What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (4 Viewers)

tommyGunZ said:
Rich Conway said:
Meh, poll numbers just don't resonate with me any more. I get these calls all the time, and my only two responses are to either A) tell them never to call me again, or B) intentionally give stupid answers. I imagine most of the country uses response A. Doesn't that pretty much make these polls meaningless?
LOL. Is this real math, or math you use to make you feel better about yourself as a Republican?
I've been saying that most polls are garbage for years. Smart people don't waste time answering them.

And I'm not a Republican.

 
tommyGunZ said:
In light of Walker's recent reply of "I don't know" when asked if he knew what religion Obama was (or something, however you want to read that, he may have been saying that hey maybe we should get religion out of politics..... or not)....

...the Washington Post took a poll asking what religion Obama is:

Which of these do you think most likely describes what Obama believes deep down? Muslim, Christian, atheist, spiritual, or I don’t know.
"I don't know":

GOP - 29%

Indies - 47%

Demos - 26%

"Christian":

GOP - 9%

Indies - 16%

Demos - 45%

"Muslim":

GOP - 54%

Indies - 26%

Demos - 10%

"Aetheist":

GOP - 5%

Indies - 2%

Demos - 2%

"Spritual":

GOP - 3%

Indies - 9%

Demos - 17%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/25/scott-walkers-view-of-obamas-religion-makes-him-a-moderate/?postshare=1651424880388887

Now 54% muslim is a really high number for the GOP...

...but the I Don't Know camp for the Demos is just as high, and 45% "Christian" by Democrats is not exactly a big number either.
Walker should know better than the general public. You and I both know that Walker knows Obama is a Christian, and that his "I don't know" answer was pandering to the stupid people in his party. Why Re you trying to defend this nonsense?
I'm not trying to defend anything, I just thought the poll results were interesting. 45% of Democrats think Obama is a Christian, that's not a lot either. Cstu(not exactly a raving rightist) pointed out in another thread he thought Obama was an agnostic, I don't think that's that crazy, but yes I agree and know he is a Christian. If anything IMO he quotes scripture too much.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In light of Walker's recent reply of "I don't know" when asked if he knew what religion Obama was (or something, however you want to read that, he may have been saying that hey maybe we should get religion out of politics..... or not)....

...the Washington Post took a poll asking what religion Obama is:

Which of these do you think most likely describes what Obama believes deep down? Muslim, Christian, atheist, spiritual, or I don’t know.
"I don't know":

GOP - 29%

Indies - 47%

Demos - 26%

"Christian":

GOP - 9%

Indies - 16%

Demos - 45%

"Muslim":

GOP - 54%

Indies - 26%

Demos - 10%

"Aetheist":

GOP - 5%

Indies - 2%

Demos - 2%

"Spritual":

GOP - 3%

Indies - 9%

Demos - 17%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/25/scott-walkers-view-of-obamas-religion-makes-him-a-moderate/?postshare=1651424880388887

Now 54% muslim is a really high number for the GOP...

...but the I Don't Know camp for the Demos is just as high, and 45% "Christian" by Democrats is not exactly a big number either.
Walker should know better than the general public. You and I both know that Walker knows Obama is a Christian, and that his "I don't know" answer was pandering to the stupid people in his party. Why Re you trying to defend this nonsense?
I'm not trying to defend anything, I just thought the poll results were interesting. 45% of Democrats think Obama is a Christian, that's not a lot either. Cstu(not exactly a raving rightist) pointed out in another thread he thought Obama was an agnostic, I don't think that's that crazy, but yes I agree and know he is a Christian. If anything IMO he quotes scripture too much.
Agnostic? I'd put him in the "I don't care one way or the other" camp. He may be Christian, but it would be a very disinterested Christian. The thought that he is Muslim is silly, though.

 
Obama was a member of Trinity UCC for 20+ years, he's a Christian. What's ironic is that he's gotten into this little game himself by claiming that terrorists and ISIS are not really "Muslim." Some here claim that Westboro Baptists and types like that aren't really "Christian." That's a dangerous game all around IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meh, poll numbers just don't resonate with me any more. I get these calls all the time, and my only two responses are to either A) tell them never to call me again, or B) intentionally give stupid answers. I imagine most of the country uses response A. Doesn't that pretty much make these polls meaningless?
LOL. Is this real math, or math you use to make you feel better about yourself as a Republican?
I've been saying that most polls are garbage for years. Smart people don't waste time answering them.

And I'm not a Republican.
Oh come on.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Sand said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Obama was a member of Trinity UCC for 20+ years, he's a Christian.
But, you know, he never heard a word that was said.
You've essentially been wrong about Obama for what, 6-7 years now? At what point do you look in the mirror and say, "maybe all the conservative economic dogma I believe in isn't as true as I thought it was"?
Oh please. He said in this video that he basically never listened to Jeremiah Wright. So if he did attend church regularly there he didn't listen much.

If anything if there is one thing I think I am right on here it is on this part - he doesn't attend church regularly now, nor do I think he attended regularly in Chicago. I do think he is Christian, just not a very interested one.

I don't see how that is controversial or disparaging. Nor really indicative of his moral state.

 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus said:
"Freedom to Work" law signed this morning. Freedom!!!
Not sure how they sell this as granting greater economic liberties to their base, but I guess they did vote for Walker after all....

 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
"Freedom to Work" law signed this morning. Freedom!!!
Not sure how they sell this as granting greater economic liberties to their base, but I guess they did vote for Walker after all....
I'm sure this plays very well with his base. Its a bit of a tricky issue for him given his statements about private unions in the past, but I think "right to work" is very much consistent with everyone's expectations of Walker and I'm sure it pleases his core constituents.

 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.
the fact that you can't just admit he was pandering is what's silly
 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.
the fact that you can't just admit he was pandering is what's silly
Isn't that a given? Of course he was pandering. He is a politician running a campaign. That is what they do. Are we supposed to be shocked and offended by this?

 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.
the fact that you can't just admit he was pandering is what's silly
Isn't that a given? Of course he was pandering. He is a politician running a campaign. That is what they do. Are we supposed to be shocked and offended by this?
nope, and nothing wrong with criticizing pandering wherever we see it.
 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.
the fact that you can't just admit he was pandering is what's silly
Isn't that a given? Of course he was pandering. He is a politician running a campaign. That is what they do. Are we supposed to be shocked and offended by this?
nope, and nothing wrong with criticizing pandering wherever we see it.
Nothing wrong with it at all, but about as useful as pointing out the sky is blue. I am also just pointing out all the phony outrage, which also is as expected.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.
the fact that you can't just admit he was pandering is what's silly
Isn't that a given? Of course he was pandering. He is a politician running a campaign. That is what they do. Are we supposed to be shocked and offended by this?
nope, and nothing wrong with criticizing pandering wherever we see it.
Nothing wrong with it at all, but about as useful as pointing out the sky is blue. I am also just pointing out all the phony outrage, which also is as expected.
i disagree, we've just grown numb to it.
 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People are seriously still discussing this? He gave a logical answer to a perfectly stupid question. First off, Christian is not a biblical term, the question should be if Obama is a believer in Jesus. The correct answer is that what is in his heart is for God to judge. There is nothing wrong with I don't know, it is biblical a proper response.
The reporter wasn't speaking Biblical; he was speaking English. "Christian" is a perfectly good English term.

And the correct answer is that Obama is an atheist Muslim who can't possibly be Christian, because only Americans can be Christian.
The correct answer as a "Christian" is still, "It is God's judgment as to what is in his heart. I am not to judge." I think it is very reasonable to question the truthfulness of anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. I am not sure what the issue is at all with Walker's answer. As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of atheists who are feigning to be offended about an answer to a question about a leader's faith which in secret they hope their leader is lying about, but are making an issue about an "I don't know" response which is actually the most logical response of all. It is just plain silly. Almost a CR8F level of silliness.
The problem with Walker's answer is that answers are supposed to be either boring or stupid -- not both.

Boring, non-stupid answer: "Of course Obama is a Christian. Everybody knows that."

Non-boring, stupid answer: "He says he's a Christian, but I think it's rather likely that he's secretly an atheist. He is an intellectual, after all -- and the worst kind: he's a former ivory-tower, university professor! Pretty much all of them are atheists, right?"

Boring, stupid answer: "I don't know."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How so? They'e so beholden to Soros and the Unions I don't see how this helps them.
I just meant the Koch money could help Walker get the GOP nomination. That would make Dems happy. He's no threat.
I'm not so sure about that. The raging left and the unions thought the same thing here in WI and he's steamrolled them 3 times in 4 years.

 
How so? They'e so beholden to Soros and the Unions I don't see how this helps them.
lol- guess you're not aware that ever since 2009 Soros has been trying to have meetings with Obama and has mostly been unsuccessful- he's considered persona non grata at the White House.

 
I think Scott Walker could easily be the GOP candidate- in fact, he is my favorite right now to win it (though the debates and other events will change things several times.)

I also think he could be a very dangerous candidate and could be elected, though winning Florida remains problematic.

 
How so? They'e so beholden to Soros and the Unions I don't see how this helps them.
I just meant the Koch money could help Walker get the GOP nomination. That would make Dems happy. He's no threat.
I'm not so sure about that. The raging left and the unions thought the same thing here in WI and he's steamrolled them 3 times in 4 years.
You call that last election steamrolled?

 
How so? They'e so beholden to Soros and the Unions I don't see how this helps them.
I just meant the Koch money could help Walker get the GOP nomination. That would make Dems happy. He's no threat.
I'm not so sure about that. The raging left and the unions thought the same thing here in WI and he's steamrolled them 3 times in 4 years.
You call that last election steamrolled?
He beat Barrett by more than Obama beat Romney or McCain. Both of which I've heard the left describe as obama crushing, dominating, steamrolling, etc his opponents.

 
How so? They'e so beholden to Soros and the Unions I don't see how this helps them.
I just meant the Koch money could help Walker get the GOP nomination. That would make Dems happy. He's no threat.
I'm not so sure about that. The raging left and the unions thought the same thing here in WI and he's steamrolled them 3 times in 4 years.
You call that last election steamrolled?
He beat Barrett by more than Obama beat Romney or McCain. Both of which I've heard the left describe as obama crushing, dominating, steamrolling, etc his opponents.
Well...I wouldn't have called any of them steamrolling...and Burke was about as bad of a candidate as possible.

 
How so? They'e so beholden to Soros and the Unions I don't see how this helps them.
I just meant the Koch money could help Walker get the GOP nomination. That would make Dems happy. He's no threat.
I'm not so sure about that. The raging left and the unions thought the same thing here in WI and he's steamrolled them 3 times in 4 years.
You call that last election steamrolled?
He beat Barrett by more than Obama beat Romney or McCain. Both of which I've heard the left describe as obama crushing, dominating, steamrolling, etc his opponents.
Well...I wouldn't have called any of them steamrolling...and Burke was about as bad of a candidate as possible.
3 Elections in 4 years, Conceal Carry, Act 10, Right to Work...all examples of steamrolling the liberals in this state. It's simply monumental all that he and the Republicans have accomplished - and it all started with Walker.

Hmmm... I know i'm missing something too to add to the list.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
3 Elections in 4 years, Conceal Carry, Act 10, Right to Work...all examples of steamrolling the liberals in this state. It's simply monumental all that he and the Republicans have accomplished - and it all started with Walker.

Hmmm... I know i'm missing something too to add to the list.
The last election was not a steamrolling.

It was a pretty narrow victory for him over a terrible candidate in Burke.

I think he has done some good things for WI...no doubt about that (he got to a few of them in pretty weasely manner though)...does not mean he is ready to lead this country. IMO, he is an awful choice. Telling that in the GOP thread I asked what was appealing about him other than fiscally. The best answer (or the only real answer) was that he could unite the base. Ooof.

 
I know it doesn't mean much since its 2015 but Walker winning isn't some astronomical feat in Wisconsin. Had the democrats had someone competent in the recall or this last election, Walker would have been out.

The only thing steamrolled was some of his policies that were passed through the Assembly and Senate. That's fine cause the Republicans won but some of the current shortfalls are going to come back and bite the Republican Party pretty hard if they don't get the ship righted. The economic policies with the tax cuts and then cutting education are right out of Bush's playbook just a decade ago. I hope what happened on a national level doesn't happens in our state. Fiscally, Walker has been crap because people can look at what has happened but are failing to even think about what will happen.

Walker lost many people when he decided to do what Iowa wanted him to do instead of what was good for Wisconsin. If some of what he wants to do does get done going forward, the pendulum will swing back quickly. And, if that Democrat is fiscally competent, the Dems will have power for awhile. Walker has failed fiscally and has shown he is mostly talk with little substance. If he gets far in the Republican debates he is going to be exposed big time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The special prosecutor's theories, rather than "assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people," Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished.
¶76 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor's legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.
It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a "perfect storm" of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a really good chance that the lawsuits against the prosecutor end up being successful IMO.
I know nothing of the facts or circumstances of this situation, but when has a lawsuit against a prosecutor been successful, ever?
It's very very rare and requires evidence of malicious prosecution. In this case, there is quite a bit of evidence that that's exactly what happened and the WI SC decision gives a lot of weight to that.

 
It probably wouldn't help Walker at the present time to emphasize this. I think he's got a real shot at the nomination, as good as anyone presently.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top