Comments on: They’re chicken of Feinold http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/ Kickin' ass on the lyin' side: A never-ending battle against stupid, ugly, deceitful and corrupt right-wing water carriers... Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:06:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Jack Anusoff http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6309 Jack Anusoff Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:19:11 +0000 http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6309 John X, the Senate doesn't do the impeaching. That starts in the House. the Senate can only censure. I think Feingold is probably the most honest politician in DC. There are a few minor players behind the scenes (like Ron Paul) but Feingold is the one man in the limelight that I actually have respect for. Dean? Maybe, if he didn't come across as a car salesman. Murtha? Yeah, I guess so. I haven't seen much of him. These past few months of his name being in the news is all I've got. But from what I've seen from him, he's honest. Paul Hackett is a guy I wish I could vote for. My honesty-dar tells me that he would have been a good'un. I guess that's why he got shit on by Schumer et al. That's all I ever want out of politicians these days. Honesty and integrity. It's ridiculous to demand these things nowadays, but I must demand them. There are few people out there that make you want to vote for them. There are even fewer that make you want to register to vote just so you can vote for them. Russ Feingold is that man. I really hope he gets the Dem nomination. John X, the Senate doesn’t do the impeaching. That starts in the House. the Senate can only censure.

I think Feingold is probably the most honest politician in DC. There are a few minor players behind the scenes (like Ron Paul) but Feingold is the one man in the limelight that I actually have respect for. Dean? Maybe, if he didn’t come across as a car salesman. Murtha? Yeah, I guess so. I haven’t seen much of him. These past few months of his name being in the news is all I’ve got. But from what I’ve seen from him, he’s honest. Paul Hackett is a guy I wish I could vote for. My honesty-dar tells me that he would have been a good’un. I guess that’s why he got shit on by Schumer et al.

That’s all I ever want out of politicians these days. Honesty and integrity. It’s ridiculous to demand these things nowadays, but I must demand them.

There are few people out there that make you want to vote for them. There are even fewer that make you want to register to vote just so you can vote for them. Russ Feingold is that man. I really hope he gets the Dem nomination.

]]> By: orihd http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6142 orihd Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:00:20 +0000 http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6142 john x, i realize the logic, but i disagree because i dont see conservatives stating they care about poor people very often. if they really try to leave the impression that they do, then they suck at it. thats why they talked more about shooting looters stealing food in the aftermath of katrina, than they did about fema not providing basic humanitarian care. its why they constantly complain about welfare recipients being lazy. i could go on. caring about poor people is just not a conservative principle, so when they show that they dont, i dont think its an example of them being unprincipled. "compassionate conservatism" was really half-assed, and seems to have been completely abandoned, even in rhetoric. john x, i realize the logic, but i disagree because i dont see conservatives stating they care about poor people very often. if they really try to leave the impression that they do, then they suck at it. thats why they talked more about shooting looters stealing food in the aftermath of katrina, than they did about fema not providing basic humanitarian care. its why they constantly complain about welfare recipients being lazy. i could go on. caring about poor people is just not a conservative principle, so when they show that they dont, i dont think its an example of them being unprincipled. “compassionate conservatism” was really half-assed, and seems to have been completely abandoned, even in rhetoric.

]]> By: c.d. http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6021 c.d. Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:16:22 +0000 http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6021 plant those seeds of doubt fast , right off the bat . good job Mike , keep it up thank you . plant those seeds of doubt fast , right off the bat . good job Mike , keep it up thank you .

]]> By: Ezsuds81 http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6017 Ezsuds81 Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:38:01 +0000 http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6017 Nice call Mike, even though Rusty cut you off way too quick. <b>I think he's afraid to debate you.</b> He probably did recognize your voice. I'd like to hear Rusty compare the actions of two different groups of people. Feingold, who voted for the increase of the minimum wage, while refusing to accept annual COLA's that take effect after he is sworn in. Compare that to Republican Senators who voted against the increase in the minimum wage, while accepting annual cost of living increases. Here are the facts, for a Senator that has been in office since the last minimum wage increase took place in 1997: These Senators will have received in cummulative cost of living increases <b>$146,500</b> by the end of 2006. <b>That's right, they will have gotten $146,500 in inflation adjustments to their pay, while at the same time refusing to adjust the minimum wage for inflation.</b> For a minimum wage worker to earn the same amount of money Senators have voted themselves for inflation salary adjustments,<b> he/she would have to work full time 40 hours/ week, 52 weeks/ year (NO TIME OFF) for 13 years 8 months.</b> Simply shameful! This is just one example of how <b>Feingold is more principled than the republicans</b>. Now I can see why Rusty Humphries was afraid to debate you on the issue. Nice call Mike, even though Rusty cut you off way too quick. I think he’s afraid to debate you. He probably did recognize your voice. I’d like to hear Rusty compare the actions of two different groups of people. Feingold, who voted for the increase of the minimum wage, while refusing to accept annual COLA’s that take effect after he is sworn in. Compare that to Republican Senators who voted against the increase in the minimum wage, while accepting annual cost of living increases.

Here are the facts, for a Senator that has been in office since the last minimum wage increase took place in 1997:
These Senators will have received in cummulative cost of living increases $146,500 by the end of 2006.

That’s right, they will have gotten $146,500 in inflation adjustments to their pay, while at the same time refusing to adjust the minimum wage for inflation.

For a minimum wage worker to earn the same amount of money Senators have voted themselves for inflation salary adjustments, he/she would have to work full time 40 hours/ week, 52 weeks/ year (NO TIME OFF) for 13 years 8 months.

Simply shameful!

This is just one example of how Feingold is more principled than the republicans.

Now I can see why Rusty Humphries was afraid to debate you on the issue.

]]> By: john x http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6006 john x Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:02:01 +0000 http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/26/theyre-chicken-of-feinold/#comment-6006 orihd Jun 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pm it's unprincipled because they didn't hesitate to give themselves raises, while denying raises to minimum wage earners. and you can bet their raises are alot more than the raises the minimum wage workers would have received. As for feingold himself. he's not one of the habitual double talkers on the democrats side. ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001.[33] Feingold was one of 23 US senators to vote against H.J. Res. 114, which authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq.[35] However, i do wish he would stop this censure crap and just come right out and say Bush needs to be impeached. i think he thinks that he won't get support for impeachment but he's not getting support for censure. You don't say the president is guilty of impeachable offense, but i don't want to impeach him. yet he proudly says how he supported republicans right to have impeachment hearings on Clinton. other than that, he's ok. Out of all the democrats that are supposed to representing our needs why aren't any of them saying openly IMPEACH, with the exception of select members of the black caucus. orihd Jun 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
it’s unprincipled because they didn’t hesitate to give themselves raises, while denying raises to minimum wage earners. and you can bet their raises are alot more than the raises the minimum wage workers would have received.

As for feingold himself. he’s not one of the habitual double talkers on the democrats side. ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001.[33]
Feingold was one of 23 US senators to vote against H.J. Res. 114, which authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq.[35]
However, i do wish he would stop this censure crap and just come right out and say Bush needs to be impeached. i think he thinks that he won’t get support for impeachment but he’s not getting support for censure. You don’t say the president is guilty of impeachable offense, but i don’t want to impeach him. yet he proudly says how he supported republicans right to have impeachment hearings on Clinton. other than that, he’s ok.
Out of all the democrats that are supposed to representing our needs why aren’t any of them saying openly IMPEACH, with the exception of select members of the black caucus.

]]>