Mobilization to Override Governor Dayton's Veto

[plblark]

your suggestion regarding reciprocity doesn't answer the untrue assertions about shooting cops or just blindly sticking our guns out the window and shooting...

Btw: Look at Indiana's rates of issues with permit holders compared to ours. Heck, look at Florida, Utah, and Tx ... Permit holders, with or without MN's required training, are overwhelmingly law abiding and 15-20 times less likely to commit crimes.

[Heretical1]

your assertion regarding reciprocity doesn't answer the untrue assertions about shooting cops or just blindly sticking our guns out the window and shooting...

You have mischaracterized my posts. It is you who "asserted" the issue of reciprocity. I simply asked the questions about the considerations of your assertion, to wit:

...{W}ithout accurate survey data, how would you know how much political weight is behind this supposed "claim"? Why would you even want to focus on what you'd be willing to give up without knowing this? BTW, what would you have given up? What do you know about what the cops would have wanted from you?

Moreover, my posts leap-frog the issue of reciprocity. My "assertion" asks, irrespective of the validity of any of the opposition's "claims", what is the political efficacy of those claims? How much political weight and inertia are behind those claims? What's it going to take to overcome them? Reciprocity isn't the only tool at your disposal, so why have you chosen to focus on it given my previous posts?

[steve4102]

And if that wasn't bad enough, an out-of-control right-wing shock jock, i.e., Rush Limbaugh, publicly castigated and reviled a college student for offering testimony about how her friend lost an ovary to a cyst because of their parochial university's refusal to make affordable contraceptive healthcare available to its female students. And ranking Republican party leadership is absolutely tongue-tied about it. Small wonder given the extent of Limbaugh's syndication and the size of his audience.

Turn this situation around for a second. What if that college student would have been your son exercising his 1st Amendment right to speak out against his university's refusal to provide insurance coverage for treating sexually transmitted disease? What if all his university offered was an aspirin, and they told him that he would get the best "therapeutic" result by holding it between his knees?

I think you need to get your Facts straight before you post.

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

Betcaha won't find that on your MPR or MSM news will ya. Congratulations, Heretical, you have been Flucked!

http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gend ... -insurance

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspo ... -been.html


http://patdollard.com/2012/03/breaking- ... ith-video/

[Heretical1]

I think you need to get your Facts straight before you post.

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

I think you need to get the facts straight that matter, and stop trying to obfuscate the Dayton veto with red herrings. By definition, anyone who voluntarily goes to Capitol Hill with the express intention of influencing the formulation of public policy with their testimony is an "activist". What's your POINT?

I raised the issue of Sandra Fluke's rancorous castigation to illustrate a very simple concept: Politics is more a matter of perception of how issues affect voters subjectively. That's what chiefly dominates voting behavior. Women identify with Sandra Fluke and they're worked up, not only about comprehensive healthcare policy, but any public policy that affects their identity-based political persuasions. And that includes people from other states carrying guns around their children under the aegis of a foreign-state concealed-carry permit that required no training as a prerequisite. So now we've got American women all pissed off about legislation that they perceive affects their interests, and irrespective of the validity of those perceptions, do you really think that showing them the error of their ways is going to persuade them to vote differently, NOW?!

That's why Dayton's veto of our right to self-defense is going to stick! He's secure with Minnesota women as a voting bloc, generally, which is more unified now than it's ever been; not to mention the police officer's associations and their lobbyists.

How many women in America are willing to believe that Sandra Fluke intentionally enrolled in Georgetown University to prosecute a comprehensive healthcare-activism agenda? Do the math. It typically takes 4 years to get a bachelor's degree before being admitted to law school, which is another 3 years. If Sandra Fluke as only been active with the Georgetown contraceptive coverage issue for 3 years, as you assert, don't you think that most women believe that Fluke enrolled at Georgetown Law School chiefly to go to law school? Moreover, do you think women care that Fluke is a 30 year old law school student? That's hardly uncommon.

BTW, the credibility of this point is dubious on it's face:

...who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control.

Of course Sandra Fluke has been "pushing" a long time for Georgetown to modify it's student healthcare plan to provide comprehensive coverage to all students. Her friend lost a freakin', ovary, and she and all other similarly-situated women needed the advocate that Sandra Fluke has endeavored to be. Or are you disputing that, too?

[steve4102]

I think you need to get your Facts straight before you post.

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

I think you need to get the facts straight that matter, and stop trying to obfuscate the Dayton veto with red herrings. By definition, anyone who voluntarily goes to Capitol Hill with the express intention of influencing the formulation of public policy with their testimony is an "activist". What's your POINT?

I raised the issue of Sandra Fluke's rancorous castigation to illustrate a very simple concept: Politics is more a matter of perception of how issues affect voters subjectively. That's what chiefly dominates voting behavior. Women identify with Sandra Fluke and they're worked up, not only about comprehensive healthcare policy, but any public policy that affects their identity-based political persuasions. And that includes people from other states carrying guns around their children under the aegis of a foreign-state concealed-carry permit that required no training as a prerequisite. So now we've got American women all pissed off about legislation that they perceive affects their interests, and irrespective of the validity of those perceptions, do you really think that showing them the error of their ways is going to persuade them to vote differently, NOW?!

How many women in America are willing to believe that Fluke intentionally enrolled in Georgetown University to prosecute a comprehensive healthcare-activism agenda? Do the math. It typically takes 4 years to get a bachelor's degree before being admitted to law school, which is another 3 years. If Sandra Fluke as only been active with the Georgetown contraceptive coverage issue for 3 years, as you assert, don't you think that most women believe that Fluke enrolled at Georgetown Law School chiefly to go to law school? Moreover, do you think women care that Fluke is a 30 year old law school student? That's hardly uncommon.

BTW, the credibility of this point is dubious on it's face:

...who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control.

Of course Sandra Fluke has been "pushing" a long time for Georgetown to modify it's student healthcare plan to provide comprehensive coverage to all students. Her friend lost a freakin', ovary. Or are you disputing that, too?

She has no reason to continue her fight except to discredit those that oppose Obama. Her Healthcare fight ended with Obama Care. She has nothing left to fight for, Obama has given it to her already, it's over. Her goal now is to discredit not to accomplish.

[Heretical1]

She has no reason to continue her fight except to discredit those that oppose Obama. Her Healthcare fight ended with Obama Care. She has nothing left to fight for, Obama has given it to her already, it's over. Her goal now is to discredit not to accomplish.

Please reread my last post. I edited it to provide more clarity about what the issue on this topic is. If you want to argue about Sandra Fluke's relevance to broader national politics, I'm sure there is a message board somewhere that will happily accommodate your views.

[nyffman]

I apologize for my kneejerk reaction.
I'm not sure any amount of giving up would overcome the untrue claim that this would lead to people shooting cops ...

Someone with your experience could be really valuable to the movement.

I'll tell you something. Your snark, lately, is a movement all by itself. If you don't quit attacking us who are on your side, even if we don't wear GOCRA underwear, you will probably continue running in place.

[steve4102]

She has no reason to continue her fight except to discredit those that oppose Obama. Her Healthcare fight ended with Obama Care. She has nothing left to fight for, Obama has given it to her already, it's over. Her goal now is to discredit not to accomplish.

Please reread my last post. I edited it to provide more clarity about what the issue on this topic is. If you want to argue about Sandra Fluke's relevance to broader national politics, I'm sure there is a message board somewhere that will happily accommodate your views.

You came here only to convince us that GGGGGoofy's Veto was a good Veto because the Republican's that wrote it screwed up. You even tried to tie Goofy's veto to Talk Radio and Rush and the Conservative voters. Your goal is no different than Ms Flucks, Left Wing Socialist Troll.

[Heretical1]

She has no reason to continue her fight except to discredit those that oppose Obama. Her Healthcare fight ended with Obama Care. She has nothing left to fight for, Obama has given it to her already, it's over. Her goal now is to discredit not to accomplish.

Please reread my last post. I edited it to provide more clarity about what the issue on this topic is. If you want to argue about Sandra Fluke's relevance to broader national politics, I'm sure there is a message board somewhere that will happily accommodate your views.

You came here only to convince us that GGGGGoofy's Veto was a good Veto because the Republican's that wrote it screwed up. You even tried to tie Goofy's veto to Talk Radio and Rush and the Conservative voters. Your goal is no different than Ms Flucks, Left Wing Socialist Troll.

My posts and my record speak for themselves. Unfortunately, so do those of the likes of disingenuous, parochial, spin-minded demagogues; and special interest shills; most of whom have never served a day of military service to this country in defense of YOUR LIBERTIES, and who couldn't have done more to encourage Dayton's veto.

[ttousi]

lets watch the personal attacks folks

Thanks in advance for your co-operation

[steve4102]

My posts and my record speak for themselves. Unfortunately, so do those of the likes of disingenuous, parochial, spin-minded demagogues; and special interest shills; most of whom have never served a day of military service to this country in defense of YOUR LIBERTIES, and who couldn't have done more to encourage Dayton's veto.

Are you saying you served in the Military, or are you just taking credit for those that have?

[Heretical1]

My posts and my record speak for themselves. Unfortunately, so do those of the likes of disingenuous, parochial, spin-minded demagogues; and special interest shills; most of whom have never served a day of military service to this country in defense of YOUR LIBERTIES, and who couldn't have done more to encourage Dayton's veto.

Are you saying you served in the Military, or are you just taking credit for those that have?

And you're worried about my posts being disingenuous?

Re: Tell Governor Dayton to sign the Stand Your Ground bill

Postby steve4102 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 pm
Gov Goofy will not sign it.. If it comes to a veto override vote, the Democrats that voted for the Bill will NOT vote to overturn Goofy's Veto. They will change their vote to NO and the Bill will be dead.

[steve4102]

My posts and my record speak for themselves. Unfortunately, so do those of the likes of disingenuous, parochial, spin-minded demagogues; and special interest shills; most of whom have never served a day of military service to this country in defense of YOUR LIBERTIES, and who couldn't have done more to encourage Dayton's veto.

Are you saying you served in the Military, or are you just taking credit for those that have?

And you're worried about my posts being disingenuous?

Re: Tell Governor Dayton to sign the Stand Your Ground bill

Postby steve4102 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 pm
Gov Goofy will not sign it.. If it comes to a veto override vote, the Democrats that voted for the Bill will NOT vote to overturn Goofy's Veto. They will change their vote to NO and the Bill will be dead.

I posted he would not sign it and he didn't. I also believe that the Democrat Party will not vote to overturn a veto from one of their own. These are the facts as I see them. You posted a bunch of Liberal lies and propaganda.

[Heretical1]

Re: Tell Governor Dayton to sign the Stand Your Ground bill

Postby steve4102 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 pm
Gov Goofy will not sign it.. If it comes to a veto override vote, the Democrats that voted for the Bill will NOT vote to overturn Goofy's Veto. They will change their vote to NO and the Bill will be dead.

I posted he would not sign it and he didn't. I also believe that the Democrat Party will not vote to overturn a veto from one of their own. These are the facts as I see them. You posted a bunch of Liberal lies and propaganda.

I think you need to get the facts straight that matter, and stop trying to obfuscate the Dayton veto with red herrings. By definition, anyone who voluntarily goes to Capitol Hill with the express intention of influencing the formulation of public policy with their testimony is an "activist". What's your POINT?

I raised the issue of Sandra Fluke's rancorous castigation to illustrate a very simple concept: Politics is more a matter of perception of how issues affect voters subjectively. That's what chiefly dominates voting behavior. Women identify with Sandra Fluke and they're worked up, not only about comprehensive healthcare policy, but [by] any public policy that affects their identity-based political persuasions. [Emphasis added.] And that includes people from other states carrying guns around their children under the aegis of a foreign-state concealed-carry permit that required no training as a prerequisite. So now we've got American women all pissed off about legislation that they perceive affects their interests, and irrespective of the validity of those perceptions, do you really think that showing them the error of their ways is going to persuade them to vote differently, NOW?!

That's why Dayton's veto of our right to self-defense is going to stick! He's secure with Minnesota women as a voting bloc, generally, which is more unified now than it's ever been; not to mention the police officer's associations and their lobbyists. [Emphasis added.]

steve4102 <<-- DISCREDITED

[Norsesmithy]

Heretical1, you can type discredited all you want, but nothing you've posted has done anything to support that.

You are posting in an arrogant and confrontational manner and belittling others at the foot of your self proclaimed record, expertise, and experience. But that's the thing, you aren't providing any evidence that you have any experience, expertise, or a record. You are shouting from the hilltops "I'm a really wonderful guy! I know all sorts of things! You all did this wrong! Listen to my vague proclamation on your failings! Worship me as an expert!"

But as far as you have demonstrated here, to us, you are just a nobody who can make allusions to ancillary issues, post red herrings, and talk smack.

And you're not even that good at that.

I don't know you, so I'm not going to make proclamations as to who you are as person, but I will, for your benefit, inform you as to the impression you are projecting to us fair readers.

You are a sanctimonious blowhard that is quick to cast blame on others for the presumed failure of this bill. Your rhetoric is uninformed, lazy, and ultimately ineffective, your attempts to portray yourself as an expert are juvenile, impotent, and indolent. You've decided to start flinging mud before the issue is truly decided because you do not care about the issue, only the consternation you can cause and the energy you can steal from those trying to affect the outcome.

You are, in fact, trolling.

Now, I could be wrong, you might be some person who's name I should know, who wades into combat on my behalf, both as a soldier in foreign wars and as a demagogue par excellence as a lobbyist for issues dear to my heart. Perhaps I owe to a fiver for a drink you've bought me at a watering hole, and my eternal adoration for saving my life after a horrible accident I don't remember having.

But I doubt it.

Put the proof to you're ebullient self aggrandizing.

But mostly please shut the **** up unless you've got something productive to say or add.