"People all say that I've had a bad break. But today ... today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. Now will you please hand me the pills, Doc? Enough's enough ...."
"People all say that I've had a bad break. But today ... today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. Now will you please hand me the pills, Doc? Enough's enough ...."
Shirley S. Abrahamson was born December 17, 1933, so on her next birthday she will be 78 years old. So all Gov Walker and the Wisconsin State Legislature need to do is set the Judicial Retirement Age to 78. Pretty simple, eh?
Wisconsin State Constitution, Article VII, Section 24, part 2: "Unless assigned temporary service under subsection (3), no person may serve as a supreme court justice or judge of a court of record beyond the July 31 following the date on which such person attains that age, of not less than 70 years, which the legislature shall prescribe by law"
Old Shirley turns 78 on December 17, 2011, so her last day on the Court would be July 31, 2012.
David Prosser turns 78 on December 24, 2020, so under the new retirement age of 78 he would have to leave the Court on July 31, 2021. But that's when his current term ends anyway.
The rest of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, with their birth dates and when their terms end. I'll let you do the math:
Please forward this to all the Wisconsin Republicans you know. Thanks!
Names changed so as not to embarrass anybody. My added commentary is in italics
Sally Kudos for the squashing of DADT. Serving in the military means you swear to protect the rights of ALL American's, including those who are LGBT....if you 're not mature enough to successfully serve along side a soldier who's sexual preference is different than your own, you are most likely not mature enough to carry a gun or defend our country with the honor and integrity necessary.
Kim as a vet, i thought DADT was ridiculous. everyone knew who was gay & some a-holes used DADT to get out even tho they were not gay. land of the free? really? it's about freakin time we got with the program
Tom McMahon All that sounds good, Sally, but in the end all it will do is create another layer of problems (like the thousands of pregnancies that occur with men and women serving together in close quarters) and turns another supposedly equal group into yet another protected class (like Ft hood killer Army Major Nidal Hasan in Muslim garb) that the military will have to turn a blind eye toward.
Joe The repeal of DADT won't change the number of gays in the military - they were always there, and just had to hide it. It's 2010 - nobody under the age of 40 cares anymore if somebody is gay or not. It just doesn't matter. Also, I'm not clear how gays are becoming a "protected" group here - what special treatment are they being allowed that other groups don't get? (You can tell Joe has never been in the military too)
Kim Tom, members of the opposite sex already serve together in close quarters - pregnancies happen (my first ship gave out expired birth control pills). i'm not sure why you are comparing gays & killers though, you lost me there.
Sally Kim: thank you so much for serving & being such a kick ass chick! :) (No thanks for me, even tho I served? Oh well ...)
Tom: You obviously woke up on the kooky side of the bed today. No worries. It happens. Last time I checked gay couples can't get pregnant. So......yeah. And isn't repealing DADT in a way unprotecting the gay community? I mean, by making them as equal as their peers, how is that making them then special? Oh....and don't compare good patriots to that murdering terrorist. What the hell? Being gay isn't the same as plotting to kill mass amounts of people. If that's truly what you think, tell Rebecca Bigotfisch I say hi. (Wow, that went downhill real fast)
Joe: Totally agree. I'm sorry....but I don't see how being gay makes anyone less of an American than not being gay. That's not the country I know & love.
Tom McMahon So Kim (inadvertently?) makes my point wrt adding an additional layer of problems to military life. "Equality of the sexes" sounds great in theory, but the end result in practice is thousands of pregnancies. Similarly, the repeal of DADT will create another layer of problems that the military doesn't face now.
The "protected class" problem is due to the current military bureaucracy and the political climate. The Army was afraid to take any action against Major Nidal Hasan even tho he was a nutcase because he was running around in Muslim garb. They were afraid to look like they were discriminating against Muslims, a protected class. And now we've created yet one more protected class.
Joe I mean, I do think there are some radical gay rights groups that are looking for a special protected status for homosexuals, the way that some minority groups have a special protected status. But DADT is about simply treating everybody equally. There's no reason to be afraid of gays. They're obsessed with sex... but so are the rest of us, haha. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2005/04/19/outing-ballpark
Joe: Tom, what are these "problems" that gays bring? The gay soldiers are ALREADY there - the only difference is that they can be honest about it. What is it that you think the gays will be allowed to get away with now that they couldn't get away with before the repeal?
And I second those who found it really offensive that you compared homosexuals to terrorists. I guarantee you that several of your friends are gay - are they terrorists, too?
Tom McMahon "And I second those who found it really offensive that you compared homosexuals to terrorists." Oh, please. Joe, if you're incapable of grasping my arguments, then there's no point to me wasting my time responding to your assertions.
Joe: You haven't made any arguments. You've made vague insinuations and compared gays to terrorists. Answer the question: what are the new "problems" that will exist?? Name one. It's 2010, not 1615. 10% of the population is gay. Get over it. (I let Joe get away with the long-discredited 10% figure for way too long)
Tom McMahon: "You've made vague insinuations and compared gays to terrorists." Joe, you're just stupid. (Hey, he earned it)
Joe You're already resorting to "You're just stupid"? Really? Have some confidence in yourself!
Give us an argument. Explain one way that the DADT repeal harms the military. Just one!
Tom McMahon The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay. We've heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved. I'll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.
According to Bradley's online chats, he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=399 (Quoting Ann Coulter here)
Tom McMahon Fish. Barrel. Boom!
Joe There are more than 100,000 homosexuals serving in the US military (how does he know?) , and because one commits treason you conclude that gays are more likely to commit treason? Is that a joke or was that serious?
Probably the most famous mole in the history of the FBI was Robert Hanssen, who spied for the Soviet for decades. He was heterosexual. Should we ban heterosexuals from the FBI? (The difference: Hanssen didn't become a spy **because** he was a heterosexual )
Benedict Arnold was a Christian. Should we ban Christians from the military? (ditto)
And by the way, the Bradley Manning case is exactly why the repeal of the DADT will make the military stronger. Here you have a homosexual who feels completely isolated because he can't talk to his fellow soldiers about what he was going through. Homosexuals face a lot of discrimination in this country, and it's really tough on them. The US military is basically the last place in the civilized world where you can't tell your friends you're gay. With the DADT repeal a person like Manning would be able to be open with his friends and he'd have been much less likely to act out. (Interesting logic)
Remember, DADT doesn't change how many gays are in the military. It just means that they can be honest with their fellow soldiers about it.
Joe Like I said, it's remarkable to meet somebody in the United States in the year 2010 that has the same attitude towards gays that most folks got over 100 years ago. I thought the only people who still have these views on gays live in Iran or Palestine.
Do you not understand that 10% of your friends and family are homosexuals? How would they feel to find out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists? (and there's that long-discredited 10% figure again)
Tom McMahon Joe, I think you would benefit from listening to Tammy Bruce ( http://www.tammybruce.com/ ) to loosen up a few of those preconceptions you're carrying around. It's like you're wearing glasses with bright red lenses and you think all the world is colored red.
Joe Preconceptions like what? That gays aren't all terrorists? Are you for real, or am I being punk'd or something?
Study after study shows that there is no measurable difference between heterosexuals & homosexuals. Intelligence levels are the same, parenting skills are the same, military skills are the same. Whether DADT exists or not, 10% of the military is going to be homosexual. You haven't even attempted to name one negative thing that will happen without DADT, because you know that none exist.
If you want to keep your mind in the 12th century and continue to believe that homosexuals are satanic atheist terrorists then go ahead, but don't act like there's any factual support for your bigoted views.
And you didn't answer my question. How will 10% of your friends and family feel when they find out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists? (and there's that long-discredited 10% figure yet again)
Tom McMahon Joe, everyone who disagrees with you isn't part of the Spanish Inquisition.
Joe It's not about disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that you're a bigot.
And you still refuse to answer my question: How do you think 10% of your friends & family will react to finding out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists? (and there's that long-discredited 10% figure one more time)
Tom McMahon You call me a bigot, then you wonder why I won't answer your questions? Priceless!!!!
Joe I'm not calling you a bigot, I'm just stating a fact. Assigning some negative quality to a large heterogeneous group of people is basically the dictionary definition of bigotry.
You don't answer the question because you don't have an answer: How do you think 10% of your friends & family will react to finding out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists? (You gotta give the guy credit. Once he starts using a bogus figure, he really sticks with it)
Tom McMahon First you call me a bigot, then you say you're not calling me a bigot. Whatever. But seriously, check out Tammy Bruce (http://www.tammybruce.com/ )
Joe I'm not *calling* you a bigot because it's unnecessary. It would be like calling the sky blue. I'm just about done with you, because it really is a pain to deal with people like you. Either answer the question or I'm done: How do you think 10% of your friends & family will react to finding out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists?
Tom McMahon You answer this one first: How do you think 100% of your friends & family will react to finding out that you're a dork? Then I'll answer yours
Joe My family & friends will be surprised to find out that I'm stupid. I guess I just conned some quality schools into giving me degrees. (For the benefit of the other alumni, I am leaving those schools unnamed) Go me. So will you now tell us how you think 10% of your friends & family will react to finding out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists?
Tom McMahon "So will you now tell us how you think 10% of your friends & family will react to finding out that you think they're deviant treasonous terrorists?" is simply another version of the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" Clever, but old old old. You never did check out Tammy Bruce ( http://www.tammybruce.com/ ) , did you?
Joe That analogy would only be true if you've already admitted to beating your wife. You have already claimed that homosexuals are sexual deviants, and you've already claimed that homosexuals are more likely to commit treason - you even claimed that Bradley Manning did what he did because he is gay. So how will the 10% of your family & friends that are homosexual feel about those beliefs? Answer the question. This truly is the last time I'm responding to your bigoted trash unless you answer the question. Answer it or I'm done. I feel like I need a shower every time I read one of your posts - it disgusts me that people like you exist.
Tom McMahon "You have already claimed that homosexuals are sexual deviants (I didn't), and you've already claimed that homosexuals are more likely to commit treason (Not true) - you even claimed that Bradley Manning did what he did because he is gay (hey, you got one right!). " And you know what's funny? All I said was that the repeal of DADT would create another layer of problems and create yet another protected class in the military. I never said I was against the repeal of DADT. But you were so busy looking for someone or something to be disgusted about that you never noticed it.
Joe Alright, that's it. Have fun at next week's Klan meeting. Bye!
Tom McMahon Joe, you must have skipped the Psychology class where they talked about projection. "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." -Elbert Hubbard
Sally Holy crumb. I didn't know all this was happening til now. Commentfest!
Your comments on the gay community in general are making me wonder what in the hell is going on. I lean right on a lot of issues, but one I will never stray from is equal rights for ALL American citizens. The reason Christian conservatives can't afford those basic rights to gays makes me shake my head every time and question the very foundation of the conservative movement. (It's obvious she never checked out Tammy Bruce)
Tom, your comments are disgusting and I'm ashamed for you. Comparing gays to the individuals you did is not only wrong, it's illogical and just....weird.
You know how upset I got when Rebecca Kleefisch compared gay citizens to dogs, tables & clocks. You went beyond that.
We will have to agree to disagree. But for the record, what Joe said is a reflection of my thoughts on the subject.
Gays are not terrorists in training out to getchya. They are tax paying, good American citizens. And gays in the military would DIE FOR YOU. No matter your feelings on them.
Tom McMahon Sally, you lost me when you called cancer survivor Rebecca Kleefisch "Rebecca Bigotfisch". And as I told Joe, everyone who disagrees with you isn't part of the Spanish Inquisition. Cool down a bit, read what I REALLY said (as opposed to what that excitable boy Joe said I said), give a listen to Tammy Bruce (better yet, buy a couple of her books), and have a Merry Christmas!
Tom McMahon And BTW, the 10% figure is a bogus one that originated way back with Kinsey. (Finally!)
Kim wow, i guess being white, christian, male, & hetero must rock. you don't have to worry about equal rights do you.
Tom McMahon Kim, we're peas in a pod! I've always found that insulting people that I'm trying to win over to my point of view works great too! ;-)
Sally Tom....I love ya....but don't insult my intelligence. I am fully capable to not only read the words you wrote but comprehend them as well. And your word's intentions weren't lost on me. (Sally, having shown absolutely no ability to comprehend the words I've written, now asserts her psychic ability to read minds)
Comparing a group of United States citizens to intimate objects does, in fact, fall into the definition of being a bigot. Whether you (quite publicly) survived cancer or not.
Tom McMahon "Comparing a group of United States citizens to intimate objects does, in fact, fall into the definition of being a bigot. " In point of fact, Rebecca Kleefisch never did that. Where do you get this stuff? Must be second-hand or third-hand info you're getting. Kinda like Joe's discredited 10% figure. Being so careless with the facts is not strengthening your position, Sally.
Sally Tom, are you drunk? It came STRAIGHT FROM HER MOUTH. Kay. Now I'm off to wrap gifts & get into the holiday spirit. Enough.
Tom McMahon You need to find an audio clip & url, otherwise I will have won! ;-) (I'm jerking their chain now)
Sally No Tom. You lost. In a most spectacular way.
Tom McMahon What fascinates me is that your side distorts the facts, distorts quotes, initiates ad hominem attacks, claims the moral high ground, and then declares victory. Like I said, fascinating. (I felt a need to wrap this whole thing up)
Sally Unless ignorance is a good color on you, Tom, stop it. No seriously, cut it out. It's Christmas for shit's sake. Time to be loving and nice....to EVERYONE. No matter their sexual orientation, what food they like to eat, if they're left handed or right handed or if the words they type make sense to them and only them. And to all a good night. Sheesh.
Tom McMahon "Time to be loving and nice....to EVERYONE." Except to folks who disagree with you. Since you're not yet ready to grasp the irony, I'll sign off. Merry Christmas!
Evidently they're quite touchy right about now. Here's what I got after commenting on a political post by a liberal I've gone back-and-forth with for several years:
Liberal Friend: You're able to make any comment you want at xxxxx, but I don't want your hateful rantings on my personal page. I really don't get you, Tom. It's like you're two different people. When you're talking pop culture, you have a sense of humor, but anything remotely touching your politics and you turn into a humorless, hateful jerk.
Me: I think you're just in a bad mood because of the election. And wouldn't "hate" be better applied to those (like xxxx) who discriminate against African-Americans? -Tom
Liberal Friend: No, Tom, it's because you've consistently disappointed me over the years. I see a flicker of humanity, and then you vomit your hateful bilge. I've had enough of it.
Me: Sad that you see hate where there is none.
How about you? Any interesting exchanges over the Thanksgiving Holidays?
Around 100 years ago, Finnish immigrants flocked to the mines and woods of the country around Lake Superior, where the topography and weather must have seemed familiar. They’ve been a mostly Democratic, sometimes even radical, voting bloc ever since. No more, it seems. Going into the election, the three most Finnish districts — Michigan 1, Wisconsin 7, and Minnesota 8, all fronting on Lake Superior — were represented by two Democratic committee chairmen and the chairman of an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, with a total of 95 years of seniority.
Wisconsin’s David Obey and Michigan’s Bart Stupak both chose to retire, and were replaced by Republicans who had started running before their announcements. Minnesota’s James Oberstar was upset by retired Northwest Airlines pilot and stay-at-home dad Chip Cravaack.
So here’s a new rule for the political scientists: As go the Finns, so goes America.
When the Nazis took total control of Hungary in 1944, the Holocaust followed. In two months, 440,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to death camps.
To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis.
First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.
Theodore hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.
By collaborating with the Nazis, George survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.
This is the guy who funds Media Matters and just gave $1.8 million to NPR.
I saw you on TV tonight. After you get done being less than truthful to the camera ("Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research in Wisconsin. That's right, ban it.") you ask "But how can you be against hope?" Indeed. How can one be against Hope?
As a big fan of Hope myself I am assuming, and hoping, that your son Andrew can walk, and talk, and play, and dress himself, and go to the bathroom on his own. If so, that's more than our son Ryan has been able to do since his brain injury in 1991. Here's a picture of him I took and touched up six years ago:
It's kinda funny when you think about it, isn't it? I mean, that you're the one who seems to be without Hope. If there were some Miracle Cure that meant Ryan could walk and talk and play again but the side effect would be that he would have Juvenile Diabetes for the rest of his life, don't you think I'd snap up that bargain in an instant? Of course I would, and I'd never look back.
So what happened to your Hope? May I gently suggest that when The Truth became a casualty of The Lie For The Greater Good, that your Hope was wounded as well. Progress is not to be made by lying to ourselves or to the television camera. We know this in our Heart of Hearts. But we all need to be reminded of this sometimes.
Which leads me to why I'm voting for Scott Walker for Governor of Wisconsin. He's a rather straightforward fellow who says what he thinks and then goes about doing his job the best he can. Someone who does what he says he's going to do, to the best of his ability. Someone who can get Wisconsin back on track. And someone who doesn't run sleazy campaign ads, like the one you just appeared in.
Click on the link or the graphic to see the source PDF data file. These rates are for cities (starts on page 224) and not for the larger metropolitan areas.
From Alexander Green:
I know, I know, Washington politicians promise they aren’t going to raise your taxes, and that they’re only going to raise them on the 2% of American households that make $250,000 or more. This is horse manure.
Having deliberately set up a fiscal crisis over the past decade, our elected misrepresentatives will soon be searching for ways to raise revenue to meet these obligations. The politically convenient idea is to raise taxes only on “America’s wealthiest.”
Yet earned income is often a poor indicator of wealth. Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs, Citigroup CEO (C) Vikram Pandit, Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt, Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang, Oracle (ORCL) CEO Larry Ellison and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) CEO Warren Buffett all receive annual salaries of $1.
Real wealth is determined by looking at a balance sheet not an income statement. The tax code is set up to punish high-income earners, many of whom are not rich but rather striving to become rich.
The problem with raising taxes on high earners is that this country badly needs to create jobs in the private sector. These top 2% – who already pay almost half of all income taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service – are overwhelmingly small business owners. If the economy is going to grow, we want to encourage them to open new businesses and expand existing ones.
From Dr. John C. Eastman:
Here’s the crux of the dispute. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That text has two requirements:
1) Birth on U.S. soil; and 2) Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born. In recent decades, the opinion has taken root, quite erroneously, that anyone born in the United States (except the children of ambassadors) is necessarily subject to its jurisdiction because everyone has to comply with our laws while physically present within our borders. Those who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment had a different understanding of jurisdiction. For them, a person could be subject to the jurisdiction of a sovereign nation in two very different ways: the one, partial and territorial; the other full and complete. Think of it this way. When a tourist from Great Britain visits the United States, he subjects himself to our “territorial jurisdiction.” He has to follow our laws while he is here, including our traffic laws that require him to drive on the right rather than the wrong (I mean left!) side of the road. He is no longer subject to those laws when he returns home, of course, and he was never subject to the broader jurisdiction that requires from him allegiance to the United States. He can’t be drafted into our army, for example, or prosecuted for treason for taking up arms against us.