Walker’s destructive war on education: Let’s judge Tea Party pols by the same dumb standards

Salon ^ | April 23, 2015 | Aaron R. Hanlon, Georgetown University

[trebb]

No, just a bunch of principled conservatives that want to make sure whichever nominee we have, he is DEPENDABLY conservative, not just saying what he thinks the voters want to hear, like say, in Iowa where Scott Walker pandered to them by changing his original position once more and supported what he once had stated in no uncertain terms he would not support, the Renewable Fuel Standard. Now, you can FALSELY compare conservatives the crap posted on Salon, but that's on you, no-one else.

The same principled conservatives who would rather have another Obama than a Walker? That's on them.

[trebb]

I see Freepers debating Walker's merits and faults, just as they do with any other candidate. Trebb's claim that anyone not on the Walker bandwagon is allied with a bunch of leftists is ridiculous and hyper-emotional. And I see he still hasn't offered any names.

On the last post to me, I made the statement that you can read. Perhaps I was wrong. If you can read, it is easy enough to see what I actually said and to what I responded. Do your own dang homework - unless it's too much work and trouble.

If you were really paying attention instead of just bouncing key word/phrases against your ingrained memes, you would know that i am donating time and money to Cruz - I just think it's less than smart to destroy Walker at this stage of the game - unless one is more interested in looking for excuses if something happens to the Cruz campaign. If actually adding comments to explain one's stance is "ridiculous and hyper-emotional", it helps explain why so many are prone to posit something and then stick to nuanced generalities and why we continue to lose so much.

[CatherineofAragon]

"You can read - just this morning there have been a umber of folks I traded comments with who think Walker will ruin us. When I have questions like yours, I run through the relevant threads and look..."

LOL, you expect me to do a search of multiple threads to prove your accusation?

Come back to reality, please.

[CatherineofAragon]

Let me help you focus.

You were ridiculous and hyper-emotional when you made the claim that Freepers were the allies of Salon when it comes to criticism of Scott Walker.

Who is “trying to destroy” Walker? (See what I mean?) I see criticism of everyone who’s running or likely will be. That’s par for the course here during primary season.

[bjc]

That 61 hours is based on a tiny sample and uses self-report information. I looked for more systematic and objective data but I am having a hard time finding it. There is a study on the faculty at UT at Austin that suggests the 61 hours is significantly inflated.

[Eva]

The problem is that research institutions are more interested in producing research that fits a political agenda of the government agencies that make the grants than they are in producing proveable, reliable research. It’s more about the money and the power than it is about teaching.

..and what does a researcher who would trade integrity for money and power have to teach young people, anyway?

[mac_truck]

No one is accusing you of being a closet progressive dear...the interlocutor just wants you to agree that Salon magazine is indeed 'attacking' Walker on a regular basis.

Can you bring yourself to do that without tripping?

/lol

[combat_boots]

People at Salon should learn to make their own paper. Maybe they’d learn to be more judicious about the value of brevity and class.

Else, they should publish in picture books.

[CatherineofAragon]

Trip on this , sweetie.

Why do you need that so badly? Insecure about your boy?

[mac_truck]

Just the opposite - I'm asserting that there are those here who are every bit as anti-Walker as Solon is.

Yes...it's hard to disagree with you there.

Some are more passive/aggressive then others...;^)

[Impy]

Imagine what would happen if we passed a law that required every elected representative in the U.S. to take a phone call from a minimum of 10 constituents a day

The "we" that would have to pass that law is those very Representatives and Senators, it wouldn't pass. If it did, it would be struck down because it's unconstitutional.

Imagine what would happen if a-hole professors didn't have tenure.