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.

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.

ReturedAirForce 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.

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?

I didn't see or hear any republicans having a problem with Senator Schultz when he voted in favor of Act 10. Now that he disagrees with the party's mining bill it's well known that he's a "republican in name only." So if he blindly votes in your favor he's one of you but if he doesn't he's not. Is there no room for independent thinking in the republican party?

This sums up the last two years.

Republicans had the majority, and introduced the mining bill...it was BAD.

Democrats had the majority for 5 months, introduced NO bill, had NO public hearings.

Republicans gain majority, re introduce a mining bill, and mining is BAD.

Minority party Cullen, introduces a mining bill, and mining is GOOD again.

yada, POLITIFACT, one of your favorite sources, debunked little boy Larson.

yada.... and your credibility sinks when you cite far leftie sources such as The Daily Call and The Uptake. LOL

WISLADY - Once Again - Got it wrong! The Re_FIB_licans are the ones as she claims that are "lying" - It appears to be part of their Game Plan of life. This is a very simple issue to solve ---> If you cannot have the Mine because of environmental issues - then you DON"T have the Mine.
Milwwakee Journal Sentinel - same story John E. had...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

"New WI Iron Mining Bill Will Be Devestating To The Environment"
http://www.thedailycall.org/?p=36723

"Hundred Oppose Bill WEAKENING WI Mining Regulations"
http://www.theuptake.org/2013/01/24/hund...

**I think it is time for WISLADY to start listening to the recent comments by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal that told the GOP to "STOP BEING THE STUPID PARTY" - He went on to say that "OFFENSIVE AND BIZARRE COMMENTS" by some Republicans hurt all of the Party.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...

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

John this statement by you, "My problem is CREDIBILITY", is interesting. You have posted conflicting messages many times in your articles., leading to your own credibility problems. Just more of the same from the party of do as I say not as I do.

Reading newspapers this morning, I was GRATEFUL that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has posted a very informative feature, "Q&A digs into state mining bill debate" - the URL for your access is: http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/q.... I urge readers of my WE THE PEOPLE blog post yesterday to read this additional analysis. Here we go... John W. Eyster

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.

Democrat Larson, lying again.

Wisconsin bill to speed mine approval won't create jobs for 7 years, Sen. Chris Larson says

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...

John said "I assume the INTEGRITY of Cullen & Schultz is stronger than that of Scott Fitzgerald and his GOP colleagues." What a shocker! I know, John named Senator Schultz so he could look bi-partisan, but we all know that Senator Schultz is a Republican in name only, as does John. That's why John likes him so much.

I posted the following on a news item in the Gazette. I don't usually like to repost, but in this case, I'll make an exception.

" 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.

Too bad the word "jobs" isn't even in walkers bill. It sounds like most jobs would come from Minn and Mich anyways. So much for that nice forest up there.....

It would be helpful for Cullen to use data that is not outdated, instead of spreading misinformation. When the dems were having their committee meetings on crafting their version of a mining bill, how many PUBLIC hearings were held in the 5 months of their majority?

The mine proposed is NOT a sulfide mine, which Cullen has envisioned will produce "rivers of sulfuric acid."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFm6m3w9...

Why did the dems cancel the public hearing last January in Ashland, while the republicans had hearings in Hurley? Because support for the mine in Hurley is strong, and in Ashland there is not as much support for the mine.

I do believe that IF there is a mining bill, most of the money should be returned to the area of the mining operations. It also is reasonable to establish a timetable for the DNR in the permit process. The dems version allows for a never-ending permit process (insuring that a mine never gets approved). Regulations should be streamlined, but environmental regulations should not be weakened. I do not believe the DNR would issue any permit if they believed the water quality would be compromised.

No one wants to harm the environment, but northern Wisconsin needs jobs. Retired people and recreational activities can not support the communities. Seasonal jobs are low paying, and usually do not provide any benefits. Families are having to leave the area, in order to find jobs.

Perhaps there should be a referendum in all areas within 100 miles of the mine?
While the anti mining people offer pleas against mining, it is equally heart wrenching to watch the people who live in the area begging for jobs, so they can provide for their families.

How believable is this group?

http://www.wkow.com/story/20714438/2013/...

Cullen has already shown he can not be trusted. First by running away from his job, and now, by providing misinformation.

No surprise who you trust as you are a highly partisan liberal. As a blogger, you have that right. Just wish you would stop your ridiculous attempts to pass yourself off as anything else. Personally, I do not trust any of them, sad to say