Let the character assassination begin!
As usual, the lazy gauleiter of Washington Co. has nothing to add by way of analysis but leaves the way open for trolls to let Tanya Lohr know that her kind is not wanted.
I am not even sure which one is him.
While it is still early, the comments are already rolling in.
1.
Well she has the politician speak down.
I guess my first question would be what she considers an adequate amount for public education.
What does respect for women look like to her and why not respect for people in general?
Affordable health care is not something that will be solved at the state level unless she means raising taxes on some to pay for health care for others.
I wonder if she would agree with us recalling her after a year if she wins? No - that’s different - she’s a woman and that would be disrespectful.
Tad
Posted by Tad on April 27, 2012 at 1929 hrs
Victimization, it's not just for leaders of the African-American community.
2.
There’s a winner for ya! Egad.
Posted by bajaskier on April 27, 2012 at 2151 hrs
Glad you think so.
3.
For accountability sake there should always be a candidate to run against an incumbent. Be it within their own party or another party. It helps keep the incumbent accountable for what they’ve done and what they say they will do.
There are many liberals that are not happy with how Obama has performed and it would have been nice to see a Democratic candidate to run against him.
Posted by Pat on April 28, 2012 at 0744 hrs
Isn't that why you all embraced Romney so wholeheartedly?
4.
I guess men don’t count in Lohr’s world.
This is the kind of teacher “educating” our children?
I hesitate to ask, what does “adequate” mean in her world? 50% of my time an effort? 75%? 100%? 110%?
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 0909 hrs
I am pretty sure this is the Kewaskumite who half-heartedly stood up for murdering black kids on my post a while back, he has made similar comments in the past. Next time go ahead and call her a femi-nazi Kevin, you know you want to.
5.
I must admit that Grothman’s statements have not shown a lot of respect for women. He has attacked single mothers as child abusers, stated that women don’t need to earn as much as men because it isn’t as important to them and been very vocal about the right of a woman to make her own healthcare decisions (not talking about abortion).
I don’t want to state this as a fact but really want an answer so I do not misrepresent the facts. Does Grothman still live with his mother or is that an attack being thrown around by his opponents?
Posted by MoveForward on April 28, 2012 at 1029 hrs
6.Since when does wanting to restore respect for women mean disrespecting men or saying they don’t count as much? Kevin, how does that mean “men don’t count” in her world? Grothman said women don’t need to make as much money as men. How is that not disrespecting women? If he had said something similar about exclusively men and this woman only said let’s restore respect to women, that’d be one thing, but that’s not the case here.
Posted by VAPolitico on April 28, 2012 at 1136 hrs
Update:
For more lovelies.
- Wow-
two teachers…..I’d love to see their house on the chain in Minocqua!!
Posted by lovetoride on April 28, 2012 at 1315 hrs - “I want to restore adequate funding for public education, respect for women, affordable family health care and strengthen our communities by empowering working people,” Lohr said.
It is a shame that liberals cannot be honest
Posted by Mcbragg on April 28, 2012 at 1318 hrs - Glad to see the Republicans bashing without knowing. Lovetoride, what an idiot. You have no knowledge of this young lady or her situation. Give it a rest.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1435 hrs - VA Politico,
What does restoring “respect to women” mean?
That statement, by itself, is overtly exclusionary to men.
Why does Lohr not talk about “restoring respect to men”? Progressives advocate huge government welfare largess that incentivizes single parenthood and destroys the institution of marriage. (Many times, if the couple gets married, they lose the government goodies and handouts.)
As a result of this “progressive” mentality, men have become “disposable” to the family unit in our society.
Just who’s “respect” is Lohr talking about here?
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1511 hrs - Kevin, it’s only “overtly exclusionary” to men if you want to get all outraged and upset about it. Your example about how men have become “disposable” to the family unit is ridiculous. As is your assertion that anyone is incentivizing single parenthood. Recognizing that there are single parents and making sure that those parents and their children have safety nets isn’t destroying the institution of marriage. It’s an effort o provide care for people who need it, instead of doing what you do, which is judge and shame them as a whole, regardless of whether there are factors beyond their control.
Seriously Kevin, you’d probably be a much happier person if you didn’t spend so much time going out of your way to be offended.
Posted by VAPolitico on April 28, 2012 at 1519 hrs - VA Politico
“Kevin, it’s only “overtly exclusionary” to men if you want to get all outraged and upset about it.”
....and progressives don’t get worked into a lather, offended, and outraged over little things? I’m merely dealing from the progressive playbook here…is that now a bad thing?
Did you read Glenn Grothman’s newsletter on all the goodies a single mom gets with 2 kids and how much she would lose if she married a dad, with a job?
It’s a very compelling economic argument to throw Dad to the curb, or risk losing a ton of government goodies.
Until government stops disrespecting men by making it more lucrative for mom to be without Dad, Democrats look very, very, foolish talking about restoring respect to anyone.
The debate is about government disrespecting the sanctity of the family unit, not about disrespecting women.
Lohr appears clueless on this, based on her comments, fresh off the anti-man, Emerge conference.
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1533 hrs - Kevin, do not believe what Glen puts in his newsletter. It is spin, all the way exaggerated to make a point. He listed every possible program to the max. That is not real life, but what Glen would like you to believe. And before you get into one of your little Kevin fits, please provide proof that all those numbers are real and that there is someone out there actually getting those benefits.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1657 hrs - dodgecountydem,
Are you saying the numbers in this newsletter are inaccurate?
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/grothman/Documents/Grothman-families.pdf
Please point out which of the welfare “goodies” are inaccurate?
If mom making $15K/year marries Dad making 30K per year, most to all of the free government goodies do go away under a 4 person family scenario.
You accused this newsletter of being inaccurate, where?
I understand why Democrats hate this newsletter, it shows how anti-family “progressive policies really are.
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1704 hrs - Kevin, I looked at Grothman’s numbers. They are what I said—max benefits. “He listed every possible program to the max. That is not real life, but what Glen would like you to believe.”
If a women gets married and makes a family of 3 a family of four, she only looses many of the benefits if the income between her and her husband actually rises above $40,000. If both husband and wife are working full time at $10.00 per hour—which is far above what most unskilled jobs pay. (You pay your people less than $9.00 an hour I am sure.) At $10.00 an hour full-time, husband and wife make just over $40,000 a year. But wait, most places will not hire full time because then they have to provide benefits—which would take our family off of Badger Care. If they are less than full time, there are few benefits to getting married.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1722 hrs - dodgecountydem,
I did not see you point out an inaccuracy…you accused Grothman of inaccuracy…I guess you were inaccurate.
Even if we go with your example, both parents will have to sweat and work all year…including paying taxes to lose just about as much in government freebies.
It’s still far more attractive to not get married, not work, and collect the government goodies and have all your time available.
The rest of us suckers are doing it wrong, being responsible and married.
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1731 hrs - I wonder if she’ll try and get her students to work on her campaign. They can probably get credit for the new bogus “volunteer class” the district just implemented. Let’s wait and see…..
Posted by Mary on April 28, 2012 at 1735 hrs - The plain fact is Glen Grothman’s district probably would elect Al Capone if he was running on te Republican ticket.
Posted by Dave on April 28, 2012 at 1746 hrs - Mary, your words are slander—making assumptions to try to demean someone. Where does Jesus make up stories and lie about those he disagrees with? I thought you were a Christian.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1751 hrs
dodgecountydem,
You accuse someone of slander when you could not point out the inaccuracy of Grothman’s newsletter after your wild allegation?
Dave,
Pretty funny. I doubt it. It’s Democrats seem to have the virtual monopoly on electing disreputable criminals like Blago, John Edwards, and Anthony Wiener.
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1814 hrs
21.
Good night Kevin, your closed mind is just not worth it. And you are a part of the problem—employing people at less than full time so you do not have to provide them with benefits. Paying less than $15.00 an hour keeps people in the cycle.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1823 hrs
22.
dodgecountydem,
Well…yeah. 85% of my staff is teenagers. Democrats passed restrictive child labor laws. 14 and 15 year olds cannot work more than 16 hours in a school week. 16-17 years olds can only work about 26 hours in a school week.
How can they be full time? Democrats forbid them to work!
The rest of my staff does not want full time employment. They want to work when it suits them, and I let them off when they need off…even at last minute sometimes. They value flexibility, not rigidity of full time work. Many just want to work 3-4 hours, while their kids are in school.
So can I have an apology when you demand I BREAK CHILD LABOR LAWS in pursuit of your demands? (And also forcing the rest of my workers into a scenario they do not want….)
Personally, teenagers want to work more…to pay for college. Instead, government forced them to have free time to run with the gang because our government forbids them to excel, and be responsible.
Your comment is beyond contempt in my view.
How many jobs have you created?
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1848 hrs
23.
Are you serious Dem??
Every job is supposed to be full-time?
Every job is supposed to pay at least $15/hr.
Every job should provide benefits?
No - you are part of the problem. With that attitude you show that you are willing to give away others money regardless of their worth.
Also, part of the problem is that we expect employers to provide insurance.
Geesh - you want people beholden to the employer, to the government, to everyone else but themselves.
Posted by Tad on April 28, 2012 at 1850 hrs
24.
Kevin, are you impying that ‘men are getting slighted’ in society with a straight face? If a woman is staying with a man just to get his insurance benefits, I would gather that there is a problem in the relationship that has nothing to do with liberal government goodies. I think we can raise our boys/men in society to have more to offer a relationship or family so they do not feel so disposable. Your defensive almost gives the impression that you feel personally threatened by women who are able to raise a family without a man.
Posted by Shana Schloemer on April 28, 2012 at 1903 hrs
25.
Dodgecountydem is more than welcome to develop a product and a business plan, and consequently share his wealth with whomever he chooses.
Unfortunately, in this society, it is easier to take some else’s wealth.
Posted by Smeety on April 28, 2012 at 1907 hrs
26.
Tad, is employers aren’t supposed to provide insurance and the government isn’t supposed to provide insurance then how would you like the people who make minimum wage to afford insurance? You say that people should “make what they are worth?” What does that mean?
I have always worked in mental health/human services. In the recent past, I have done suicide assessments and gone out with the medical examiner to do trauma counseling while making $20 an hour. Fortunately, I snagged myself a fancy indisposable man. A “keeper” for more reasons than this. He has great insurance and will always make astronomically more money than I do. He works in a corporate setting so his “worth” has been set by society as far more important than my “worthless” work as a therapist with a master’s degree.
Posted by Shana Schloemer on April 28, 2012 at 1911 hrs
27.
Kevin, why is it every time you address a criticism you say “I’m just taking a page out of the progressive playbook”? At some point, what you’re doing becomes your own playbook, and you have to stop pretending like you’re just “doing what the Dems would do.”
Face it, you’re just as “bad” as those progressives you hate.
Posted by VAPolitico on April 28, 2012 at 1915 hrs
28.
Kevin,
#1—students should have limited work hours. Getting a High School diploma should come first.
#2—If someone were to come to you—an adult—and ask to work 40 hours a week, full-time would you hire them? I wonder. You would probably say no citing the cost of insurance and worker’s comp.
I ask you again to show me a person who is living the scenario that Glenn suggests. And he twists the numbers to feed his “they are all taking advantage of the government” mentality. Do you truly believe that most people would rather live off of the government than work and support themselves? If so, I have a wonderful piece of marshland not too far from here I can sell you.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1929 hrs
No comments:
Post a Comment