There are rules already in place. Let not make any new laws. There are too many now.

Ford your lack of understanding on what the largest part of the budget is further highlights your ignorance on government. You fit in well with the low information left fringe.

So typical of the socialist alinskyites when their lack of conviction is presented to them they attempt to draw lame unparalleled distinctions in an attempt to discredit the messenger shinning the light on their failures; all for the purpose to continue their game of do as I say not as I do scope of politics while they echo their puppet masters messages.

The military is the largest socialist organization that we have in the USA. Not only do they have the largest budget, but they even dress according to government standards or they will not get their pay check for very long.

"If they did have credibility, or conviction of position, they would surely keep a consistent position and ensure products they did purchase only came from mines they could prove met whatever standards they think are safe."

Went to buy another new Ford the other day. We came to agreement on the price and before closing the deal, I asked the salesperson where the talconite came from that went into the vehicle..................................................................was her response.

RAF did suggest that Buffet pay more since Buffet wanted the revenues increased through raising taxes. He indicated that there was nothing stopping him from doing so. The same logic holds true for the statements from RAF. RAF did want spending cut so he could help that by giving up or reducing his retirement. That is an argument an eight year-old would understand, it would appear you don't.

Olderandornerier said, "Your simple question, as you call it, is simple minded, an argument a eight year old would make."

Pretty much all the honest truth telling in the world is done by children. - Oliver Wendell

"The government watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign reported Monday that supporters of the mine donated $15.6 million to the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker between 2010 and June 2012." -Walworth County Today
-
Anyone questioning the credibility OR incentive of the Republicans big push to get this Legislation passed as quickly as possible? Thought not! This isn't about jobs - well not mining jobs anyway - its about selling out Wisconsin natural resources to the highest bidder - citizens (and rivers) be dammed. (misspelling intentional)

RAF, you proclaim your credibility, yet I recall you stating that Buffet could donate more taxes when he stated that the wealthy should be taxed more

Buffet stated he should pay more in taxes, not RAF. Yet I do not see where Buffet voluntarily sent more to the IRS than owed.

and when you suggest that spending should be cut you don't offer to give up your military pension.

Wanting the Government to spend less does not equal a single person giving up all their benefits.

I don’t see a conflict with conviction or credibility.

Your simple question, as you call it, is simple minded, an argument a eight year old would make.

Apparently you didn't understand the question. Please reread it. It had to do with creibility and conviction.

Why attack someone for collecting their benefits earned from service in the military? Is it because they earned it and you are only for free government give aways? A person would have to be a fool to not collect their pension and retirement benefits.

The fact is when it comes to mining the Federal Government blew it when they stood by and let China buy up most of the mineral rights in Africa. We could be getting cheap high grade processed ore from there, instead of having to mine and process crap ore (Taconite) here.

RAF, you proclaim your credibility, yet I recall you stating that Buffet could donate more taxes when he stated that the wealthy should be taxed more and when you suggest that spending should be cut you don't offer to give up your military pension. Are your convictions useful only when they don't apply to you? Try to stick to the facts and not make this something it is not. This is a very straightforward, simple question.

The best thing they can do is put this to a referendum. At this time the public does not trust their elected officials not to vote strictly party lines or to vote for groups that provide excessive campaign funds to their campaigns. Wisconsin people need to make this decision the elected officials. We had to do it in Beloit to bring in a casino. Mining is a far greater risk to all Wisconsin. This is not about job.

RetiredAirForce said, "Please explain..."

There's that sense of entitlement again.

Deflecting again miss poo? Please explain how my personal finances, that you continue to echo over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again and again and again have impacted you so deeply. Are you feeling deprived of something in your life that you have the NEED to continually worry about what others have that you are missing?

Sadly your alinsky deflections don't get past your lack of conviction or ability to have a consistent position; other than socialism.

Git'r done Tim, git'r done!

Much less of a sense of entitlement than you with your taxpayer funded military retirement entitlement. As I knew, you were unable to produce the quote of what you had attributed to me. And by the way, you're welcome for my share of your entitlement.

You seem to be feeling quite entitled this morning with your demands, miss poo. I trust you haven't suddenly forgotten how to Google your way to find your own comments. Hear from you soon, undoubtedly.

RetiredAirForce said, "Next proclaiming that more effective and quicker responsive govt oversight reduces environmental standards is plain false."

You clearly know how to copy and paste, so instead of cackling on and on just quote that proclamation you insist I made.

Poo you did state that the republican position, that you claimed I endorsed, is against environmental protection. By all means if you think the current proposed law by the current WI assembly/senate is against environmental protection AND you are for it. Then I stand corrected. However, based on your previous comments you have shown no support for the proposed changes. This combined with your false labeling of that proposal, not to mention the faux claim I endorsed it, leaves one conclusion; you are against it. You're against the proposal to make govt more effective and responsive, in the mining process. By all means if your position is something other than you have already posted step up and make another claim for something completely different than you have stated before; this is hardly this first time you attempted this behavior.

RetiredAirForce said, "Perhaps John before you a get thrill up your leg over giving your Senator, over a clearly partisan position, a failing grade based on Sen Kerry's comments you should do your homework. [ http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/we-people... ]

I guess I spoke too soon about giving up that fixation in favor of red herrings...

RetiredAirForce said, "Next proclaiming that more effective and quicker responsive govt oversight reduces environmental standards is plain false."

I never proclaimed that. I see you're back to red herrings now instead of thrills up men's skirts. Congratulations, that's quite the leap in intellectualism for you.

Time to examine miss poo's faulty red herrings, she stated "The argument by billnewbie that you support endorses lowering environmental protections. At least you're consistent with the Republican position of less environmental protection."

First miss poo I never "endorsed" lowering environmental standards neither did I "endorse" Bill's comments. If you had the ability to read words provided without jumping to false conclusions you would see that. Next proclaiming that more effective and quicker responsive govt oversight reduces environmental standards is plain false. Nothing being proposed at the state level does anything to change the federal standards at all. Those same federal standards are being used at other mines currently, the same ones you are purchasing products with these core materials in them. If, through your twisted left fringe logic, you are insinuating the current federal standards are wrong than by all means step and say so and make your voice heard to have them changed. That would surely be a more constructive effort than tossing out false red herring filled statements here.

Yes, in miss poo land apples equals rocks.

RetiredAirForce said, "If they did have credibility, or conviction of position, they would surely keep a consistent position and ensure products they did purchase only came from mines they could prove met whatever standards they think are safe."

The argument by billnewbie that you support endorses lowering environmental protections. At least you're consistent with the Republican position of less environmental protection. Speaking of consistency, I'm curious about whether or not all of the taxpayer dollars you receive from your military retirement entitlement came from taxpayers who purchase ore that only came from mines you can prove met whatever standards you think are as unsafe as you and billnewbie support in his argument?

Gee red if you paid just a tad bit of attention you would understand over half of your wild claims are false. I stand for the removal of all tax credits and subsides. I also have no problem with using roads since I do pay taxes for them by way of fuel, licence, and fee taxes. Unlike you I do live by my convictions and positions.

Still clicking away on your oil based computer I see....just more of the same from the do as I say not as I do part of today's left fringe.

You sure got that right, illdrinktothat. billnewbie set a new (sub) standard with that response!

Gee RAF, you also believe we pay too much in taxes yet you still drive on taxpayer funded roads, plowed and salted by taxpayer funded equipment and operated by taxpayer funded workers educated by taxpayer funded teachers in taxpayer funded schools. When you fill up at the gas station today don't forget that the oil company received millions of taxpayer money in subsidies. Are you paying for the gas using proceeds from your taxpayer funded pension including the automatic cost of living increases? Of course you continue to have available taxpayer funded medical care. Do you realize most, if not all, of the food you eat is grown and processes by companies receiving billions of taxpayer funded subsides? Now, what were you saying about credibility?

Bill you raise and interesting point. I tend to think the more interesting conflict the left faces on this issue is one of credibility.

They declare environmental concerns as the basis for their resistance to mining while at the same time having no issues with buying products made from these very core materials regardless of where they are mined.

If they did have credibility, or conviction of position, they would surely keep a consistent position and ensure products they did purchase only came from mines they could prove met whatever standards they think are safe.

billnewbie said, "Wouldn't it be better to mine our own taconite here, under the environmental standards of the bill the Senator opposes, than to let some other country mine it for us using no environmental controls at all? If we really do care about the environment, the answer should be yes."

If there is ore to be mined in other states and/or countries with less stringent environmental protections than exist in Wisconsin you can rest assured it will be mined regardless of whether or not Wisconsin's ore is mined. Where your argument leads us is to a lowering of Wisconsin's environmental standards so they are closer to those states and/or countries with less stringent standards that you fear will replace Wisconsin's mining industry and pollute the environment elsewhere. To lower our environmental protections would in no way guarantee that mining would cease in those states and/or countries with few, if any, protections. Your argument demonstrates less concern for Wisconsin's environment than for the environment in other states and/or countries, which is either very noble or very disingenuous.

I think billnewbie just blew the competition right out of the polluted water as the most bassackwards line of thinking I have ever seen on gazetteextra.

Alright, so our Senator says he wants to protect the environment. I wonder. If we do as so many Democrats seem intent on doing and block this mine from ever going into operation by insisting on extreme environmental standards that make the mine economically unfeasible, what will be the result? Will there be a reduction in the total amount of taconite mined? No, somewhere in the world a mine or two will make up the difference. If that's true, and it obviously is, then will the environment at least be kept a bit cleaner for lack of this mine? No, the mines that make up the difference will no doubt be in parts of the world where environmental concerns are minimal. Therefore, by preventing the opening of this mine, which our Senator's stringent environmental demands would most certainly lead to, the environment worldwide will be much the worse.

Surely the Senator's efforts could keep Wisconsin cleaner. But since all his efforts would do is to export the mess to another area of the world where regulations are lax, as well as the jobs, profits and the taxes on those profits, the result would be worse for the environment and worse for Wisconsin's economy. To paraphrase an old cliché, the Senator seems willing to cut off the world's collective environmental nose to spite the Republicans' political face.

Wouldn't it be better to mine our own taconite here, under the environmental standards of the bill the Senator opposes, than to let some other country mine it for us using no environmental controls at all? If we really do care about the environment, the answer should be yes.

Why did the democrats cancel the Ashland meeting, while the republicans held meetings in Hurley? Because most of the speakers in Hurley supported the mine, and the people in Ashland did not. If Cullen is really wanting to listen to the people, he should also hold meetings in Hurley.

Also, a group of 12 (6 democrats, 6 republicans) were toured the area Friday (at their own expense). I don't believe that Cullen went to this event.

http://www.wqow.com/story/20711516/2013/...

A vote for this bill is a vote against a clean environment for our children. It is that simple.