On Janesville company to score big with Super Bowl
Posted on February 1 at 10:30 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Couldn't happen to nicer people! So happy for Cameron and Stephen. They are incredibly talented!
On Corner shop in Brodhead serves up more than a cup of coffee
Posted on July 24 at 7:20 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Love, love, LOVE Bullwinkles! They're the best kept secret in southern Wisconsin.
On Most People Like Obamacare when...
Posted on July 9 at 8:03 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
John, So, because "people will be getting checks,...the richest Americans are going to pay more taxes...Chicks will dig this," we should check our morals (not to mention intelligence and common sense) at the door? Really? The CBO has re-calculated the cost of this abomination and it increases the deficit. It is a tax on the middle class, when it was HOWLED from the oval office and from Mr. Obama's handlers that is was not a tax--until it was argued before the Supreme Court, of course. It was rammed through under false pretenses. What's not to like? Seriously, John, if you lean any further to the left you're going to fall over.
-
Oh, and if you're not responding to me because I don't use my real name, you already know who I am. I've e-mailed you twice using my real name. You've not bothered to respond either time. Blessings!
On "Risky business defying the law"
Posted on July 3 at 11:14 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
GaryP, Was this monstrosity presented to us as a tax on the People? No. In fact, it was emphatically, repeatedly shouted from the Halls of Congress and the Oval Office that it was NOT (sorry for the caps) a tax. And, yet, anyone with half a brain cell could see that it was--regardless of the lies that were told to the contrary. We The People have as much right to rise up against false representation as we do lack of representation. Fraud is fraud is fraud.
On "Risky business defying the law"
Posted on July 3 at 10:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
John, I might agree with you and your editor friend, were it not for the fact that ObamaCare was passed under false pretenses from beginning to end--which was affirmed by the Supreme Court last week with Mr. Robert's brilliant decision of calling the Act exactly what it is: a tax on We The People. The precedent has been set here historically, that when one is taxed without representation, one may rebel against the oppressive taxing body. Remember that little scuffle we had with King George III? If I remember my history, (and you'll just have to trust that I do) that started over taxation without representation. Nullification sounds exactly like the correct first step to me.
On Recall Election – 1 week from today and counting!
Posted on May 29 at 7:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
John, As a "political scientist...who is assessing our political culture and processes," how is it that you continue to blatantly ignore the will of WE THE PEOPLE who disagree with your version of Wisconsin's vision? The last election gave Wisconsin the governor that the majority of We The People wanted. And he has done what most of us desired and expected him to do. Yet, you still write as though this is some accident--some fluke. No, sir. This was the will of the People. And, I pray, will be proven to be so again on June 5th. At which time, I hope you will take off the blinders and acknowledge that "you the person," and your opinions, do not represent We The People.
On No to Jesus Candidate. What do YOU think?
Posted on January 9 at 10:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Interesting blog today. Kenneth Starr is someone I respect deeply and have done since he was president of Pepperdine University.
-
John, lumping Newt Gingrich's "pious" comment in with Rick Santorum's "Jesus" comment is comparing apples to oranges. While Santorum was clearing talking about religion, Newt was referring to Romney's continued self-righteous assertion that he is a Washington outsider, and as such, the only candidate worthy of the Republican vote. Newt's point was, but for failed campaigns, Romney would have been just as much an insider as the rest of the pack, and therefore to drop the "piety." That is hardly the same thing as Santorum's comment.
On WEA Trust seeks court validation of fund payouts
Posted on January 4 at 1:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Stubby, Because the early retirees who paid into the WEA trust for all of those years before they retired have a right to their money, (just like anyone else who paid into the Trust) whether their school district is still contributing to the Trust or not.
Page 1 of 40 | Next
On WE DEMAND A VOTE! Yes or no, but VOTE!!
Posted on April 11 at 10:38 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The Senate can vote, but they do not have the authority to change one word of the 2nd Amendment that gives us the right to keep and bear arms. That can only be done with the assent of both houses of Congress AND ratification of 2/3 of the States. This is a ridiculous waste of time and cannot be binding under the Constitution. Let the lawsuits begin!