https://blog.workingamerica.org/2013/07/31/a-nonpartisan-ethics-organization-just-named-the-worst-governor-in-america-the-contest-wasnt-even-close/
CREW is about as non partisan as the Tea Party.
They hide behind the fact that they are progressives and not Democrats. They only go after Democrats that are (too far gone to save).
IE Rangel and Weiner.
I would say that Michigan's governor is worse.
Detroit anyone?
CREW is about as non partisan as the Tea Party.
They hide behind the fact that they are progressives and not Democrats. They only go after Democrats that are (too far gone to save).
IE Rangel and Weiner.
I would say that Michigan's governor is worse.
Detroit anyone?
To quote Tony Soprano..."like him, they fuc*&^% love him."
I think he was named Republican of the year at the yearly Klan..errrrr...tea party meeting.
To quote Tony Soprano..."like him, they fuc*&^% love him."
I think he was named Republican of the year at the yearly Klan..errrrr...tea party meeting.
Leave it to the DJs to simplify everyone on the other side as either a racist or a moron.
I would say that the Kochs love Walker, not necessarily the GOP or Tea Party factions.
Leave it to the DJs to simplify everyone on the other side as either a racist or a moron.
I would say that the Kochs love Walker, not necessarily the GOP or Tea Party factions.
They lost jobs under the previous Gov. under Walker they have had a net gain in jobs, unemployment rate is the lowest in 5 years, turned a deficit into a surplus. Do they still have more to do and could it be better? Yes. Is it better than before Walker? Yes.
Where do you see they are not better than before Walker?
They lost jobs under the previous Gov. under Walker they have had a net gain in jobs, unemployment rate is the lowest in 5 years, turned a deficit into a surplus. Do they still have more to do and could it be better? Yes. Is it better than before Walker? Yes.
Where do you see they are not better than before Walker?
You know whats funny? So a couple of posters in here commented on why they like Walker and one stated why they like him as compared to Christie.
So look at the issues? Christie also went after unions, signed pro business legislation, reduced unemployment, reduced spending.
What is the difference? Walker signed legislation banning happy marriage. He also signed very restricive abortion laws. He has pretty much been a darling of the "Obama is an evil man bent on destoying America" montra that is embraced by the Tea Party.
But Christie is a RINO and Walker is not.
Moral of the story.... if you are loudly opposed to happy marriage, loudly anti-abortion of all kinds, and believe Obama is evil, you represent the modern Republican party.
You know whats funny? So a couple of posters in here commented on why they like Walker and one stated why they like him as compared to Christie.
So look at the issues? Christie also went after unions, signed pro business legislation, reduced unemployment, reduced spending.
What is the difference? Walker signed legislation banning happy marriage. He also signed very restricive abortion laws. He has pretty much been a darling of the "Obama is an evil man bent on destoying America" montra that is embraced by the Tea Party.
But Christie is a RINO and Walker is not.
Moral of the story.... if you are loudly opposed to happy marriage, loudly anti-abortion of all kinds, and believe Obama is evil, you represent the modern Republican party.
You know whats funny? So a couple of posters in here commented on why they like Walker and one stated why they like him as compared to Christie.
So look at the issues? Christie also went after unions, signed pro business legislation, reduced unemployment, reduced spending.
What is the difference? Walker signed legislation banning happy marriage. He also signed very restricive abortion laws. He has pretty much been a darling of the "Obama is an evil man bent on destoying America" montra that is embraced by the Tea Party.
But Christie is a RINO and Walker is not.
Moral of the story.... if you are loudly opposed to happy marriage, loudly anti-abortion of all kinds, and believe Obama is evil, you represent the modern Republican party.
You know whats funny? So a couple of posters in here commented on why they like Walker and one stated why they like him as compared to Christie.
So look at the issues? Christie also went after unions, signed pro business legislation, reduced unemployment, reduced spending.
What is the difference? Walker signed legislation banning happy marriage. He also signed very restricive abortion laws. He has pretty much been a darling of the "Obama is an evil man bent on destoying America" montra that is embraced by the Tea Party.
But Christie is a RINO and Walker is not.
Moral of the story.... if you are loudly opposed to happy marriage, loudly anti-abortion of all kinds, and believe Obama is evil, you represent the modern Republican party.
You know whats funny? So a couple of posters in here commented on why they like Walker and one stated why they like him as compared to Christie.
So look at the issues? Christie also went after unions, signed pro business legislation, reduced unemployment, reduced spending.
What is the difference? Walker signed legislation banning happy marriage. He also signed very restricive abortion laws. He has pretty much been a darling of the "Obama is an evil man bent on destoying America" montra that is embraced by the Tea Party.
But Christie is a RINO and Walker is not.
Moral of the story.... if you are loudly opposed to happy marriage, loudly anti-abortion of all kinds, and believe Obama is evil, you represent the modern Republican party.
If you noticed, I never said why I would vote for Walker over Christie, so if your comments are directed at me you are way off base. I never compared their policies on here or declared why I would vote for one over the other. I personally could care less about happy marriage or abortion as a policy for people running for office. Neither issue has an impact on my life and govt shouldn't be legislating marriage in the first place.
I like the things that you mentioned that Christie has done. I think he is a fiscal conservative which for me is the main thing I look at when voting. Walker is a fiscal conservative too. The main thing I don't like about Christie is his views on illegal immigration. Sorry Mr. Christie but you could not be more wrong when you say "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime".
You know whats funny? So a couple of posters in here commented on why they like Walker and one stated why they like him as compared to Christie.
So look at the issues? Christie also went after unions, signed pro business legislation, reduced unemployment, reduced spending.
What is the difference? Walker signed legislation banning happy marriage. He also signed very restricive abortion laws. He has pretty much been a darling of the "Obama is an evil man bent on destoying America" montra that is embraced by the Tea Party.
But Christie is a RINO and Walker is not.
Moral of the story.... if you are loudly opposed to happy marriage, loudly anti-abortion of all kinds, and believe Obama is evil, you represent the modern Republican party.
If you noticed, I never said why I would vote for Walker over Christie, so if your comments are directed at me you are way off base. I never compared their policies on here or declared why I would vote for one over the other. I personally could care less about happy marriage or abortion as a policy for people running for office. Neither issue has an impact on my life and govt shouldn't be legislating marriage in the first place.
I like the things that you mentioned that Christie has done. I think he is a fiscal conservative which for me is the main thing I look at when voting. Walker is a fiscal conservative too. The main thing I don't like about Christie is his views on illegal immigration. Sorry Mr. Christie but you could not be more wrong when you say "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime".
A net loss of jobs before Walker, a net gain under Walker. Isn't it better to have a net gain even at low paying jobs? The country as a whole has seen the median wage go down. More people in Wis are collecting paychecks and not unemployment under Walker than before.
He did not take away worker's rights, he restored them. He gave them the choice of staying with the union or opting out without getting fired by the union thugs. The people have spoken loudly by opting out and keeping more of their money rather than seeing it wasted on the political black whole that is unions. The union members still have the right to bargain for wage increases but this time they are capped (to inflation I believe??). This is a good thing for the people of Wisconsin, no more blank check to the unions that all tax payers have to pony up for.
What healthcare rights have women in Wisconsin lost? They can still have abortions.
Most of what you say has nothing to do with his governing ability or record.
A net loss of jobs before Walker, a net gain under Walker. Isn't it better to have a net gain even at low paying jobs? The country as a whole has seen the median wage go down. More people in Wis are collecting paychecks and not unemployment under Walker than before.
He did not take away worker's rights, he restored them. He gave them the choice of staying with the union or opting out without getting fired by the union thugs. The people have spoken loudly by opting out and keeping more of their money rather than seeing it wasted on the political black whole that is unions. The union members still have the right to bargain for wage increases but this time they are capped (to inflation I believe??). This is a good thing for the people of Wisconsin, no more blank check to the unions that all tax payers have to pony up for.
What healthcare rights have women in Wisconsin lost? They can still have abortions.
Most of what you say has nothing to do with his governing ability or record.
If you noticed, I never said why I would vote for Walker over Christie, so if your comments are directed at me you are way off base. I never compared their policies on here or declared why I would vote for one over the other. I personally could care less about happy marriage or abortion as a policy for people running for office. Neither issue has an impact on my life and govt shouldn't be legislating marriage in the first place.
I like the things that you mentioned that Christie has done. I think he is a fiscal conservative which for me is the main thing I look at when voting. Walker is a fiscal conservative too. The main thing I don't like about Christie is his views on illegal immigration. Sorry Mr. Christie but you could not be more wrong when you say "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime".
Oh, that explains it. You have fell hook, line, and sinker for the comments of a Governor that has no constituency that he needs to soeak to regarding illegal immigration, so no one will question him on it. He can talk all tough about those dark skinned immigrants to his 99% white population.
Th problem with that tough talk is it isn't based on reality. Statiing that someone is committing a crime by being here illegally is only that...talk,, same as when Dems intend on solving the problems of poverty by increasing the minimum wage by $1.
The real problem is what do you do with the people here illegally. If you say that the plan is to deport of all them (akin to saying they are here illegally), you are for a very expensive plan that is filled with red tape. They have to be detained at a cost, their status has to be determined, a determination has to be made as to family members, belongings have to be transported with them, and keep in mind, our borders are still not very secure.
Its a real expensive process that someone like Walker can talk tough about because he has no one to challenge his beliefs about the feasibility, costs, etc.
Christie has a better understanding because he is in an area where both his opponents and constiutuents undertand the implications.
If you noticed, I never said why I would vote for Walker over Christie, so if your comments are directed at me you are way off base. I never compared their policies on here or declared why I would vote for one over the other. I personally could care less about happy marriage or abortion as a policy for people running for office. Neither issue has an impact on my life and govt shouldn't be legislating marriage in the first place.
I like the things that you mentioned that Christie has done. I think he is a fiscal conservative which for me is the main thing I look at when voting. Walker is a fiscal conservative too. The main thing I don't like about Christie is his views on illegal immigration. Sorry Mr. Christie but you could not be more wrong when you say "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime".
Oh, that explains it. You have fell hook, line, and sinker for the comments of a Governor that has no constituency that he needs to soeak to regarding illegal immigration, so no one will question him on it. He can talk all tough about those dark skinned immigrants to his 99% white population.
Th problem with that tough talk is it isn't based on reality. Statiing that someone is committing a crime by being here illegally is only that...talk,, same as when Dems intend on solving the problems of poverty by increasing the minimum wage by $1.
The real problem is what do you do with the people here illegally. If you say that the plan is to deport of all them (akin to saying they are here illegally), you are for a very expensive plan that is filled with red tape. They have to be detained at a cost, their status has to be determined, a determination has to be made as to family members, belongings have to be transported with them, and keep in mind, our borders are still not very secure.
Its a real expensive process that someone like Walker can talk tough about because he has no one to challenge his beliefs about the feasibility, costs, etc.
Christie has a better understanding because he is in an area where both his opponents and constiutuents undertand the implications.
A net loss of jobs before Walker, a net gain under Walker. Isn't it better to have a net gain even at low paying jobs? The country as a whole has seen the median wage go down. More people in Wis are collecting paychecks and not unemployment under Walker than before.
He did not take away worker's rights, he restored them. He gave them the choice of staying with the union or opting out without getting fired by the union thugs. The people have spoken loudly by opting out and keeping more of their money rather than seeing it wasted on the political black whole that is unions. The union members still have the right to bargain for wage increases but this time they are capped (to inflation I believe??). This is a good thing for the people of Wisconsin, no more blank check to the unions that all tax payers have to pony up for.
What healthcare rights have women in Wisconsin lost? They can still have abortions.
Most of what you say has nothing to do with his governing ability or record.
A net loss of jobs before Walker, a net gain under Walker. Isn't it better to have a net gain even at low paying jobs? The country as a whole has seen the median wage go down. More people in Wis are collecting paychecks and not unemployment under Walker than before.
He did not take away worker's rights, he restored them. He gave them the choice of staying with the union or opting out without getting fired by the union thugs. The people have spoken loudly by opting out and keeping more of their money rather than seeing it wasted on the political black whole that is unions. The union members still have the right to bargain for wage increases but this time they are capped (to inflation I believe??). This is a good thing for the people of Wisconsin, no more blank check to the unions that all tax payers have to pony up for.
What healthcare rights have women in Wisconsin lost? They can still have abortions.
Most of what you say has nothing to do with his governing ability or record.
Oh, that explains it. You have fell hook, line, and sinker for the comments of a Governor that has no constituency that he needs to soeak to regarding illegal immigration, so no one will question him on it. He can talk all tough about those dark skinned immigrants to his 99% white population.
Th problem with that tough talk is it isn't based on reality. Statiing that someone is committing a crime by being here illegally is only that...talk,, same as when Dems intend on solving the problems of poverty by increasing the minimum wage by $1.
The real problem is what do you do with the people here illegally. If you say that the plan is to deport of all them (akin to saying they are here illegally), you are for a very expensive plan that is filled with red tape. They have to be detained at a cost, their status has to be determined, a determination has to be made as to family members, belongings have to be transported with them, and keep in mind, our borders are still not very secure.
Its a real expensive process that someone like Walker can talk tough about because he has no one to challenge his beliefs about the feasibility, costs, etc.
Christie has a better understanding because he is in an area where both his opponents and constiutuents undertand the implications.
I disagree with some of your points. Saying that someone broke the law by being here illegally isn't talk, it's the truth. They broke the law. It's unreasonable to think they we can deprt the 20-30 million illegals in this country, not going to happen. But at the same time you don't have to give them a darn thing. No welfare (yes prove you are legal when applying), no drivers licenes (not needed if they are here legally, they can use their foreign DL), and definitely no path to citizenship. EVER. Legal status is one thing but US citizenship should not be given to criminals or be for sale for a slight fine.
If ever convicted of a crime, bye bye, you are deported. None of this garbage that we have now where they are released back into society to steal, commit more DUI deaths, rape and murder more people. We need someone in charge that will have the backbone to be tough on these criminals while allowing more legal immigration to those who will add value to this country. Obama certainly isn't that guy, neither was Bush. Christie is not and I have no idea at this point if Walker would be. I'd need to look more into his immigration stance.
Oh, that explains it. You have fell hook, line, and sinker for the comments of a Governor that has no constituency that he needs to soeak to regarding illegal immigration, so no one will question him on it. He can talk all tough about those dark skinned immigrants to his 99% white population.
Th problem with that tough talk is it isn't based on reality. Statiing that someone is committing a crime by being here illegally is only that...talk,, same as when Dems intend on solving the problems of poverty by increasing the minimum wage by $1.
The real problem is what do you do with the people here illegally. If you say that the plan is to deport of all them (akin to saying they are here illegally), you are for a very expensive plan that is filled with red tape. They have to be detained at a cost, their status has to be determined, a determination has to be made as to family members, belongings have to be transported with them, and keep in mind, our borders are still not very secure.
Its a real expensive process that someone like Walker can talk tough about because he has no one to challenge his beliefs about the feasibility, costs, etc.
Christie has a better understanding because he is in an area where both his opponents and constiutuents undertand the implications.
I disagree with some of your points. Saying that someone broke the law by being here illegally isn't talk, it's the truth. They broke the law. It's unreasonable to think they we can deprt the 20-30 million illegals in this country, not going to happen. But at the same time you don't have to give them a darn thing. No welfare (yes prove you are legal when applying), no drivers licenes (not needed if they are here legally, they can use their foreign DL), and definitely no path to citizenship. EVER. Legal status is one thing but US citizenship should not be given to criminals or be for sale for a slight fine.
If ever convicted of a crime, bye bye, you are deported. None of this garbage that we have now where they are released back into society to steal, commit more DUI deaths, rape and murder more people. We need someone in charge that will have the backbone to be tough on these criminals while allowing more legal immigration to those who will add value to this country. Obama certainly isn't that guy, neither was Bush. Christie is not and I have no idea at this point if Walker would be. I'd need to look more into his immigration stance.
Sorry but you are wrong. Look up the decision written by U.S. District Judge William Conley. 20 or more need a permit. Additionally Walker has offered them the permit repeatedly by they have refused.
Sorry but you are wrong. Look up the decision written by U.S. District Judge William Conley. 20 or more need a permit. Additionally Walker has offered them the permit repeatedly by they have refused.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.