regular blue collar government employees, just like teachers, fireman, and police officers.

If you really think people at that level didn't do their job why was your elected representatives not notified?

I have no doubt not all employees are always the best, but to make a blanket statement that was all rich white guys who refused to do anything without money shoved in front of them is nothing but political theater.

RAF- "as soon as you started declaring non-elected state and federal agency employees are just like"
First I never made the above statement what I said was -
what state or federal agency would take it upon themselves to bring a case of discrimination before the courts without being paid to do so?

Also I will ask you -
How do these non-elected state and federal workers get their jobs if not elected by the people?
I would assume these state and federal agency workers get hired by the head of the agency.
next question-
How do these state and federal agency heads get their positions? If not elected they are either appointed or hired by?
ELECTED OFFICIALS

-
And since you are clueless I will point out the walker doe investigation. Walker appointed the state agency heads and they are as corrupt as he is.
-
"any semblance of credibility was lost as soon as you started declaring non-elected state and federal agency employees are just like the others"

Oh my friend you are so deep in denial you can't see or handle the truth placed in front of you. Elected officials - like walker - hire their friends/family for those non-elected agency heads. So of course they are just as corrupt/racist.
You are the one without "any semblance of credibility"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

wiggle any semblance of credibility was lost as soon as you started declaring non-elected state and federal agency employees are just like the other racist and sexist employers you had. I have no problems pointing out TRUE racism and problems with this country. But I will laugh all day at those that start declaring tales based on political affiliations.

Mouse did you forget your meds again?

I must also add to your comment
"In everystate all complaints are cross filled with state and federal agencies"
That is correct but those agencies do nothing about discrimination unless you are paying a heap of money to stand before them to force them to make a judgement. Am I wrong? how many state and government agencies take it upon themselves to fight for justice?
If you don't have the best lawyer in your pocket your complaint- even if true -never gets a second look.

RAF - It is quite apparent you will never believe racism does or ever did exist simply because you as a white repub man have never been a victim. If you have never experienced something, how could it exist or be a problem, am I correct?
Being a women who had to work harder than a man to get to where I am today, I could debate and provide fact after fact that it does exist and will always exist as long as your kind exist.
But for now I give up trying to prove it to you because your white repub man blinders will NEVER allow you to see the facts or truth simply because you refuse to think what your kind does to any other sex or race is wrong.
If it's not wrong for us, it's not wrong period.
Time to get my lazy teens out of bed and get some yard work done. Please continue to enjoy your pampered 'all about me' life and continue your denial of the truth.

Btw what course did they play at, I met a ton of nice people playing golf in Arizona maybe I know theses faux racist sexist people.

Oh I'm sure you do know some of them! Rich white racist repubs all hang together and 'have each others backs'

Golf courses I wrote checks for membership dues were -
Arizona Country Club
Moon Valley Country Club
Ahwatukee Country Club
Paradise Peak West

Each owener had their own membership and had the other owners golf with them as 'guests'. They never played on public courses, no one to 'pay off' for favors on those .

In everystate all complaints are cross filled with state and federal agencies. I suspect all the white guys from the state agency played golf with them too. Btw what course did they play at, I met a ton of nice people playing golf in Arizona maybe I know theses faux racist sexist people.

RetiredAirForce
Apr 21, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
So the fed eocc found no problems and you want to blame it on racism and sexism?

Darn right! When a group making a decision if there was disrimination is mostly white men it doesn't matter that I had payroll, employment records to prove the discrimination. These employers played golf with many on the eocc so they didn't want to 'see' the facts placed before them, might hurt their golf play dates, so they basicly pushed it on some other court to make judgement and went and played golf.
The facts were so apparent that it was indeed discrimination the company's lawyers did every delay tactic they could knowing the women did not have the financial resources to 'outlast' their bully ways.

So the fed eocc found no problems and you want to blame it on racism and sexism? I suspect your version of events might be different than the investigation found. Btw, i didnt know the federal eocc was all white and male I suggest you call the media, that would make a great expose...if it was true.

"Under federal law what you claim is not legal and the EEOC handles these cases. If the federal agency finds no violations then a person can sue, this may cost money depending on what attorney is hired."

Yes your right.
EEOC at that time was rich white men, of course they found no violations against their golf buddies, so on to a court fight it went.
I have told the rest of the story, but I did leave out the color of skin this women had. With you living in AZ for 12 years I'm sure the McCain- Martin Luther King fiasco is etched in your mind and you are well aware of the state of mind AZ white rich repubs have towards those of color.

just because you repeat lies over and over doesn't make them true.

wiggle not sure what your information was/is on your friends case in Arizona. There is NO cost to file complaints with the federal EEOC or the Arizona civil rights divison: I lived there for almost 12 years.

Under federal law what you claim is not legal and the EEOC handles these cases. If the federal agency finds no violations then a person can sue, this may cost money depending on what attorney is hired.

All of this information can be found:
http://www.eeoc.gov/
http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/charge.cfm...
http://www.azag.gov/civil_rights/
http://www.azag.gov/civil_rights/discrim...

Wiggle, I'm sure that you've riled up some of these Stone Age thinkers just by having the gumption to speak your mind and tell it like it is. They need to hear this regularly. I really appreciate your insight and your comments. Keep up the good work.

wiggle so what is your position over the insurance aspect then if you agree its not hard to add the coverage on? What is the point of blaming a political party for something that is easy for a bussiness or consumer to do?

It's not hard to have an ins co add birth control to the list of covered meds, or the day after pill. They are not controled by the government.
Another personal story of discrimination to help you understand the war against women.
-
I worked for a co, employed were 31 middleaged men 6 new college grad men, 4 new college grad women, and 9 women between 30 and 50. The 6 new men made 2.25 more than the women with the same education and experience. When one of the new women found out after 8 months she filed a complaint, she was promptly fired
(this was in AZ a 'right to work state') the other 3 women kept quite and the company hired another new college male grad. The women filed a suit for discrimination, the rich co had their lawyers drag out, resched, postpone court dates for over a year and a half. The women did just what the owners thought, she ran out of money for lawyer fees and gave up. Bully bully!
This same company would not include birth control in the insurance coverage because it raised everyone's withholding by 4 dollars and the companys cost would rise 59.50 a month. The 4 men oweners didn't feel the men should have to pay for 'women's personal' meds. But in 1998 when Viagra became available they added that med for ins coverage to the tune of 7 dollars more withheld for every employee and 72 for the company. Apparently the men thought the women should pay for 'man's personal' meds.
The only reason I know these facts are because I was the HR manager, made out the paychecks and worked with the insurance carrier to design the insurance policy for the company.
I quit Dec of 1998. Only because my business was growing and my husband and I could afford it.
Being a man you have no idea what life in the real world is for women.
Oh sure you men pass laws to make it look like your treating women equally, but men fight a women demanding justice to the bitter end and make justice nothing but an uphill battle.
It's the 'hey we're letting you out of the kitchen but no lip from you or you'll have to deal with the wrath of banded rich white men."
Just like I will never understand what it is like for a black/brown/red man in todays world, you will never understand what a women of any color has to put up with or possibly loose the only paycheck feeding her kid.
Most repub men have the mind set, a women should know her place and it's behind me. and for the ones demanding equality you make up some 'tools' that never work except for men. But hey we gave you tools........stop whining and iron my shirts!

wiggle as a business owner you as much as anyone should then understand the necessity to price insurance products for the needs of you, the owner, and your employees. One of the many of problems with today's medical system and insurance is the inability of insurance companies to offer these types of CHOICES to customers; because of govt restrictions and mandates. Having more govt requirements is not the answer, you know what you want and need they don't. Making false claims that a political party is keeping these choices from women just obfuscates the real facts and problems with the system.

whz_bng
Apr 20, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
They are about $8 at walmart and walgreens.
=

Yes they are if you have a job with insurance coverage. Before you spew your ignorance why not call a few walgreens/walmarts/kmarts etc and inquire the cost of all the different birth control meds out there without insurance coverage.
As for the 100 cost - I needed a special type of med/birth control due to my age (over 35) and it could not be given in a pill form but in an injection. So you have the office visit fee 45.00 the fee to have the nurse do the injection 10.00 and the cost of the med 58.00. The fees for the office visit and injection were not picked up by my insurance because it was for the purpose of receiving birth control which was not covered by my plan so therefore these fees were not covered either.
wiggy 8 08 am going to a job, wiggy 3 14 pm now is a business owner.
Yes my love I am a business owner, yes I consider going to my business going to my job, something wrong with that? Do you want to enlighten me on the proper wording for one who ownes a business and goes to do that business? Can a business owner not consider that business their job? Or is it because I own a business I don't work, therefore I don't have a 'job'?
"Do you not have computers at work?"
Well considering what year it is, YES smart one, I do have computers at my 'work, job, business'
The fact I posted at 8:08 am and 3:14 pm does not mean I did not work 9:00 am to 12:00 noon, which are my hours on fridays, shall I provide you with my hours for Mon Tues Wed and Thurs also so you can match up my post times with my work times? Would that help your small brain figure things out honey?

@bond, to answer your qyestion"Do you know the difference between Earn and Give?" Yes. I believe the word wage implies earned. I simply used the word give to parrot your statement: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day."
A little bit nit picky aren't we?

whz_bng, I'll let Wiggle comment on costs, which I know is a much more complex issue than simply running to Walmart and getting them for $8. However, I can tell you that Planned Parenthood provides birth control pills only for purposes of contraception. If a woman requires birth control pills to manage a health issue, Planned Parenthood will not provide them.

wiggy 8 08 am going to a job, wiggy 3 14 pm now is a business owner. Do you not have computers at work?
Just to comment about the cost of birth control pills. They are about $8 at walmart and walgreens. Free from planned parenthood.
Why are you paying $100 a month?

"I also believe that there are people (not sexes or races) that take advantage of systems created by government that ruin the original intent"
-
I couldn't agree with you more, so lets not spend any money hiring the right people to come in and clean house by finding who is abusing and hold them accountable, let's just cut millions, so the ones that truely need it get less and less, or better yet lets just get rid of the programs altogether. Typical repub To hard, cost money I'd rather give to the counrty club for a new bar, so to heck with the poor and uneducated.
Repub plan - first cut education, dummy them up
so they can't get more than a min wage job with no benefits, then take away birth control by cutting millions to welfare, so they have a bunch of kids starving cuz food stamp benefits were cut along with welfare. Then while the parents of these starving babies are deperate, we'll drive the truck up and down the street filling it up with people who will work for 25 cents an hour while we go to the counrty club for a rounds of golf and a few drinks. Which will be totaly leagal because we rebups all met in the middle of the night and rammed through a buch a laws saying we can. Yee Haw we got our old south way of life back!!!

Yeah that plan works much better than taking the time, effort and money to fix what's broken.

Ezoner
Apr 20, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
wiggle -- Someone must have hurt you deeply -- I would suggest a support group or a good preist or bar tender (female), wouldnt want you to fall for another loser again.
=
I'm very happy to say I have not ever been hurt deeply, had a happy loving childhood. The worst pain I felt in my life was my dad passing last year but thanks for your concern!
I have a wonderful support group of friends and family, again thanks for your concern! As for preist? No Thank You, the Catholic religion is the employer who will not pay for birth control but will viagra, But I do have a close relationship with my pastor, it is his daughter and my son who both got jobs at the same time working for the same company answering phone orders, my son makes 80 cents more an hour than his daughter, both college students with NO degrees.
As for falling for a loser again, Don't worry been married to the most wonderful burly teddybear who would and does give whatever he can to who ever needs it, for many years.
But I will admit, my first husband was a loser, he was a repub, he wanted me to stay home barefoot and preg and thought I was his property. The years we we're married where great for me I got a wonderful education and 2 degrees. I too am a business owner. I do quite well, I have wonderful employees and they all have stayed with me since day one (8 years ago). I pay them well, they have benefits, 401k and I share my profits with them.
-

"Anyway -- as I and others have stated. For those that cannot afford, the services and treatments are available."
Yes there is, this state they call it badger care, the nation calls it welfare.
Correct me if I'm wrong don't you repubs rant, cry, and whine about people on welfare? Aren't repubs running for office spewing cut cut cut welfare? Then out the other side of your face you say
"Anyway -- as I and others have stated. For those that cannot afford, the services and treatments are available."

The Condescending Hulkamaniac is back!! Knew he would be!! 8 examples of my condescention is all you could find? I have like 3700 posts, I know that every single one of yours is condescending. Angry and bitter uis the only way for you to stage your ideological points, maybe its the Hulkster that needs a hug, mouse, help him out. Dont get stuck to the jacket.
Love watching the Hulkster preaching to a woman how things are and how things "never change". Ever think that maybe they should? I know some of the cremudgens on this site want this nation to be the Old white MANs country forever, slowly we are coming out of that funk. Hopefully in my lifetime racism and sexism will disappear, Im 36, I wont hold my breath.

Keep sayin your prayers, eating your vitamins, and training Hulk.

So whatcha gonna do RAF when Hulkamania, RUNS WILD ON YOU!!!

Ezoner said to Wiggle, "Someone must have hurt you deeply -- I would suggest a support group or a good preist or bar tender (female), wouldnt want you to fall for another loser again."

"Someone must have hurt you deeply," is an assumption that Wiggle was hurt by someone. "A good priest," is an assumption about Wiggle's religious beliefs. "A bartender," is an assumption that Wiggle patronizes bars. "Fall for another loser again," is an assumption that Wiggle was in a relationship with a loser.

Those are an awful lot of assumptions packed in to just one sentence. You should practice what you were preaching to Wiggle when you said, "You need to let go of your anger and assumptions."

wiggle -- Someone must have hurt you deeply -- I would suggest a support group or a good preist or bar tender (female), wouldnt want you to fall for another loser again.

Anyway -- as I and others have stated. For those that cannot afford, the services and treatments are available. For those that are working -- most can afford or are provided employer plans. I do believe that our society (and this is what I am hearing in your comments) has many that believe they are entitled, owned ,,, whatever the free services. They are not. These services must be earned and as RAF says and I have stated, this is all just mis-direction. I am certain there are still pigs out there wiggle. But my mother went back to college at 35 as a single mother, got here degree, became a business owner, and later VP at a small company (where contribution was appreciated). I also believe that there are people (not sexes or races) that take advantage of systems created by government that ruin the original intent.

You need to let go of your anger and assumptions.

RAF said, "This was brought up to distract..."

You need to quit trolling and bringing up distractions, RAF. You've seen where those tactics got you on another article's comments, where you ended up saying about yourself, "Not simply I troll but a narcissistic troll." [ http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne... ]

Typical comments wiggle. You ignored the facts and went right into an emotion filled rant that means nothing. The fact is there already is a law that anyone, man or women, can file under if they feel the need: you skipped right passed that. There also is many ways, including single purchase, for birth control. Nothing was removed, in these two issues by either political party. This was brought up to distract the clueless voters from the failed policies of the last three years; if you cant run on a record then keep blaming the previous guy and keep the clueless supporters distracted .....worked like a charm.

TCB said, "If a man and women are both accountants and the man has 2 year experience and a masters degree and the woman has 3 years and a BA-they are both accountants-should the woman earn more simply based on tenure? OR does the fact the man has a post graduate degree have ANY bearing into salary?"

For the last 16 years, more women have earned bachelor degrees than men. So your example of a man with a bachelors and masters degree and a woman with only a bachelors is a bit out of sync with reality! A much more likely statistical reality would be just the opposite scenario as the one you created -- with the woman holding the bachelors and masters degrees and the man being the one with the bachelors degree (if that). If you believe pay should be based, in part or in whole on degrees, the statistical difference in educational achievement would suggest women should be out-earning men. Wiggle, thanks for such great insight into women's issues.

"Women began outnumbering men in college enrollment in the early 1980s, and since 1996, they've earned more bachelor's degrees. Data from this latest report shows that for adults aged 25 to 29, 36 percent of women have earned a bachelor's degree or more, compared with only 28 percent of men. But this is the first year women are earning more advanced degrees than their male counterparts. Only a decade ago, men held the majority, 55.4 percent, of advanced degrees. According to the current data, 10,685,000 working women over 25 hold master's degrees, law degrees, doctoral degrees, and other other graduate degrees, compared to only 10,562,000 men." [ http://www.good.is/post/women-now-earnin... ]

wiggle,

If a man and women are both accountants and the man has 2 year experience and a masters degree and the woman has 3 years and a BA-they are both accountants-should the woman earn more simply based on tenure? OR does the fact the man has a post graduate degree have ANY bearing into salary?

The "same" job senario rarely fits-everything in context.

ezor - so by your ignorant post your saying a man and women who both work in customer service doing the same job, a MAN is entitled to make more but the women has to 'earn' the same pay?
You have once again proven you are a racist ignorant fool.
The woman is doing exactly as the man but she must go above and beyong what the man does to EARN the same wage.
What a tool fool you are!!

Ezor - I have to go do this thing call a job but I will come back after work and read your answers as to how a women can EARN the right for meds and equal pay for the same job.

not to mention how do you EARN meds needed to prevent cancer? Is this the hunger games in reality?
If a man and women have the same job but a man gets paid more how does a women EARN the right to make just as much for the same job? Meeting the boss after work maybe?

sorry ezor - your the one who is the fool for thinking discrimination against women by men is just fine and dandy.
Again typical repub man responce.

wiggle -- your making a fool of yourself. Its not free for anyone and should not be. Someone is paying.... What I hear from you is entitlement. Your not entitled to anything. You must earn it, money, whatever.

2)The GOP...can't get away from their war on women; Eliminating fair pay legislation, siding against women's paychecks.

Fact: There has been a federal law in place for the last 50 years that offers this protection...nothing CHANGED!"

=
Your right NOTHING has changed, Men still get paid more.
If a women makes less how does she come up with the money to go to FEDERAL court and fight it?
Another example of a man saying, we gave you women the tools to fix it but we make it so expensive and difficult we MEN know you'll NEVER be able to do anything about it!
Again a typical Repub mans answer, we give you the tools but make it virtualy IMPOSSIBLE to do anything, but stop your whinning and live with the controlling ways of us all important repub men.
Your a joke!

RAF- Fact: There are no restrictions for a person from purchasing contraception nor are there restriction from finding an insurance policy that might cover this item if desired.
-
Really? Really?
OK MR Man when was the last time you bought birth control? You have NO idea how much it cost do you yet you spew your answer like it's as easy as going to buy a beer at a bar.
in the 80s when I had to buy them it was 35 a month. In the 90s when I needed them for cysts it cost over a hundred a month, what young girl can spend that a month?
Get your own ins policy? Really? A policy costs over 700 hundred a month.
You = a man, a repub man at that, think just beacuse it's out there the problem is solved. Your ingnorance is unlimited!
Oh girly you can get the pill but it might cost you 100 to 700 hundred a month for it so stop your whinning, right, that's your answer?? Maybe men with ED should be charged 100-700 for their pill. That would outrage you MR Man, oh but stop whinning women, We big controlling men have it available for you but we're gonna make you pay some outrageous amount that we know you can't afford. Typicial repub contolling Man words. Your a very self-centered shallow man RAF!

A sampling of todays political lies

1)The GOP...can't get away from their war on women; restricting contraception.

Fact: There are no restrictions for a person from purchasing contraception nor are there restriction from finding an insurance policy that might cover this item if desired.

2)The GOP...can't get away from their war on women; Eliminating fair pay legislation, siding against women's paychecks.

Fact: There has been a federal law in place for the last 50 years that offers this protection...nothing CHANGED!

fear stated "I also am not an angry condescending person"
-
Really? The following remarks are from a happy complimenting person? Oh yeah with some repeating for good measure.

1) "...are as telling as your ignorance on the reality of the issue..."

2) "As usual you are a silly, silly , inividual with tunnel vision and really no depth to your thought. A true pro-wrestling fan! Congrats, you are now deemed George the Animal Steele, go eat a turnbuckle!"

3) "My new schtick i that so many of you loyal Foxies are just pro-wrestling fans, that think wrestling is real. I think an excellent analogy."

4) "..you almost always slip into the rhetorical land of zippety do dah.."

5) "and the rest of the usual suspect pro wrestling fans(Fox News)"

6) "(This comment was removed by the site staff.)" --- Not sure what that was but I guess it was not a happy thought.

7) "thanks for facts, but your name is absolutely perfect for stupid folks that live in Rhetoric land like bebe."

8) "Bebe is one of the dumbest posters on here, no facts, just blather. Its like trying to reason with a young child, pointless. low IQ =invalid or non-existent points."

And the list goes on...I'm getting board pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.

5) teenagers (18,19,20)- both male and female. Both are having hormones rage'in that's equal, Both want to do it that's consensual, girl's ins won't pay for birth control which she can't afford being a broke college kid, Guy is typical 90% who won't wear a condom cuz it's 'not as good', girl gets pregnant, guy disappears, girl must go through all kinds of government required tests and appointments to terminate what the guy ran away from.
In other words repubs who are mostly religious and belive in so called abstinence, only believe WOMEN should abstain but men - oh you go for it, here's a pill to help you and we'll pay for it, even though you make more money than a women with the same job. And don't you worry men, when that women you spent the night with wants to terminate what you ran away from we'll make her go through hell and back ok?
Anyone who says the above is not true has never left their house a day in their life, or lived out side of burgsville WI and seen what REAL life is like.

Ezoner
Apr 19, 2012 at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
wiggle -- I agree -- its a little difficult for a man to go through ALL of the procedures. But I certainly get your point and would say that even if the girl was sleeping around....

OH please please tell me you are not saying men are keeping it in their pants while women 'sleep around'.
AGAIN with the men can do as they please as much as they please and even take a pill to help them get all the please'in they desire, even not having to pay for it, but if a single women sleeps with her boyfriends she's a low life. Actually change low life to the infamous rush word.
This is what I am talking about,
1) a man and a women have the same job, say customer service at the cable company, the man makes more.
2) Adult single men go to a bar and pick up a women, they have a one night stand. The man is glorified as a stud sowing his wild oats, the women is a (insert rush term)
3) A man and a women both teachers who lost their public school jobs and now must take whatever job they can, a teaching job in a religious private school yet neither are religious or married. The man and women are both typical adult Americans who have 'relations'. The man can get a pill to help him preform paid by the employer yet the women can not get a pill to stop unwanted pregnancy so she wouldn't have the need to 'stop the life of a baby'.
4) Same man and women as above situation cept the women is married and has 3 kids in her late 30's and her husband had a vasectomy. The women has a history of overian cysts which is proven to cause overian cancer which is very deadly even in todays standard health care. But her employer will not cover the meds needed to stop this serious medical condition, would rather her have her gut cut open, insides removed, several weeks of recovery time and instant menopause..... The single man has ED but can get that pill paid for by his employer which has NO medical reason cept so a man can sow his wild oats, and they'll pay for that even though he is not married and being 'immoral' according to the religious teaching of their employer.

Not only a bad day for Walker, but a bad day for Ryan and the Republican party as well. The Ryan budget as passed by the Republican-controlled House was criticized by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for failing to meet several moral criteria.

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the concerns of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in an interview with Fox News on Thursday, after the powerful advocacy group criticized his budget for “failing to meet [the] moral criteria,” of protecting human dignity, prioritizing the needs of the hungry and homeless and promoting the common good." [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/... ]

You can read the Conference letters directly at [ http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cf... ]

onedayatatime: Do you know the difference between Earn and Give?

If you were to ask me, (don't worry i'll ask myself) I'd say No one wants "Truth" anymore, if they're in Politics. "Political Correctness" + "Truth" equals Political suicide.

noleftist says "Republicans are about earning wages" That made me laugh!!!! Keep drinking the rich 1%'s koolaide.........

Case in point Ezoner, you actually have a conservative on this thread blaming Obama for the secret service prostitution sting!! That is how desparate and pathetic so many have gotten!!
My new schtick i that so many of you loyal Foxies are just pro-wrestling fans, that think wrestling is real. I think an excellent analogy.

Ezoner, seriously? You are a constant rhetoric machine!! Every once in a while we have a productive discussion, but you almost always slip into the rhetorical land of zippety do dah. I give you some credit, but lately it seems that the rhetoric is getting thiscker and thicker, election coming? Is that why?

Why is it that all of you conservatives have such a hard time believuing that someone doesnt subscribe to partisan ideology? Unfortunatley if you dont fall in line with partisan groupthink on the right youre a communist liberal!! I have been a conservative my whole life until recently. I still hold many conservative values. I just refuse to be blind to hypocricy and turn my back on my fellow Americans, in any situation!!
Lets get real here. EVERY single one of you repubs support Ron Johnson for senate after he made comments about how China (a communist nation) is a great business model for America!! That statement alone should be enough for any true American Conservative to run from him. Yet they all embrace him? Really? Maybe No wages, suicide nets, green water, polluted air and total control from a party is what Republicans want? I dunno, it seems that there are many on the right who are admiring communist China! Bleeds and stinks of hypocricy.
My thing is if you ask me a question on an issue, my answer is dictated by MY opinion on the issue, not what a party tells me to believe. I find myself agreeing with Dems more than repubs these days, but that is because the repubs have gone so far right I just couldnt follow.

Fear " I do not subscribe to a certain ideology as you do, I also am not an angry condescending person that constantly tries to ridicule others to make some kind of illegitimate point."

Man where do I start? You keep saying this yet everytime people point out valid reasons that are counter views and provide you with support for that refutes your position and views -- you head right back to the far left rhetoric and positions.

I have seen you post some pretty nasty comments -- just sayin -- maybe they attacked 1st -- but you cant say that if you responded...

Republicans are about earning wages, and Democrats are about "giving" them (and not out of their own pockets, either). Kind of sums it all up.

wiggle -- I agree -- its a little difficult for a man to go through ALL of the procedures. But I certainly get your point and would say that even if the girl was sleeping around -- the guy should know what the consequences are for being irresponsible. Personal Responsibility -- which as I believe is what repubs are about minus the far right (same as far left) nutballs.

Trust me -- I spent years in asian countries where there were plenty of women trying to get out. Some just wanted money. Im not trying to sound overly moral, but I didnt even consider taking the chance, risk or opportunity. I do believe that an of age women and a 15 yr old boy is rape. I dont go along the line that men OR women get a pass. BUt then again -- im not running for office and probably would get elected, because I wouldnt just say things people want to hear.

If you watch -- you find most of our politicians do -- including Obama. Catering to groups he wants get his votes from.

I look up to Stewart? I find him entertaining, yes. I actually watch his show regularly and he mocks Jews, Muslims, Christians all quite equally. I mostly enjoy how he calls out Fox on a consistent basis and is always willing to go there and have them on his show.
Remember Poorrich he hosts a COMEDY show on Comedy central. Look back, never once did I say I "look up to Stewart". I find his brand of comedy intelligent, interesting and , usually quite honest. Slanted? SUre! The difference to me is that he doesnt attempt to hide his bias. Which I believe makes him one of the best interviewers on television. Dont even watch the comedy. Watch the guest part of the show, the guy is NOT afraid to ask tough questions of not only those he disagrees with but is very tough on those he agrees with as well. If you dont think so , you arnet watching him.
My greater point is that Fox calls itself a news network and its just not its almost all propaganda. Watch their so-called news people during the day, its almost silly how bad it is, and yet they still use that "fair and balanced" label.
What I love about Jon Stewarts show is that they use Fox's own words and actions to hang them. And he seems to get the better of them almost everytime.
Ready set watch: Jon on Chris Wallaces show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1YaAwOP...

Give a man a living wage and he can buy his own food, housing, transportation and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime......

I've always known there's something fishy about Republicans. Thanks for clearing that up, Bond.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, free food, housing, transportation and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime......

Conservatives seem to be obsessed with war.
could it be to keep the MIC going?

mouse-fears 4-17 10:47PM post

fear-I would like to see your hero, Jon Stewart, treat Muslims the same way he treats Christians. Pretty easy prey for him.
He's a great role model all right. You have the cajones to mock Fox News but look up to this guy?
Why?

I would also challenge the Hulkster (RAF) to point out my "repetetive" remarks. I do not subscribe to a certain ideology as you do, I also am not an angry condescending person that constantly tries to ridicule others to make some kind of illegitimate point.
SO RAF, lets see you point out my repeating and then I will help you with yours, bring it on!

RAF said, "fear- fighting the war on intelligence, you are truly misinformed and a reapeater."

Yes, RAF has been a true champion in the war on intelligence by fighting for ignorance and stupidity since signing up for GazetteXtra on January 10, 2008.

RAF, you called fear a "reapeater." Is that someone who eats what they reap?

Thanks for validating Bebe you dont work 100 hours a week, I think you made a typo and meant to type 10. I understand it happens.
Defecit?? Budgeting Wars? Anything? FActs? Rhetoric hyperbole? Cmon King Kong Bundy, you can do it!!

Please stop using facts, they distort the ability of many to use Rhetoric.

""And we are applauding "diplomacy" with Iran and N Korea that has been a failure!""

Huh I guess when you say diplomacy is a failure the next step is........

Speaking of ignorance Bebe couple of quickies one you said;"",federal deficits higher than anybody in history"" Please retract, that is FALSE!! Last Yr of Bush Admin FY 2009, ignorance or known LIE!!

Of course you are aware that the national debt doubled because of the Financial Meltdown of 2007 right?? Judging by your rhetoric land view of everything I am hguessing you know but choose to ignore. Also I also think that you should understand that every president has dramatically increased the debt, without the worst economic climate in 80 years. I know that is something to be ignored by ideologues, but hey whatever, right??

Bebe for someone who works 100 hours a week you have a lot of time to defend your ridiculousness. I smell something.

Vato- a conservative whom I disagree with on MOST issues, Id be willing to bet he is with me on War and foriegn policy here.
If repubs wantthe white house they are going to have to try to get him on domestic issues, Hilary Vlinton the sec of state is probably the most popular politician in the country and its NOT because she is a failure.
I think in this age of fear mngering in the news , its remarkable that we havent tried to start any more wars. Some want to cut government spending, yet want unlimited war, endless fighting because its somehow the job of the US to fight Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc, etc. How can we cut taxes and spending and keep fighting non budgeted wars? Anyone??Hulk? King Kong Bundy? Junkyard Dog? Macho Man? Ric Flair?

ezoner also says "A womens choice is between herself (her decision) and the doctor. But be careful, if the man is also responsible , as you say, then should the man have a say in the procedure (example - abortion)."
I agree totaly!! The man should have a say! If he wants to raise a baby on his own then he should have that choice. But he should also be subjected to medical procedures as evasive as a women is now forced by a controlling government. He should be forced to go though the doctor 'talks' forced by the government. He should be held 50% responsible for this pregnancy. Or is it ok in repubs minds that the women is the only one at fault?

LOL Vato!! Eddie Gurrero, Latino HEEEET!

Why think- thanks for facts, but your name is absolutely perfect for stupid folks that live in Rhetoric land like bebe. Actual dollar amounts really put a face on it but like bebe said, WHO CARES??? About actual facts and not rhetoric.
Case in point: NKorea and Iran diplomacy has failed??? Huh? Last time I checked those are the two most isolated countries on Earth thanks to sanctions. STupid folks that hate diplomacy and would rather march us into war after war after war, and piss and moan about spending and budgets. Its called talking out of both sides of their mouths. "Dont spend money, wheres our budget" (One side) " Launch more wars and dont budget for them" (Other side) Just stupid , no matter how you look at it.
Please republicans , run on foriegn policy, ensure that Mittens has no chance at all

The word "truth" and the word "democrat" don't even belong in the same sentence.........

RAF- The Hulk Hogan of Republican Parrots chimes in!! Thanks for.....nothing.

Iraq $211,900,000,000
Afghanistan $283,800,000,000
Tax Cuts (GW) $216,000,000,000
Part D $635,000,000

TOTAL IMPACT OF GW on Obama Administration Spending:

$712,335,000,000

That is just a few examples. Obviously each president leaves something for the next but GW's programs, without interest are pretty expensive. In addition, I would argue 2/4, COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!

Ezoner
Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
wiggle -- we are agreeing on that point........ I would not force any procedure and this one reason I dont want government in the business of our daily healthcare.
If this is true why do you stand behing a government that is passing laws doing just that?
Planned parenthood can stand on its own. It could disappear if ins co where made to pay for meds for women to prevent unwanted babies in the first place.
But oh no, the religious government makes it legal for companies to deny women a pill to save her from unwanted babies which also is a medical necessity to prevent overian cancer, because the religious government feels women should not have sex, yet the same religious government says it's ok to hand men a pill so they can get it on.
It's ok to give a man what he needs for pleasure and reproduce at will, but won't force companies to give the women the meds she uses to stop these medicated men from getting them pregnant. Repubs believe women should abstain but men can sow their wild oats all they want. So who are these medicated men suppose to sow their oats with?

bebe,
Are you serious? Are you "for real"?
.
You claim the job growth is inadequate and blame President Obama for that. OK, what about the job growth under President Bush when he left office? Not blaming Bush, I am just curiuos are you honest or a partisan.
.
Would you agree that our economic employment situation is better than when President Obama took office? Have things improved or gotten worse since the policies of this president were implemented?
.
Incase you need visual evidence...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS140000...

wiggle -- we are agreeing on that point........ I would not force any procedure and this one reason I dont want government in the business of our daily healthcare. Protecting our citizens from mass contamination and mass disease, is a completely separate issue and is part of national defense. A womens choice is between herself (her decision) and the doctor. But be careful, if the man is also responsible , as you say, then should the man have a say in the procedure (example - abortion). Your statements can be turned around and used against your position. You cannot blame the man and then say its the womens choice on what to do.

I do not agree to funding a group that can stand on its own. If planned parenthood had a significant issue with donors, then I might feel differently. But they are capable of being self sufficient.

This is a real whiny op-ed column. This is an elected official, right? Wow.
Evan Wynn came to a meeting I attended with educators a week before his supporting Gov. Walker's Act 10. He called himself an independent, and a person willing to work with the other side. He also stood behind the Gov as he signed Act 10. He will not be forgotten in November.

ezone- let me ask you this - how does a women get pregnant? Why is ONLY the women forced to abide by a government imposed medical tests and 'counseling' yet the man goes around with no responsibility what so ever?
It takes two to make a baby yet government only holds the women responsible.

Yo ezoner you must be smoking something because you took my post and went off on it because of planned parenthood which was NEVER brought up by me. I'm talking about how non religious women who work for a religious employer. Planned parenthood was never mentioned. Proves how scrambled your repub brain is. It's the walker tool - you know the one who stands for less government - that has impossed a battery of medical tests and appointments forced on a women because she wants to end a pregnancy. And thirdly which rock have you been under if you don't know what viagra is and that it IS paid for by religious employers - you know the ones who won't pay for the pills to stop overian cysts.
You are a typical repub, Takes a well worded post and rants about something not even in the post, then plays stupid when asked why repubs are rasist, dominating, and controling a certain group of people - women.

wiggle -- keep ranting as you spew the far left rhetoric and fear. NOTHING of what you have said is true. NOTHING. Defunding planned parenthood has absolutely NO effect on women getting the care they need. The question is WHO pays for it. As for the testing, I would let a doctor determine if the testing is required. That should be a decision between the doctor and patient. I do not want the government involved at all, frankly its none of the governments business, its a privacy issue. You are mixing things -- I am not aware of the government paying for little blue pills anywhere. If they are, that should end as well. But supporting planned planned parenthood vs government funding it are 2 separate discussions.

Quote:"We're helping him(Walker), as we should," David Koch said. "We've gotten pretty good at this over the years. We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more."

fear- fighting the war on intelligence, you are truly misinformed and a reapeater. Time to grow up and get a clue.

When all else fails and you run out of thoughts just type bush's fault, union haters, fox news, rush, hannity...

bebe- fighting the war on intelligence, you are truly misinformed and a reapeater. Time to grow up and get a clue.

bebe- to your rhetorical questions about education, I am no expert, I volunteer in classrooms because I care about education, teachers, and the kids. I also have a lot of family members who pour their hearts and souls into their careers as teachers. They have their professions degraded by idiot politicians and their disciples, which you are clearly one.
Is education perfect? Absolutely not, I have never said it is if you could actually read you would discover that I have said so repeatedly. WHat would I change? I would have a fair un biased evaluation system for teachers(possibly a third party) , one that would COST MONEY. Thats the problem isnt it? Cheapskates dont want to spend money on anything , never invest to make improvements. You want schools to be run like a business, yet you dont want to invest in them like a business should. When the teachers make it through the evaluation, pay them WELL, not this nickel and dime crap. Include great benefits as a part of their compensation. (including a nice pension)
I would also include TEACHERS in decision making when it comes to curriculum, possibly a sub-committee on what to teach and give them more freedom to teach as they see fit. Too many unqualified administrators and school boards are having too much to do with what the kids are being taiught in the way of curriculum.
Last but certainly not least, hold parents accountable for not participating and being a part of their kids education. Unfortunately there are so many parents who just think schools are tax payer funded daycare and that educating your kids ends at 330 pm and they can just use video games to babysit their kids. Parents are a FAR larger problem that teachers when it comes to negative impact on education. If a kid gets 2 bad teachers in their k-12 education that is a minority, unfortunately if your parents are worthless it doesnt matter how many great teachers yyour child gets , they will be destined to fail because their parents are lazy as can be!! Personal responsibility starts at home, not at school, it should just carry over to school.
Bad parents have bad kids. Parents should be the main influence on their kids, not teachers.

Obama may not deserve a second term, but he will certainly get one. Romney has NO chance of beating him. You keep running with the issues you blather on about, see if any of them are winnable. We are out of Iraq, the biggest failure of a war in American history aside of Vietnam. Osama Bin Laden is DEAD something GWB failed to accomplish in 8 years. We will soon be leaving Aghanistan , another failure of a war that cost needless American lives and has kept us there for longer than World War 1 and 2! And you would bark about Iran and N Korea as if we should just march into war there? I applaud them for diplomacy.
The republicans want Obama out so bad and the candidate is Romney?Epic Fail! While hopeful conservatives may see tight polls and think its going to go either way. Obama cleans up in the electoral college. He can thank that idiot Governor in Ohio for that. Ohio is 8+ points for the pres and without both FL and OH romney is losing now in both states. Not to mention WI ,CO, and others that will fall to Obama, ROmney is a joke and so are your points.

Omg bebe you are so silly, silly, silly. First off , unlike you some of us have a social life. Between your 100 hour work weeks , and the rest of your time on the Gazette blogs, its a wonder how you even sleep. It more seems your "conservative" ideals have you marching down the road to insanity.
I must first address your really rhetorical simple minded attacks at Obama, whom I do not support for re-election, are just completely based in the world of pro-wrestling. So let me break it down for you.
First, only an idiot would relate the secret service prostitution issue to him, are you kidding me?? These are ex-military generally disgracing the country, wht does that have to do with Obama?? Of course if an earthquake hits LA it will be his fault too. your lack of brain power has never been more astounding.
you have been working too much again if you can seriously blame unemployment on Obama, especially when the economy was shedding 800k jobs a month when he took the oath. I firmly blame the economic situation on previous administrations especially the previous one which was the worst in AMERICAN HISTORY. Failing to mention the Bush Admin were the ones who bailed out the banks to the tune of 1 trillion dollars, assissted with Clinton in de-regulating the banks to the point of the housing collapse. The FACTS get in the way of your brain. 24 months of private sector job growth?? Dont let facts get in the way.
Record defecits? FALSE , try that lie on someone who doesnt do their homework. The record defecit was FY 2009 the final year of the Bush travesty, and of course they never budgeted for those pesky little wars in the middle east. So bark and whine about whatever you like you are full of it on this as well as every other issue.
I have already kicked your tail on the health care debate. I do not support "Obamacare", HOWEVER, anything is better than what we have. People like you complaining about education costing so much for lower than expected results. Where is your outrage for the MOST expensive health care system on Earth , that ranks LOW on every single ranking. Our system is expensive, it is inefficient and quite frankly is immoral. I thought you were a conservative? Arent conservatives supposed to be moral people? Guess not. Like any other issue you spew rhetoric and it means nothing. For all those hours you work, you sure do repeat the rantings of the Fox News weasel Hannity quite well.
You arent a conservative, you are just a puppet who maybe because of his fictional long work weeks has not time to think with your brain, so you just use Sean Hannity's.

Walker may well get re-elected, but thankfully he will no longer have legislative passes as the senate will no longer be in republican control.

poohbah.... I think Glenn Grothman has quite a handle on this issue.... Just another rocket scientist moving Wisconsin forward.ughh

One other thing - that lil blue pill for men covered by insurance is not for a medical necessity - like stoping a life threating condition. It's for pleasure only, like booze.
I don't feel that lil blue pill is serving any medical need. The ONLY need to fix the male problem this pill is for is to have children, period, but getting pregnant can be done in many medical ways now adays, the pill isn't needed. Besides there will be an overload of unwanted kids in orphanages if religion is forced on people. Oh my think of all the whinning the repubs will be doing because kids are having sex and have no way to prevent getting pregnent and who will be supporting all these kids? TAXPAYERS
I would love to know how many single Catholic men are allowed to get this pill paid for by insurance. If religion tells women no sex until marriage at whatever age, why not have the same rules for men at whatever age? Also no insurance coverage for a med made ONLY for pleasure and nothing else.

Ezoner says "They figure out through life experience and the knowledge they have gained that government cannot be trusted and that the free market is realy the answer and that the collective approach (socialism) does not work."
-
So why do you support all these govenment laws about women needing special "exams, talks, tests". Is that not taking away her freedom? Government forced medical procedures only for women. Your ignorant if you think THAT is not racist.
I am a Christian, I have my views on abortion and birth control, they are MY views. I have friends who believe in evolution not God, I have friends who are not Christian in faith, yet you feel it's ok to force these women to follow your beliefs and back up these COMMUNISM laws. Dude you really need to stop drinking what ever it is that is destroying your brain.
What I don't understand is how the repubs put all the responsibility of getting pregnant on the women, yet don't provide a med that prevents it. If I remember how my kids were born my MALE partner had 50% to do with it. So when a women wants to end the cell growth inside HER body she is forced by the Christian government to go through several medical tests and talks, yet the MAN who got her in that situation has NO responsibility what so ever.
I say lets stick tubes up the male organs and take ultrasounds of they're test*** etc. It's only fair, right Repubabies?
Oh but lets hand out lil blue pills for the men's "medical" short commings and make insurance cover it, but when a women needs meds to stop cysts which cause cancer - NO WAY! Five female members of my family have gotten overian cancer from such cysts but Catholic employers would rather the women suffer and more than likely die then provide them with the meds needed to stop the cancer risk. Republicans are racist for backing up these discriminatory laws.
What does the term "seperation of church and state" mean to you repubs?
To me it means I will not force another human being to live or practice MY religion. That's freedom, But when the government forces their religious beliefs turned into laws on someone of a different religion that equals domination.

The war on Women. The war on unions. The war on teachers. The war on education. The war on seniors. The war on the poor. The war on the middle class. The war on..... ok, enough already! Get some fresh rhetoric, will ya!

whz_bng said, "That said, most employers do not discriminate."

whz_bng, there are many, many reasons why women make only 3/4 of their male counterparts, but study after study, even those doing same job surveys, all result in the same statistics showing the disparity. There's no way we can say most employers do not discriminate when statistics show such widespread disparity. The statistics suggest just the opposite -- that most employers do discriminate, even if unknowingly doing so.

"Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts." [ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/... ]

Back on topic, pay equity was never part of the bill, it was all about compensatory damages. There would likely be very few employers coming to Wisconsin if they had to pay $300,000. in damages on top of the back wages and int. for every suit filed. This was a poor law and laid a second tier of litigation on employers. That said, most employers do not discriminate. Only the lawyers win.

Funny Vato! Agreed!! Noyt a Falk supporter at all. She just rubs me the wrong way. My family had some run ins with her in Dane county on several levels. She is an opportunist, never liked her.
Vato, who you wanna be ? Ricky Steamboat? I was tinking Macho Man for you.

bebe, with his 100 hour work weeks, would have to be James Brown -- the hardest working man in show biz. Whoa, I feel good!

fear, they remind me more of "The Very Capable Kenny Jay." Good old "Sodbuster" Kenny Jay -- the guy who would be winning every match -- despite being much smaller and much weaker -- until he made some unfortunate last second mistake that would cost him the match. Ahahaha.

Everyones old friend RAF is like the Bill Orielly/Hulk Hogan of the outfoxed crew. Take heed necks!

Kaystew? Thats harder, I see him as more of a King Kong Bundy type, or maybe Bam bam Bigelow. No front teeth and biker tatoos. I love prejudging people, makes me feel like my old republican self.

Bebe the 100 hour a week worker (ROFLMMFAO) must be more of a Hacksaw Sean Hannity fan. If you REALLY work that much(doubtful) that would explian your ignorance Hacksaw.

Ezoner who is your favorite wrestler? I am guessing you are a little older so it must be Ric Flair? Or is it the ladies Champ, Greta Van Sustren?

Ezoner- all you do is rpeat, repeat, repeat. Libs , far-left, unions, socialist. Your posts are as predictable as bebe and rush Limbaugh. Which is sad because there was a time that I considered you a reasonable foe. Now I JUST SEE YOU AS A PRO-WRESTLING FAN.
I really have a hard time not joining in the name calling when we have so many labellers and repeaters on these blogs. Unfortunately it seems that I only need to tune into hannity, rush , etc. to hear the points of Ezoner, Bebe, kay, etc. I personally have had decent converstaions with Vato, and even ezoner when he/she can step away from the rhetoric. Otherwise you are just a bunch of mouth breathing, boogereating, pro-wrestling fans who think that when on opponent suggests a regulation or a law its socialism, but when your network, um I mean party, does the same its morally justified. I have never been prouder to be a former member of the Republican party. Most of you are truly unenlightened individuals and about as simple minded as they come.

This isnt evan news --- Heres some news.... The libs cant even wage a war correctly...

Panetta and the White House have publicly ridiculed troops for taking and posting pictures of dead Afgan Insurgents -- Actually -- we SHOULD post them everywhere. This is what happens to you if you are supporting terorist organizations.

kaysbrew said, "Walker, up by 5 points"

So, let's see, that means he now has a 6% approval rating.

Here you go, kaysbrew. [ http://tiltedkilt.jobdigtracker.com/care... ] You missed the one in the middle. I've got my bagpipes packed. Road trip?

Walker, up by 5 points

http://schaumburg.tiltedkilt.com/

I don't think these hard working men are incognito. Thanks for the good laugh. Liberals, always make my day on this site.

kaysbrew said, "...while the 14 fleeb's visits short kilt skirts pub in Illinois."

Men in short kilts in a pub! What do you think, kaysbrew, road trip? I'll bring the bagpipes, you bring the hot air.

For anyone looking for a good laugh, visit some left sites waging war on Walker staffer for working her way through college (at Hooter's) -while the 14 fleeb's visits short kilt skirts pub in Illinois. Mitt put his dog on the roof 30 years ago that evil man, why didn't he just eat it like Obama did as his wrote about and talked about in his first book. Liberal Hyprocrisy is always a good laugh.

Oh, and turrets is wild over Walker beating Barrett by 5 points. All that money and all that hatred and they haven't moved any needle from the 2010 outcome.

Fear -- the gender gap is actually pretty easy to figure out.... The far left works everyday to re-write history in the books kids read, they have control of the unions and the educators, young minds are so easily fooled by the lies, miss-direction and deception by the left -- while later in life, as they grow, they develop their own opinions and realize that they were lied to for years. They realize how hard they have worked to only give up their hard earned success, wealth and effort to feed government agencies like GSA and pay for agenst that "Love You Long Time". They figure out through life experience and the knowledge they have gained that government cannot be trusted and that the free market is realy the answer and that the collective approach (socialism) does not work.

Yeah third eye , they know something, keep fighing the war on chocolate milk. Keep watchin Fox and pro-wrestling, because they are both real.
What I absolutely hate is the over use of the word war by the WWF(Fox News) for anything they wish to sensationalize(sugary drinks, etc....). I hate the left using the whole "war on women" rhetoric as well. I think that the case could easily be made that to be a republican is to be a chauvenist , without using the war term. Maybe some women believe that they are being discriminated by these people and they feel as if they have had war declared on them by people supporting less pay, less health care oprions, etc... I dont know, I am not a woman. I feel for them in this country, with this environment and the "good ol boys" party having so much power being propigated by the good ol boys network(WWF) calling wars on chocolate milk important yet ridiculing a war on women? And you people cant figure out the republican's struggles with the gender gap?

Fear -- I would be careful with the redneck and Mississippi comment and wrestlers --- I believe the state the elected a wrestler and a wanna be worst comic alive was right next door in Minnesota.

The democrats use hatred as a tool to win at any cost. Do every thing and any thing to change this country into a socialist or communist controlled government, thats their motto.

fearandrhetoric4dummies Apr 17, 2012 at 10:47 p.m. QUOTE "The funny thing is that so many bright people fall for the Fox News brand as being legit." End Quote
Maybe the bright people know something you don't.

Evan Wynn is just a puppet. Yawn.....

oneday,
Jon Stewart hits the nail on the head yet again with that piece. The Battle for the War on Women. Brilliant!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-g...

Typical no2 all troll no substance.

"distraction and obfuscation"

They should hire you and throw in a squirrel suit, RAF.

When the current administration has nothing to show for a record the only game left in town is distraction and obfuscation. Look Squirlllll--->>>

I know who I'm not voting for in the next election....and I dislike the redistricting as well...Rep. Wynn does not represent me...

Omg the daily show? Fox news is as credible, but which one cares about credibility and which one makes the other look ridiculous. Funny thing is that the supposed most powerful name in news gets made took look like the wwf by a 30 minute comedy show? Keep on watching necks.

Actually I watch Jon Stewart more than any of the pathetic news networks when it comes to TV, why? Because the guy is smarter than any of them and hammers them all. Tonight he talked about how Fox News commentators have not recognized the "war on Women" yet he showed 20 clips of every single Fox Commentator talking about Wars on Chocolate milk, War on sugary drinks, war, on haloween, war on santa, war on poinsttias, war on fall holidays, war on Easter, war on Haunekkah, war on fossil fuels, war on the constitution, war on ladies night,war on fisherman,war on food, war on spuds. The funny thing is that so many bright people fall for the Fox News brand as being legit. The reason I love the daily show, is because they point out over and over the re-use of the same catch phrases, now it seems there is a war on........__________(Fill in the blank). Yet a woman being forced into a trans-vaginal ultrasounds, AZ legislature forces women to prove they are using BC pills for medical reasons to employers, Mississippi criminalizes abortion, Pensiylvania requires a sonogram before abortions, in Arizona doctors wouldnt face a lawsuit if they didnt inform parents about any risks the unborn child may face.Yet people like hannity and others on Fox are so insulted that there seems to be a :War on Women"? Especially when Fox seemingly has declared war on..........everything else? Oh thats right I forgiot they now have proclaimed a war on Conservative women!!! How can anyone not be thouroughly entertained by these people. Honestly I am starting to compare Fox News to the WWF. A TON of people think its real , but really its just a bunch of steroid freaks dancing around in their undies saying really stupid things that rednecks and old people believe to be true! Is anone gonna tell me that The Rock or John Cena couldnt win a primary in Missippi or Oklahoma?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ap...

While you guys all go back & forth as to who caused this mess FLOTUS is apparently letting us all know the 2nd coming is upon us..

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mich...

Janesvillean - I thought it was the right that tagged Obama the Messiah? huh, guess you were wrong about that one too! Maybe your just not as smart as you'd like us all to believe you are.

@npleft- Your comments equal kind of a major conceptual leap but, okay, if you say so.

Mouse @2:04 and2:06 pm, I usually don't entertain trolls, but I'll make an exception here.
First of all I did not ignore your Haliburton (et al) comments. I called them stale talking points because they have been discussed previously and unless you have NEW information no minds will be changed by further discussion.
Secondly, you ignore the fact that while the Republicans control the house (since 2010) most of the bills they have passed have been stopped by the DEMOCRATS in the senate.
I will now impose rule IDtenT. (write it down)

An alert citizen is now blaming Obama's failures on Richard Nixon. What a bunch of maroons!

@bebe- I believe your buddy vataloco just gave you the answer you were looking for, and so eloquently too.

Wynn says he'd never support the repeal of the Federal Equal Pay Act enacted in 1963. So why did he repeal the state's Equal Pay Act of 2009? I thought Wynn was for state power and control. Part of SB202 was Act 219. Act 219 repealed the ability to allow people to seek punitive damages in state court while alleging employment discrimination. Instead, Wynn sided with the WMC and the WHC - Woman Haters Club.

@vata- The "demorats" as you call them have only held the Presidency for 15 of the last 43 years. How do excuse the other 28 years of Republican presidents since the LBJ years. Can't wait to hear your excuses for them. It would seem to me that the great works of Republican Prsidents should have been more sustainable or, if they were so effective, they wouldn't have lost the office.

why_think: said: "Do you realize, that it is a FACT, that after 8 years of a Republican as president this country faced the greatest economic disaster since the great depression?How can anything happening since be "screwed up" based on the facts?.
Perhaps the republicans can claim that a republican recovery to their economic disaster would have happened more quickly and cost less money. How can anyone believe that? Why would anyone believe that?.
I voted for GW twice. I was never a partisan but instead voted for the person I thought would best represent my values and put the country on the best direction. After 8 years of GW I was forced to become partisan. I still believe I am open to the Republican Party if the Republican party ever comes back to reality and works for middle-class and yes, even poor Americans..
The day an article about Made in America is posted on the Gazette and the average Republican declares, yes, we should all support our neighbors instead of corporations sending our neighbors jobs overseas, is the day I re-consider the republican party.
.
Until then, Obama - 4 MORE YEARS!"

FINALLY!.. THANK YOU! Why_think, great post and I am with you 100%!!!!!!!!

Mouse @1:35 pm. I repeat myself, "The FACT is the economy tanked after the DEMOCRATS gained control of the House and Senate in 2006."
Other than demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension the remainder of your post was name calling and stale talking points.

Third_eye, the republican agenda (Contract on America, Bush tax policy, trickle-down economics) that is destroying the nation including the debt expanding no tax-borrow only pledge signers that controls the GOP are all still in play. Obama and the democrats have not been able to purge the system of this scourge. I do blame some of the dems (blue dogs) for that - they have become complicit with America's enemies.

Regarding the article, let's go back to a famous quote from the 1990's,
"It's the economy, stupid"
Almost everything that the left throws out there that does not have to do with the economy is a 'strawman' issue.

why_think Apr 17, 2012 at 12:09 p.m. Still blaming Bush after 4 years?
The FACT is the economy tanked after the DEMOCRATS gained control of the House and Senate in 2006. From 2008-2010 Democrats held all of the political power. In all the Democrats have had almost 6 years to fix the economy. Are you better off than you were 6 years ago?

kaysbrew said, "Now that Romney seems to be the GOP candidate."

I would like to thank Republicans for even considering nominating the father of socialist "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts, the architect of the foundation of socialist "ObamaCare" -- Willard Mitt Romney! A self-proclaimed moderate -- and we all know how liberal Massachusetts moderates are -- Willard Mitt Romney! A man that describes his views as progressive and claims he is not a partisan Republican -- yes, Willard Mitt Romney! A person who clearly states he is not trying to return to the Reagan-Bush policies -- Willard Mitt Romney! So we have a Democrat liberal socialist running against a "not partisan Republican" progressive socialist. We socialists can't lose, now can we, kaysbrew?

"I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican — that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive." - Willard Mitt Romney

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." - Willard Mitt Romney

"The reason is simple: Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn't." - Rush Limbaugh

"He was running to the left of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994." - Newt Gingrich on Willard Mitt Romney

"He ran to the left of Ted Kennedy." - Rick Santorum on Willard Mitt Romney

The far left nutballs on this site are amazing -- they cant even see the truth. Another 4 years of Obama and we will all be in cheese lines. He now wants to take over the oil industry. The biggest issue that caused the depression was over regulation. Its price fixing -- unless the government regulates it or sets the price. It a monopoly -- unless the government picks the winners and gives them the power via regulation. The country is for sale with this president and we are seeing a fire sale of our assets before he leaves. It will get very dark if he wins. This guy is out to completely destroy capalism in any way shape or form in the US. I am surprized he didnt declare marshall law against the Tea Party and I am certain he considered it. These guys are basically the most corrupt group to ever be in power.

How can anyone say Obama hasn't screwed up the country? What has the guy really accomplished that's good? Everything he touches turns to crap: Olympics bid, healthcare reform, housing market, gas prices, deficit, Iran, North Korea. The guy is a born loser!

So why does Representative Wynn believe ANY worker who faces discrimination will be better served by forcing them to address their grievances ONLY in federal court instead of the more accessible and less costly state circuit court? That's not just a war on women, its a war on EVERYONE who faces discrimination in the workplace. Although, Representative Wynn is certainly qualified to explain the finer points of presenting "straw" arguments.

With likely voters Romney is beating Obama 2 out of 3 polls and tied in the 3rd. Now that Romney seems to be the GOP candidate. Obama, "pack your bags"

bebe,
How can you honestly say Obama has, "screwed up" the country?
.
Do you realize, that it is a FACT, that after 8 years of a Republican as president this country faced the greatest economic disaster since the great depression?
.
How can anything happening since be "screwed up" based on the facts?
.
Perhaps the republicans can claim that a republican recovery to their economic disaster would have happened more quickly and cost less money. How can anyone believe that? Why would anyone believe that?
.
I voted for GW twice. I was never a partisan but instead voted for the person I thought would best represent my values and put the country on the best direction. After 8 years of GW I was forced to become partisan. I still believe I am open to the Republican Party if the Republican party ever comes back to reality and works for middle-class and yes, even poor Americans.
.
The day an article about Made in America is posted on the Gazette and the average Republican declares, yes, we should all support our neighbors instead of corporations sending our neighbors jobs overseas, is the day I re-consider the republican party.
.
Until then, Obama - 4 MORE YEARS!

Wynn doesn't seem to be the only Republican with these Stone Age attitudes.

'Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman, who supports Gov. Scott Walker's repeal of a law that protected workers from pay discrimination, recently said, "You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious."' [ http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/opinion/fl... ]

I watched Fox news last week looking for their take on the frightening episode of the rocket launch by North Korea and the impact that could have on the world. Every other news channel was focused on that issue. Not Fox- they were talking about the " war on conservative women". I'm reading on this blog almost the exact words the moderators were using.I don't mind an occasional quote but these posters only parrot what they've heard by others.

Sounds like Rep. Wynn is waging a War on Reality.

I see so much misdirection on the part of the far left parrots on here that its shameful. Look -- I dont care for Romney -- have stated that over and over again... But Obama and the far left are outright full of it. Defunding planned parenthood, closes nothing. They are primarily privately funded and this would have little if any impact, they would only need to ramp up their donation program to replace the funding, and in all liklihood would end up with more donations. Most of the job loss after Obama took office has been women. The economy is rotten and inflation is rediculously ramping up... Have you seen the grocery bill? Fuel costs are driving a big portion of that as energy (fuel) is required to grow, harvest and process everything we consume from goods and services to food. The current energy plan is a joke. Look at the controversy surounding the secret service, the justice department etc.... All the left is trying to do is mis-direct. I would not be surprized to see a wag the dog senario -- where the admin will want a conflict this summer to take attention away from the economy and what the left is doing to its citizens. Will Romney be any better? Dont know -- but these guys have really messed things up.

Liberal women want to be college boys who get drunk every night with no responsibilities...only to eventually become Republican Congressmen.

Gandalf
Apr 17, 2012 at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal vataloco, asked, 'Where are the women that supported Bill Clinton's affair with Lewisnky?' What does that episode have to do with this nonsense written by a state Republican assemblyman?
.
Both Rush and Hannity cited the Clinton affair yesterday. Both, within the first hour of their show.
.
For Vat, that is enough to make it worth bringing up. Vat is just repeating the republican talking points because, at least on this issue, he lacks any original thought.

Stubby I agree that the war on women is exaggerated for political reasons. But I do think that the extreme right's fight to be the moral police and install christian values to everyone starts with an idea that men are the head of a household. It's a return to the 1950's when "things were better".

This article should come with a huge disclaimer at the top - stating that it is written by a tea-party puppet who helped pass the legislation. That said - I do think the "War on Women" is an exaggeration being played for political gain. The legislation is not as bad as the Democrats portray, but certainly not as innocent as Rep. Wynn would have you believe.

Rep. Wynn doesn't even know who lives within his assembly district.....

Wislady, the war on women wasn't waged just on liberal women. It's all women, yourself included.

Where is the outrage on the war that has been raging against conservative women?

Here's my problem. The same people that are claiming that there is no "war on women" are the same groups that are claiming there is a "war on Christianity". With the conservative fantasies that reproductive rights are best understood and bestowed to the lowly women by old men in suits, the regressive stance on sex education, (btw, what states have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rates? You guessed it, the ones with abstinence only eductation http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politic...), and the sad fact that women still make less than men for doing the exact same work says to me that putting the onus of responsibility on business to "do the right thing" has not worked.
Seems conservatives LOVE government when it suits their fact challenged ideology, but don't when bumps up against their belief.

Evan Wynn needs to study the law before speaking. Wisconsin passed the equal pay act to address serious access issues with the case law in the equal pay act. Primarily a ridiculous statute of limitations setting the time to file a claim shortly after hire, at a time when many women aren't yet aware the men are being paid more for the same work. So, yes, repealing a law that addressed a problem accessing the courts for discriminatory behavior does indeed make it harder for women to address equal pay issues. But the war on women is so much more, it's the determination to make sure our daughters don't learn about birth control, can't have privacy in thier doctor's examination room without a mandated conversation or mandated unnecessary and highly invasive procedure. It's Grothman getting on the media telling abused women to try and remember why they originally loved their husband and to work on the marriage and Grothman telling the world that money just means more to men and women don't care about it. It's also the hypocracy of the party. Republicans rammed through act 10 claiming that the budget couldn't withstand structural deficits, unions were evil protecting bad workers by having seniority pay systems and merit pay would reward good employees. Yet, as soon as they got it memos arrived with the notice that merit pay was now allowed but no one would actually get any. Then in the ultimate hypocracy within the same legislative session they pass a unfunded pay progression for district attorney's. Pay progression, a structural deficit compensation plan, based on seniority, to a union certified work group--but it is prodominately male.