# Show your support for Rail in WI



## esmeralda (Dec 30, 2010)

http://www.wisdems.org/HighSpeedFailSticker2b

This one is apparently causing troubles in WI republican circles. It is quite amusing though.


----------



## BigBlueBuddha (Dec 30, 2010)

esmeralda said:


> http://www.wisdems.org/HighSpeedFailSticker2b
> 
> This one is apparently causing troubles in WI republican circles. It is quite amusing though.


Thanks, I have one on the way!


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 4, 2011)

Linkee no workee. :unsure:


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 5, 2011)

There is only limited funding for rail so the less Wisconsin wants, the more that is available to the rest of us.

I don't support WI rail projects if the residents don't.

I like the federal government's take on it that if the state is unwilling to invest in themselves, then why should the rest of us do it for them. Democracy in action.


----------



## pebbleworm (Jan 5, 2011)

Here's a news article with a picture:

http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/12/30/wis-republican-rails-against-walker-train-sticker/

It was probably yanked because it looked too much like a bullet train.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 6, 2011)

:angry2:



me_little_me said:


> There is only limited funding for rail so the less Wisconsin wants, the more that is available to the rest of us.
> 
> I don't support WI rail projects if the residents don't.
> 
> I like the federal government's take on it that if the state is unwilling to invest in themselves, then why should the rest of us do it for them. Democracy in action.


:angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

*explodes*

I have said it before, and I am sure I will say it again, but for the hard of sight,

Support of anti-rail politicians and being anti-rail are not mutually dependent!

I don't propose to know what reasons the citizens of Wisconsin had to (barely) favor Scott Walker over the incumbent. It is possible, however unlikely, that of the 52% of the residents, the percent that voted for the dweeb, all of them were in great support of his anti-rail nonsense.

More likely, a good portion of them would rather have voted for my lobotomy-patient intellect fancy mouse, Amber, than the incumbent governor. So to suggest that election of Walker indicates that Wisconsin hats rail is ridiculous.

Want a cool fact? McCain is one of the most anti-Amtrak people in congress, right? Frank Lautenberg is one of the most pro-Amtrak people in congress at the moment, right?

And I generally vote Democrat. Given the choice between the two of them, I'd pick John McCain for president. And I am certainly not anti-rail.

Fact is, I think Lautenburg is a grand old crook, more interested in the benefit of his friends and special interests in his declining years than the citizens of the state that elected him into office. True or not, I would never vote for him.


----------



## jis (Jan 7, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> :angry2:
> 
> :angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:
> 
> ...


Good point. It should also be noted that 52% of the residents did not vote for Walker. Only 52% of the residents who voted, voted for Walker. What was the overall turnout in WI? If it was X%, then only ((.52 x .X) x 100)% voted for Walker and that is likely way less than 50%.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

Good point - looks like it was about 50% (the government site only has stats through 2008 posted, but most press accounts say around 50%).

So we're only talking about the 26% of Wisconsin residents that voted for the blockhead.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 7, 2011)

The one survey I was able to find gave the pro-funding side 44% and the anti-funding side 55%. That data seems far more relevant than all this hypothetical nonsense about being "forced" to vote for John McCain.


----------



## Eric S (Jan 7, 2011)

daxomni said:


> The one survey I was able to find gave the pro-funding side 44% and the anti-funding side 55%. That data seems far more relevant than all this hypothetical nonsense about being "forced" to vote for John McCain.


I haven't seen a poll recently, but over the last year or so (basically during the campaign season), support for the MKE-Madison _Hiawatha_ extension dropped with all of the attacks on the project. Go back two years ago and a majority of WI residents tended to support "high speed rail" or "passenger rail" improvements, whereas now the number is probably close to what you mention.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 7, 2011)

Eric S said:


> I haven't seen a poll recently, but over the last year or so (basically during the campaign season), support for the MKE-Madison _Hiawatha_ extension dropped with all of the attacks on the project. Go back two years ago and a majority of WI residents tended to support "high speed rail" or "passenger rail" improvements, whereas now the number is probably close to what you mention.


That's what I remember as well. Unfortunately several Republican politicians decided to use passenger rail as just another stick with which to attack their opponents and after enough anti-rail commercials and talk show interviews several pro-rail initiatives took a major dive in the public's perception. That damage is going to be hard to counter going forward no matter who is in office.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 7, 2011)

daxomni said:


> The one survey I was able to find gave the pro-funding side 44% and the anti-funding side 55%. That data seems far more relevant than all this hypothetical nonsense about being "forced" to vote for John McCain.


I'm never forced to vote for anything. I can simply leave my lazy arse in bed all day and read books. Fact of the matter is, I like John McCain, and if we didn't disagree with him on several key issues (rail being one of them) I might have voted for him last Presidential election. I like the man, and I generally like the nature of his performance on the hill. He is one of those politicians who actually seems to be genuinely interested in both the country as a whole and his constituents in particular.

We just seem to heavily disagree on about two dozen issues that I consider very important. And Obama never struck me as a slimeball. If he did, I would have voted for McCain. I'd rather have a good man I disagree with in office than a bad man I agree with. The 2008 election was the only one I can remember when I felt I had a choice of two good candidates, and voted on issues rather than my judgement of their personal merit.

The fact of the matter is, a lot of Wisconsinites, while disagreeing with this keystone balderdash about rail being a waste of money, might have liked the man for all kinds of reasons of their own. I don't propose to believe I know why they voted for him.

I find it arrogant, stupid, and downright preposterous that people automatically assume that since they favored an anti-rail candidate over a pro-rail candidate, they must be anti-rail. I'd be willing to bet, as a matter of fact, that a good fifty percent of the people in Wisconsin don't give two **** about rail at all.


----------



## Kramerica (Jan 8, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The fact of the matter is, a lot of Wisconsinites, while disagreeing with this keystone balderdash about rail being a waste of money, might have liked the man for all kinds of reasons of their own. I don't propose to believe I know why they voted for him.


I'm pro-rail, and I voted for Walker. I think the state really needs a belt-tightening all around and based on his record as Milwaukee County Executive I knew he could do it. The past decade has seen our state's structural deficits go up every year, and for the most part the last two governors simply used one-time fixes for each two-year budget. So while I'd really like to see the train go forward, I felt the overall state budget was more important and that Walker was a far superior candidate to Barrett in that regard.

Frankly, I thought that several things would happen to keep the Madison train line going even with Walker in charge:

- That only one of the legislative houses would turn to the GOP (instead of both, as actually happened) and thus the Dem House would keep him from killing the train.

- That Doyle would have gotten this project moving much faster and actually spent well over $100 million that would need to be paid back if we canceled the train. (Instead it is about $12 million and we seem to have gotten out of paying it back. Thanks for nothing, Doyle.)

- That once in office, Walker would listen to the business community, back off the cancellation, blame Doyle for spending too much to be able to back out now, and reluctantly go forward with the train line. And then happily smile at the ribbon-cutting in 2013.

So anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with GML's assertation that a vote for Walker was an anti-rail vote. Far from it! And hopefully Walker changes his tune when gas spikes to $6/gal or more in the coming years.


----------



## Eric S (Jan 8, 2011)

Kramerica said:


> So anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with GML's assertation that a vote for Walker was an anti-rail vote. Far from it! And hopefully Walker changes his tune when gas spikes to $6/gal or more in the coming years.


Based on Walker's track record of dealing with transit in Milwaukee County, even during the gas price run-up in 2008, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for him to change his anti-rail/anti-transit stance.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 9, 2011)

gas could go up to $20 and he would still pour money into the highways and build more 10 lane roads and put more cars on the road. I bet he doesn't even like hybrid cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 12, 2011)

amtrakwolverine said:


> gas could go up to $20 and he would still pour money into the highways and build more 10 lane roads and put more cars on the road. I bet he doesn't even like hybrid cars.


Good for him if he doesn't. A Toyota Prius should be in Websters, next to Hypocrisy.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 12, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Good for him if he doesn't. A Toyota Prius should be in Websters, next to Hypocrisy.


GML, is there anything you _don't_ complain about? Something you actually enjoy about life or someone you actually approve of? Maybe I'm just missing it but all I ever see is one derogatory statement after another. The few times I thought I saw you complimenting someone or something it turned out to be the back-handed variety.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 12, 2011)

He likes big heavy furniture, his fiancee and for people to make sense.

I think that's about it, though.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 13, 2011)

In this thread gml has not insulted anybody. He gave a balanced discussion of the election. And pointed out errors in data analyses, and gave his opinion about the prius. If you own a prius, the last statement would be an insult. But he is stating opinion strongly without personal attacks.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 13, 2011)

Steve4031 said:


> In this thread gml has not insulted anybody. He gave a balanced discussion of the election. And pointed out errors in data analyses, and gave his opinion about the prius. If you own a prius, the last statement would be an insult. But he is stating opinion strongly without personal attacks.


So he's not insulting anyone. _Unless_ they've crossed any number of arbitrary lines he's drawn in the sand. In which case maybe he _has_ insulted them. But it's just an opinion he's expressing and not a _personal_ attack because how could he know you'd be among the _millions_ of people he just insulted without explanation. Well, that makes about as much sense as the average GML post I suppose. I wouldn't call most of them balanced so much as completely unhinged and reactionary. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 13, 2011)

daxomni said:


> GML, is there anything you _don't_ complain about? Something you actually enjoy about life or someone you actually approve of? Maybe I'm just missing it but all I ever see is one derogatory statement after another. The few times I thought I saw you complimenting someone or something it turned out to be the back-handed variety.


Tons of stuff. Otherwise my post count would blow AlanB's off the map. If what people are saying are in agreement with my perspective, I have no reason to lamely chime in with "Yes, I agree!" I have long suspected that there are people around here who agree with me more than you'd think, but don't respond for either the above reason or because they think they'd be ridiculed... or both.

I have complimented several people on this board, and unless it was dripping with sarcasm, I meant it. Believe me, I have strong points, but subtlety is not among them.



daxomni said:


> So he's not insulting anyone. _Unless_ they've crossed any number of arbitrary lines he's drawn in the sand. In which case maybe he _has_ insulted them. But it's just an opinion he's expressing and not a _personal_ attack because how could he know you'd be among the _millions_ of people he just insulted without explanation. Well, that makes about as much sense as the average GML post I suppose. I wouldn't call most of them balanced so much as completely unhinged and reactionary. But maybe that's just me.


I am not aware of what kind of car you drive, nor do I have any reason to be unless it is something fascinating with prancing horses or snorting bulls, tridents, flying letters, or statues of flying ladies on them. The solution to our energy problem, at least with respect to transportation, to my mind, is to limit personal vehicular mobility to the absolute minimum needed, and otherwise use mass transit. A Prius or other eco-friendly car is designed to create a palatable mechanism to extend excess personal mobility.

An electric car, as a side point, has limited range... useful for using to transport you between your home and a location where you can transfer to a mass transit system.

I see personal mobility as the key problem, with inefficient cars being among the symptoms. I would naturally find something that claims to fix the symptom while extending the existence of the problem to be somewhat hypocritical.

I have just explained my post in a way that I hope allows you to understand my point of view. You don't have to agree with me, nor am I attempting to convince you to do so. I always have a reason for my perspective that I would be able to logically explain just as I did above. But if I did, my posts would be interminably longer than they already are.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 14, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > gas could go up to $20 and he would still pour money into the highways and build more 10 lane roads and put more cars on the road. I bet he doesn't even like hybrid cars.
> ...


And, again I find myself agreeing with the GML.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Feb 19, 2011)

This is sorta beyond the discussion of high speed rail in Wisconsin, but Walker is at the center of a huge dispute involving public employee unions in Wisconsin and there have been massive demonstration in Madison over the past few days. There have been some brief interviews with Walker on the local news here in the Chicago area and I must say he comes across as quite a doofus. How in the world did he get elected governor? I mean, I know it's a whole state full of Packers fans, but wow.


----------



## BigBlueBuddha (Feb 20, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> This is sorta beyond the discussion of high speed rail in Wisconsin, but Walker is at the center of a huge dispute involving public employee unions in Wisconsin and there have been massive demonstration in Madison over the past few days. There have been some brief interviews with Walker on the local news here in the Chicago area and I must say he comes across as quite a doofus. How in the world did he get elected governor? I mean, I know it's a whole state full of Packers fans, but wow.


Walker _is_ a doofus. This from a Packer fan.

GO PACK!


----------



## WICT106 (Feb 20, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> This is sorta beyond the discussion of high speed rail in Wisconsin, but Walker is at the center of a huge dispute involving public employee unions in Wisconsin and there have been massive demonstration in Madison over the past few days. There have been some brief interviews with Walker on the local news here in the Chicago area and I must say he comes across as quite a doofus. How in the world did he get elected governor? I mean, I know it's a whole state full of Packers fans, but wow.


Part of it was the Tea Party voters. The train service itself, due to a dishonest, malicious verbal assault via talk radio and Reason & CATO Institutes, became associated with the Democratic Administration, the Obama agenda, and an unpopular departing Democrat governor. Walker got elected partly because 1. he isn't a Dem, and 2. he's something of a "new face" on the political scene, and 3. he took full advantage of the "Tea Party" movement. He also associated his campaign rather closely with that of now-Senator Ron Johnson, a very successful businessman (think: deep pockets, considerable $$$ ). Please believe me when I say that the train was targeted for a smear campaign, with coordination via the Talk Radio circuit. It was a part of the R party platform, which worries me regarding the rest of train service across the nation -- the R's have hit on something when they use Obama's unpopularity against improved rail service.

The trick for us WI rail advocates is to now make certain that any Madison rail extension is simply postponed, and to defend the trains we have. This should be for everyone across North America as well.


----------



## JJJJ (Feb 21, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> This is sorta beyond the discussion of high speed rail in Wisconsin, but Walker is at the center of a huge dispute involving public employee unions in Wisconsin and there have been massive demonstration in Madison over the past few days. There have been some brief interviews with Walker on the local news here in the Chicago area and I must say he comes across as quite a doofus. How in the world did he get elected governor? I mean, I know it's a whole state full of Packers fans, but wow.


The union thing is relevant.

Walker isnt just governing on a "lets save money" platform (removing bargaining rights saves a grand total of zero), hes governing on a "whatever-obama-likes-i-hate" platform.

Obama like HSR, so he kills it.

Obama likes transit....guess whos next in line to be destroyed

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/columnists/article_faecd4c7-5ebf-5e66-8a80-5f142f26ea01.html

Obama likes high speed internet....so walker returns federal monies that will increase broadband penetration

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116208059.html

I mean seriously? High speed internet is now a party issue because Obama stuck it into his state of the union!?!

And remember, one of his very first moves as governor was to slash taxes...taking a surplus left by the last guy, and immediately turning it into a deficit.

Heres an interesting graph concerning the federal level. Im sure youve all heard the "we're broke, we keep spending more and more and we cant afford it!" line.

Turns out, as a percentage of GDP, the only real comparison that matters....we're spending less.

http://i56.tinypic.com/293c3dw.png

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/americas_deficit


----------



## Ryan (Feb 21, 2011)

Don't go confusing the issues with all those facts and numbers, those are for those liberal elitist types.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 22, 2011)

Just to keep things factual, Wisconsin was not running a surplus prior to Walker's arrival. Wisconsin's been in financial trouble (like everyone else) for a while. Perhaps not as bad as some other states, but let's not pretend that WI was floating in cash in December, only to have it all sucked out in January.


----------

