Monday, November 30, 2009

Give Her A Scarlet Letter


Nothing like some good down home Puritan's anger.

Now McBride is really in for it. She has called down the wrath of Zeus.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

52 comments:

  1. illusory tenantNovember 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM

    Not bad, but not as good as "Why Jesus opposes universal health care." (Is Zeus an alter ego or hilarious sock puppetry?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. grumpsDecember 1, 2009 at 5:54 AM

    So, McBride gets an, "A" for effort?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zeus RodriguezDecember 2, 2009 at 12:58 PM

    Someone named "Illusory" is calling me an "alter ego." (Go Figure)

    Aaron is my cousin and I am a very real person here in Milwaukee. If you would like to meet both of us, you can come to the Conservative Young Professionals group gathering down on Water Street tonight.

    I am also older, much bigger and definitely much meaner than my cousin, so you might want to tread lightly.

    Peace

    Thanks for the link Capper!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jay BullockDecember 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM

    we understand that the single-family unit is the foundation of a civil society
    If you live in a duplex, you're an animal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. capperDecember 2, 2009 at 9:39 PM

    I am also older, much bigger and definitely much meaner than my cousin, so you might want to tread lightly.

    So, what does that mean? Your a bran muffin compare to A-rod's cupcake?

    @Jay, what the hell does that say about me, I live in a castle?

    ReplyDelete
  6. ZeusDecember 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM

    You will find out soon enough Capper, so keep talking.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  7. ZeusDecember 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM

    Jay,

    Well Jay, if the shoe fits...

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousDecember 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM

    Jeesh, Zeuski, take that 'tude back to your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Other SideDecember 3, 2009 at 1:49 PM

    @ Zeus ...

    Oooooh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zach W.December 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM

    Sock puppets like Zeus make me laugh...

    ReplyDelete
  11. ZeusDecember 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM

    Timothy and Zach, nerds like you who talk tough and hide behind a computer make me laugh.

    Hey Zach, we can meet at Source's when ever you would like. That's close to where you live in South Milwaukee right? Anytime buddy, anytime.

    Bunch of sissies.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zach W.December 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM

    Jesus, I'd really hate to think you're threatening me. After all, what would your wife think of your internet tough guy persona?

    ReplyDelete
  13. ZeusDecember 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM

    Well Mr. Wisniewski, she knows me well and her advice to you is to quit while you are still ahead.

    You have to know where Source's is, are you scared?

    If you are not scared then we can have a nice little workout and you can just see how tough my real life persona is. I would have much more respect for you regardless of the outcome.

    If you are scared then I suggest you stop acting like a punk before you get treated like one.

    I need a good workout, from your pictures, it looks like you do too. What do you say? Source's early next week? 1600 ish?

    ReplyDelete
  14. ZeusDecember 3, 2009 at 8:33 PM

    I'll bring a sock!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Zach W.December 3, 2009 at 8:38 PM

    Jesus, I'm not a punk, nor am I worried about being treated like one, but I'd advise you to quite the tough guy routine while you're ahead. We get it...you're a big bad internet tough guy...let us know how that works out for you!

    ReplyDelete
  16. ZeusDecember 3, 2009 at 8:49 PM

    LOL!

    You "advise" me? What are you going to do?

    That's what I thought.

    Yeah I can sometimes regress, and lose some of my dignity, for that I am truly sorry. But for the record, you acted like a punk and I allowed myself to respond in kind. Maybe we will meet soon and I will buy you a beer and hopefully you will respond in kind.

    So why don't we start over, by you not calling me a "Sock puppet" and I promise not to lose anymore of my dignity.

    What do you say?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Zach W.December 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM

    Fair enough.

    ReplyDelete
  18. grumpsDecember 4, 2009 at 9:09 AM

    I'm sorry. I got here late. Where might that "dignity" be found?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Up north girlDecember 4, 2009 at 6:32 PM

    Calling someone a "sock puppet" is worthy of physical threats?

    Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  20. UnknownDecember 4, 2009 at 7:05 PM

    Why is it that liberals can't understand the written word? Zeus wouldn't threaten anyone bodily harm over words on a blog. His point is that people, often anonymously, like to say things to people they wouldn't say in person, which is somewhat cowardly.

    Liberals, in my opinion, often cross the line with their verbiage because they tend to be more passionate about political ideology than conservatives.ex

    ReplyDelete
  21. Up north girlDecember 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM

    You don't consider it threatening to tell someone to meet him and his cousin somewhere, followed by mentioning that he's even bigger and meaner than his cousin, followed by a warning to "tread lightly"?

    Double wow.

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonDecember 5, 2009 at 7:41 AM

    "His point is that people, often anonymously, like to say things to people they wouldn't say in person, which is somewhat cowardly."

    Aaron...you and Zeus are more anonymous than iT...capper...Jay...and Zach. Think about that...when you are calling people cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  23. UnknownDecember 6, 2009 at 6:44 PM

    "You don't consider it threatening to tell someone to meet him and his cousin somewhere, followed by mentioning that he's even bigger and meaner than his cousin, followed by a warning to "tread lightly"?"

    Like I said, he was making a point, which I find to be important and fascinating.

    Viscous blogging is sort of like road rage. People feel powerful behind the wheel of a car because they can invoke fear, inflict damage, and speed away if they need to. All of these factors play into road rage.

    Blogging is similar. People can attack the motives and character of people they don't know behind the safety of their laptop. This shouldn't be.

    Blogging can be a viscous pastime.

    ReplyDelete
  24. UnknownDecember 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM

    "Aaron...you and Zeus are more anonymous than iT...capper...Jay...and Zach. Think about that...when you are calling people cowards."

    I may cloak my identity (to a certain point), but my blog isn't viscous or slanderous. I may say things that you may not agree with, or my ideology stands opposed to yours, but I don't say things about people that I wouldn't say to their faces. Can the same be said about Capper or Liebmann?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zach W.December 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM

    Just so we're clear, everything I've ever written on my blog I'd say if the person were standing across from me. While some may get emotional when they write, I don't,

    ReplyDelete
  26. capperDecember 6, 2009 at 7:21 PM

    Aaron, as a victim of your attempts as libel and slander, I call you out on your flat out lie. You have attacked me personally and lied about Milwaukee County First. Correct yourself, please.

    ReplyDelete
  27. UnknownDecember 6, 2009 at 9:32 PM

    Zach, I know where you're coming from.

    Capper, there is nothing I've said about MCF that isn't true. Everything I've said about you is supported by evidence either by links or by your blog.

    You know as well as I do that MCF exists to help combat Scott Walker's gubernatorial run. Don't try to deny it, Capper.

    ReplyDelete
  28. capperDecember 6, 2009 at 9:44 PM

    Really, Aaron?

    Well,let's look, shall we?

    Oops, there you go again.

    Liebenthal also lashed out concerning a criticism published by Roland Melnick at the BadgerBlogger. Melnick essentially says what I've been saying all along - that Milwaukee County First is an offshoot of the AFSCME, the largest union in Wisconsin. Liebenthal's non-profit does not care about putting Milwaukee County First; they care about putting the employees of Milwaukee County First.

    While it is true that I am a member of AFSCME due to my job, the union has nothing to say about what MCF stands for and what it is against. The union has offered no support for MCF, financially or through manpower.

    BTW, you again lied about Walker's stimulus stance in that same post.

    The question is: Did you ever consider that Walker's policies and political antics aren't what is best for Milwaukee County?

    I also noticed you've never mentioned the non-Walker posts, such as when I have repeatedly criticized Doyle and the state legislature for their continuing failure to follow the will of the people on the sales tax or on the damage the state wants to do to the county grounds. Why would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  29. UnknownDecember 7, 2009 at 8:17 AM

    Chris, what I wrote was true then and is true now. You are using the MCF to do EXACTLY what your union is doing, which is to oppose any layoff or unemployment in the public sector regardless whether it requires tax increases.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Other SideDecember 7, 2009 at 7:13 PM

    The Source? Why in this world, or Mt. Olympus, would I want to meet Zeus at a furniture store? Sounds kinda kinky.

    ReplyDelete
  31. capperDecember 7, 2009 at 11:42 PM

    Arod,

    Wait, first you accuse of being out to destroy Walker's campaign (even though we can't deal with elections) and now we are working for the union? Can't you even keep your stories straight.

    Yes, we are against needless privatization, especially when it does not reduce taxes, but in fact costs more than providing it through the public. We are also against it when it involves cronyism and kickbacks. Why are you for those things?

    ReplyDelete
  32. grumpsDecember 8, 2009 at 12:40 PM

    I'm less concerned with your lack of viscosity than I am your surfeit of vacuity, Arod

    ReplyDelete
  33. UnknownDecember 10, 2009 at 9:56 PM

    Capper,

    This entire discussion is silly. You and everyone else knows why you created your little non-profit entity. You've had a hard-on for Walker for the better part of a year, and you know that I've chronicled how many posts you furnished about the man in a relatively short period of time.

    All of sudden, shortly after Walker announces, MCF suddenly appears - all the while commenting on Walker "most of the time".

    MCF may not officially be a partner of your union, but the goals of both are the same. You've never found one layoff or job cut that you've agreed with. In fact, you promote raising taxes during a recession in order to save those jobs or provide more services at the taxpayer's expense.

    MCF is a joke. I predicted it wouldn't get any traction, and it hasn't. I just feel bad (kind of) for you, especially when Walker gets elected. Because when that happens, an entire year of your blog is rendered a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  34. capperDecember 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM

    This may come as a surprise to you, Aaron, but there are more important things than money. That you continuously fail to recognize that fact does your reputation no good at all.

    Keep thinking that Walker will win. Perhaps the pain of seeing how terribly wrong you were will finally wake you up to the big world around you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. UnknownDecember 12, 2009 at 8:50 PM

    Capper,

    I think I shall mention your last post to you when Walker wins. Wouldn't that just be horrible?

    ReplyDelete
  36. capperDecember 12, 2009 at 9:07 PM

    Walker definitely won't be winning with pictures of the courthouse as campaign material, now will he?

    ReplyDelete
  37. UnknownDecember 13, 2009 at 12:24 AM

    Capper,

    Honestly, man to man, do you think that Walker has the best shot of winning next November?

    Seriously, do you think that Barrett can beat him? Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. capperDecember 13, 2009 at 12:28 AM

    I most definitely do. Barrett has better name recognition with a higher rating.

    Barrett was winning or tied in polls vis-a-vis Walker, even before he started running.

    And given the impending implosion of the County's budget, it will be fun to see Walker and his apologists try to spin out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. UnknownDecember 13, 2009 at 7:43 AM

    You're fooling yourself. First, Walker is beating Barrett in the polls.

    Second, Barrett will be tied to Doyle in the election, which will hurt Barrett. You cannot deny this. It happened to McCain, and it can certainly happen to Barrett.

    Third, what is Barrett going to run on? Being a nice guy only gets you so far when you have no real record in Milwaukee - unless you call ramping up taxes a real record.

    Fourth, Barrett's mayoral position on MPS will be a stumbling block. The media will knock him on turning over substantial power to some mayoral position only to vacate his position. (let's face it though, he's not going anywhere)

    And fifth, the people (as much as you may disagree) don't want a leader that soaks the taxpayers to solve problems. Just like what you do with your personal finances, people want a leader that's willing to make cuts and reduce costs when personal budgets become a problem. This is intuitive despite the cries from the left that the county is falling apart because of Evil Walker.

    Democrats have a significant problem on their hands this election. People are tired of Doyle and want something different. Unless Barrett can prove to the people that he's something fresh and different to offer, you will find yourselves with Scott Walker.

    Let me ask you this simple question. Do you think that Barrett can convince the people he's different than Doyle when Walker will be continually reminding them that Barrett's policies are the same? I don't think so, but miracles do happen sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. UnknownDecember 13, 2009 at 8:16 AM

    I got to get the liberal opinion over here.

    Barrett's campaign manager said,

    “I am proud to be working with a leader who has proven himself in Wisconsin. Tom Barrett tackles tough problems, bridges political divides, and attracts good jobs to this state.”

    How on earth can raising taxes attract good jobs to the state?

    ReplyDelete
  41. capperDecember 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM

    As for the tax question, it worked for Reagan, didn't it?

    As for the first, Walker will be too busy doing damage control. Did you see the latest, tying Walker's wont of understaffing agencies to the child care scandal.

    Now it looks like he might have given one of the cleaning contracts to someone that just donated to his campaign.

    Most people don't mind paying taxes, if their money is not being wasted. That is all Walker wants to do and has done with ours. People are sick of the corruption that Doyle and Walker share.

    ReplyDelete
  42. UnknownDecember 13, 2009 at 7:49 PM

    Capper,

    You need to think like a businessman. If property taxes kept climbing and the state government kept increasing what businesses pay into the Capital Gains tax, then why would any business want to move to Wisconsin when the can go to a state with lower taxes?

    You need to understand that small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy. We need to strike a balance between providing them what then need to be successful while not giving them too much. I don't see Barrett doing that. Walker, on the other hand, is pro-business and pro-free market.

    ReplyDelete
  43. capperDecember 13, 2009 at 7:56 PM

    Especially if that small businessman gives $1,000 to his campaign, eh?

    But then again, why is WI gaining in businesses but MKE Co. is losing?

    ReplyDelete
  44. UnknownDecember 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM

    Capper,

    You need to check your facts again. Walker doesn't decided what firm gets the county courthouse job.

    Also, in all practicality, a thousand dollars is a minuscule amount to be granting a 1.2 million dollar contract.

    As a personal aside, do you ever publish something on your blog that requires at least some research so you don't look like an ass later?

    ReplyDelete
  45. UnknownDecember 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM

    Yes, the facts are that Walker is excluded from the hiring process of custodial firms. The hiring is based upon an evaluative point system graded by a panel of county employees from different divisions of the county government.

    This means that you should do the right thing and retract your post that accuses Walker of being involved in the hiring process.

    No name calling here.

    ReplyDelete
  46. capperDecember 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM

    And who appoints said employees?

    Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

    Now you may apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  47. UnknownDecember 19, 2009 at 5:01 PM

    Capper,

    It doesn't matter who hired them because they were graded on a point system that's available to the public. So if you wanted to, you could examine the evaluations and why each company scored as they did.

    But of course, it's much easier to make ignorant statements without examining the facts. I implore you, view the evaluations yourself as I have.

    ReplyDelete
  48. capperDecember 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM

    Or I could filed an ethics complaint...Oh wait, Walker appoints those, and even those some of these appointments are way overdue, Walker hasn't made them. Nice way to keep control of things, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  49. UnknownDecember 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM

    To file an ethics complaint, you would have to have grounds to do so. And the fact that Walker is excluded from the evaluative and hiring process of these custodial firms vetoes your skepticism.

    Again, do your homework. Write an article that provides clear facts about why you have a particular problem of MidAmerican getting the county courthouse job as opposed to Jani-King who also donated a thousand dollars to Walker's campaign, but managed only to score a 46 out of 100.

    ReplyDelete
  50. capperDecember 20, 2009 at 4:43 PM

    By the sheer virtue that he appoints those that evaluate and decide shows that he has influence.

    But thanks for the information about Jani-King. I wonder if they have received any county money...

    ReplyDelete
  51. UnknownDecember 20, 2009 at 5:55 PM

    Again, it's a matter of public record. You can check to see how the evaluative process worked and whether it was fair. Furthermore, if the other firms thought something fishy had went on, they can file an appeal, which none of them have done. And they have more to lose than you, do they not?

    Furthermore, Aprahamsian had donated to Doyle and Barrett. And MidAmerican already has state and city contracts. So why are you not alleging that Doyle and Barrett have done something unethical? Sounds a little partisan, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  52. capperDecember 20, 2009 at 5:59 PM

    A) the timing of it stinks.

    B) Walker has a history of doing this.

    And before you go any further, I would remind you of how you lost the parks argument. You are only wasting both our time.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)