Posted on 09/08/2015 12:11:55 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
We do actually want an executive that will exercise strength to restore the rule of law and tear down the rule of man—and if someone rules like Obama but “intelligently” (that word has an ambiguous definition, remember, since “intelligence” can work in either a moral or immoral manner, and Obama has done so ideologically rather than unintelligently), things can only get worse.
True.. I was being simplistic.. to scratch an itch...
The right man for the job is what’s needed.. not an ideology..
A man that is willing to wade through the HELL of the Executive Branch to clean house..
I used tyrant for “effect”.. but tyrant is exactly what
“HE” would be called.. by both parties..
Especially if he and Congress “MURDERED” the Federal Workers Union.. The screams could be heard all the way to Baltimore.. maybe New York City..
Not murdered it but prosecuted any and all involved in it, caught in any hanky panky..
And an FBI that actually works.. to uncover any sedition and treason.. and “process” the traitors.. with a liason to the Justice Department.. that ALSO works..
You know... out of the gate as a beginning.. with much much more to come...
DREAMER?... I know.. be gentle.. I’m pissed..
Didn’t realize you were a Hillary fan. She’d warm your heart with her dictatorial ways
Just talking...
Actually I’m for CIVIL WAR and believe ONLY that will work..
A hair teeth and eyeballs CIVIL WAR not a quiet changing of the guard..
So we need a weak leader, that can give up and roll over with style?
HELL NO!!
“It is a great advantage to a President and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man,” - Calvin Coolidge
And you’re right not to.
Personally, I don’t understand this bitterness about support. For example, I’m not a big Trump guy, but I’m not going to spend any time slamming him because that’s pointless. If he wins the nom, I’ll live with it and vote for him because it’s better than the alternative.
Go for it, I say.
"...........Here's a rundown of Walker's inglorious history of anti-environmentalism.
Attacking Obama's climate agenda: Walker is a key figure in the GOP's battle against President Barack Obama's flagship climate policy—the proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules that are designed to reduce the carbon footprint of the nation's electricity sector 30 percent by 2030. The rules will likely require states to retrofit or shutter some of their coal-fired power plants. That could be a big deal in Wisconsin, which gets 62 percent of its power from coal.
Walker "has gone after every single piece of environmental protection," says Kerry Schumann of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. "It's hard to imagine anyone has done worse."
In a letter to the EPA in December, Walker said the plan would be "a blow to Wisconsin residents and business owners." He cited an analysis from his state's Public Service Commission that predicted household electric bills would skyrocket. They won't, necessarily, since the state has a lot of options—including boosting renewables and energy efficiency—that it could use to meet its EPA carbon target without jeopardizing the power grid. But rather than preparing for the new rules, Walker seems bent on stonewalling them. In January he announced that his new attorney general was already preparing a lawsuit against the EPA, a move that was lauded by the Wisconsin director of the Koch Brothers-backed group Americans for Prosperity. Walker has also signed a pledge, devised by Americans for Prosperity, that he will oppose any legislation relating to climate change—presumably a cap-and-trade plan or a carbon tax—that would result in a "net increase in government revenue."
Indeed, Walker has close ties to Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who made a fortune in fossil fuels and who for years poured money into groups that cast doubt on the science of climate change. They own paper factories and a network of gasoline supply terminals in Wisconsin, and they have an interest in the state's trove of "frac sand" (more on that below). Koch Industries gave $43,000 to Walker's 2010 election campaign, and just after he took office, the Kochs doubled their lobbying force in Madison. In 2011 and 2012, David Koch and Americans for Prosperity spent $11 million backing Walker's agenda and his successful effort to avoid being recalled.
Turning off clean energy: As much as he apparently supports fossil fuel development, Walker has taken steps to put the brakes on clean energy. Last month, he released a budget proposal that would drain $8.1 million from a leading renewable energy research center in the state. That same budget, however, would pump $250,000 into a study on the potential health impacts of wind turbines. (Wind energy opponents have long suggested that inaudible sound waves from turbines can cause insomnia, anxiety, and other disorders, although independent research has repeatedly found these claims are more connected to NIMBYism than legitimate medical concerns.) Walker's budget would also cut $4 million in state subsidies for municipal recycling programs. That, at least, is an improvement over his first budget as governor, which proposed to eliminate recycling subsidies altogether.
Budgets aren't the only avenue for these attacks: In 2011 Walker introduced legislation backed by the Wisconsin Realtors Association to restrict where wind turbines could built. (That bill was ultimately killed by the Legislature.) And the state's Public Service Commission—which oversees the electric grid and is comprised mainly of Walker appointees—recently launched a campaign to redesign power companies' rates in a way that solar companies say is meant to kneecap their competitive edge. The commission wants to impose a high fixed charge on monthly bills that homeowners would have to pay even if they purchase their own solar panels.
There is, however, one alternative energy source that Walker suddenly seems willing to support. Pandering to corn farmers in Iowa over the weekend, he flip-flopped his stance on biofuels—as governor he was opposed to a federal ethanol mandate, but now, as a likely candidate, he's in favor of it. Backing ethanol may help Walker win support from Iowa caucus-goers, but the climate benefits of biofuels are very much in doubt.
Open to open-pit mining: In 2010, a mining company called Gogebic Taconite LLC began to push hard to establish a large open-pit iron ore mine in the state. Environmentalists vehemently opposed the project, warning that it could damage fragile wetlands and contaminate local air and water with toxic chemicals. But Walker supported it. (In 2012, the company gave $700,000 to the pro-Walker Wisconsin Club for Growth.) In 2013, Walker succeeded in pushing through a bill to relax environmental standards for iron mines that paved the way for the project to be approved once it was reviewed by federal regulators.
Walker's pick to head the state's environment agency was "like putting Lindsay Lohan in charge of a rehab center," one lawmaker said.
Walker also reportedly cultivated an industry-friendly atmosphere at the state's Department of Natural Resources, the agency charged with enforcing environmental standards. One Democratic state representative said Walker's pick to head the DNR, a former Republican state senator who was a vocal critic of environmental regulations, was "like putting Lindsay Lohan in charge of a rehab center." One of the Walker DNR's first moves was to delay phosphorus pollution standards that were opposed by a Koch-owned paper factory.
In the case of the iron mine, it was all for naught: Last month the mining company announced it was putting the project on indefinite hold, blaming "cost-prohibitive" federal regulations.
A blind eye to fracking sand: Wisconsin doesn't have much in the way of shale gas, but it still plays a vital role in the fracking boom. The state is home to a major supply of "frac sand," a superhard, chemically inert type of silica that props open cracks in underground rock formations during the fracking process. Since 2010, the number of sand mines in Wisconsin has grown more than tenfold, despite widespread complaints that the operations are turning idyllic rural communities into industrial wastelands and that the type of dust produced by the mines is linked to a wide range of serious respiratory health hazards. Walker has been a vocal proponent of the industry, touting it as a source of jobs and investment in an otherwise lackluster economy.
Here again, Walker's weakened DNR is an issue. In 2013, the state's independent, nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated that at least 10 full-time DNR employees would be necessary to ensure proper oversight of the frac sand industry. But the report noted that the agency had chosen to hire just two.
"It's really going, to a large extent, unregulated," said Tom Thoresen, a veteran DNR conservation officer who retired before Walker became governor but still has friends in the agency. (Thoresen currently sits on the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters board.)
Indeed, citations for various environmental infractions from the DNR fell 28 percent under Walker compared to the previous administration, according to the Journal-Sentinel.
"The messaging," added Thoresen, "is to be business-friendly, don't enforce."
Water under the bridge my dear. Are you CPR qualified yet?
Here is one example of Gov. Walker stealthly pealing the EPA and Big Education off the backs of farmers. He cuts funding and shrinks government.
March 7, 2015 - Farm Bureau, others question Scott Walker's proposed farm research cuts
".....Researchers and supporters of a program that helps farmers run cleaner and more efficient operations say they were “stunned” and “blindsided” by Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to cut a third of the project’s funding."
Discovery Farms, a UW-Extension program that dates to 2001, applies science from a “plows-on” level, evaluates and monitors efforts by state farmers to control runoff, calibrate fertilizer use and employ techniques to conserve land and water.
It has a $750,000 budget, of which $248,000 would be cut in the governor’s proposed state budget.
UW-Extension officials noted the loss affects longstanding projects and the ability of the small program to leverage crucial additional grants and funds.
“We would have a 1.2-employee reduction of staff and we would pull back some of our sampling efforts, water quality analysis and a project (set) for Rock County,” said Amber Radatz, project co-director.
The project’s programs include monitoring 20 state farms and educating thousands of farmers on conservation strategies.
“This was a big surprise to our agency partners as well as our partners in farm groups and in UW-Extension,” she said. “We never had an inkling.”
The $248,000 comes from a surcharge on farm chemical sales that would be discontinued."..................
POLK HIGH FOREVER!
It was FOUR touchdowns..... :0) Go Al, Go!
Wow. You need to get a life lady. We’re voting for Cruz and then Trump.
Whose the “we” in you’re “we’re?”
I’ll try that again.
Whose the “we” in your “we’re?”
“We” are my family - and eventually you.
I gotta say, I admire your tenacious dedication to breathing life back into the corpse of Scott Walker’s campaign.
Reagan’s favorite president.
I don’t want a personality for president, I want the constitution for president.
I read both articles.
The first one from the Guardian is an unadulterated hit piece filled with homosexual innuendo (ex. bald pattern from hitting his head on the cabinet) and championing liberal talking points (destruction of the DNR & EPA).
The second one contains a puff piece from a fashion designer (certainly my fallback for critical thinking) who loves his plane and suggests he (Trump) is a man’s man because he watches sports. Yea, that brought a ton of well reasoned thought to the debate.
I get that you don’t trust Walker and you wish him failure; that is your right as a citizen. It also appears to be your heartfelt desire and motivation to live another day, so you may continue to do the same.
I like Ted Cruz. I trust Scott Walker. I AM concerned at the loss of critical thinking infecting the Trump fans here, who are convinced rhetoric “Trumps” reasoned thinking and critical analysis.
>> The Guardian is one of the biggest newspapers in the world <<
Big or not, it’s also the furthest left of all the major British papers. Not exactly the most credible of sources.
People want a strong leader until they get one, then they whine about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.