Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody

reply to post by Annee

In Wisconsin, to force a recall vote involving a state legislator, activists are required to collect signatures equal to 25 percent of total votes cast in the state for U.S. president in the last national election.

For a recall vote on a statewide officer, including governor, Wisconsin requires signatures equal to 25 percent of the votes cast for that position in the previous election.

Activists have 60 days to collect signatures from registered voters.

www.npr.org...

Interesting article. It did not say that there was a one year waiting period to recall a Govenor, but who knows.

Originally posted by R3KR
I wish I could walk out of work every time I disagreed with something. These people are beyond low.

They are because they are able to do what you say you wish you could do?

Teachers do not strike "every time" they disagree with thier employer. Strikes are rare.

As a matter of fact the teachers in Wisconsin conceded every financial demand Govenor Walker proposed, including limiting pay and contributing more toward thier healthcare benefits etc.

If your employer told you to take a pay cut and that you would be also paying a larger portion of your healthcare...would you walk out? Well the teachers did not, they said OK...as long as we can sit down and negotiate when times are better...and Gov. Walker said no.

It wasn't until it became crystal clear that this was not about finances any longer that teachers considered walking out.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by BrainBurps
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Well any other job would get you fired for not showing up to work.. Democratic Senators hiding out justify being fired, in my view.

Gaveled in on Jan. 5, 2011, Boehner presided over the passage of four bills during his first month as speaker, with a total of just 25 votes. The most notable of those was a repeal the president's signature health care law -- a move that was viewed as a strictly symbolic gesture, as it is not expected to pass or even get a vote in the Senate.

By contrast, Pelosi, gaveled in on Jan. 4, 2007, led the Democratic Congress in passing 19 bills during her first month as speaker, including all six of the bills targeted in her "First 100 Hours" agenda.

Why the discrepancy? Well, part of it is that Democratic Congress of 2007 spent more of its first month in session: As of Feb. 1, 2007, Congress had been in session for 16 days, 134 hours, and 50 minutes, according to the Congressional Record.

By contrast, this year Republican leadership determined the House would be in session for only 11 days, 62 hours, and 5 minutes of its first month, according to the Congressional Record. Some of that time was spent reading the U.S. Constitution on the House floor; original parts of the Constitution that were later amended, including sections referencing slavery, were omitted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...&title=House_Democrats_2007

Again, I must ask if these people were PRESENT when congress was in session. If not, you may have a case, but if they WERE, then you are comparing apples to radiator hoses.

Your entire defense appears to be based not on any valid points relating to the Wisconsin debate, but rather on a defense of "They did this, so we're justified in doing that, nyah, nyah, nyah", comparing the national legislature acting PRESENT and in session to the Wisconsin legislature's inability to act at all, since the Wisconsin dems RAN AWAY from their responsibility.

HAve you got anything to support the Wisconsin runaway dems that doesn't involve simply trying to trash national legislative republicans? You, know, actual SUPPORT for them, rather than unrelated attacks against others?

Originally posted by maybereal11
. . . the teachers did not, they said OK...as long as we can sit down and negotiate when times are better...and Gov. Walker said no.

Exactly as I heard it during discussions - - from several sources.

They agreed to everything. All they want is bargaining power when the financial situation becomes more stable.

No one should ever give up their bargaining power. If leaving the state was their only recourse - - more power to them.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by spicypickle

 

To clear things up, right wing extremists= Big government Republicans. They give true conservative republicans a bad name

oh wait, I thought according to you liberals, right wing extremist were the T Partiers and the rest were Neocons???

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
oh wait, I thought according to you liberals, right wing extremist were the T Partiers and the rest were Neocons???

What is a Liberal?

I've been in political chats for 20 years (starting with ICQ). One thing I've learned is when "the right/conservative" whatever - - - can't think of any thing real or intelligent - - - they throw out the Liberal card.

So what is a Liberal? As far as I can tell - - a Liberal - - is the "Catch ALL" bucket - - - for anything you don't agree with. Whether it makes sense or not.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Your entire defense appears to be based not on any valid points relating to the Wisconsin debate, but rather on a defense of "They did this, so we're justified in doing that, nyah, nyah, nyah",

That's it precisely. Despite smear campaigns, lies and obstructionism, the Democrats of the past two years have tried (more or less) to follow Pres. Obama's lead and rise above it.

It failed. I still will call the Democrat party out if and when they use propagandist campaigns similiar to what has become the bread and butter of the far right, but as far as aggressive political measures? The Dems need to start playing hardball, because softball is failing. The GOP have outlined the rules for the game, the dems need to play by those rules to win.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Have you got anything to support the Wisconsin runaway dems that doesn't involve simply trying to trash national legislative republicans? You, know, actual SUPPORT for them, rather than unrelated attacks against others?

Hit "posts in thread"...Have you read any off my posts?

Apples to apples...3/5ths qourum...

The Dems are playing according to the rules laid out by the GOP...the Grand Obstructionists...the Party of "Hell No"...the party that set the record for number of Filibusters last year...

Don't hate the players...hate the game...who has set the ground rules?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by spicypickle

 

To clear things up, right wing extremists= Big government Republicans. They give true conservative republicans a bad name

oh wait, I thought according to you liberals, right wing extremist were the T Partiers and the rest were Neocons???

edit on 8-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Neocons....Aggressively want to spread democracy and conservative values via aggressive political measures and even military force around the globe.

Far Right Conservatives...Largely influenced and driven by Christian values, often evangelical and the mixing of religion and politics and the resultant "family values" agenda.

Fiscal Conservatiuves...A rare breed in recent years as the far right has crowded them out. They are niether concerned with Spreading democracy through military force (Neocons) and are not concerned with dictating "family values".....gay marriage, abortion etc. But are genuinely believe government works best when it is as small as possible.

TP members IMO constitute a mix of some Fiscal Conservatives and almost all Far Right conservatives with lots of overlapping.

There are pure Fiscal Conservatives in Congress, but they find themselves having to include Far Right positions in thier platforms to recieve RNC funding and support.

Walker is Far Right, Evangelical, Father was a minister, Pro-Life even in cases of incest, rape and risks to the mother.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by spicypickle

 

I find you too one sided - - too everything is Obama's fault to take seriously.

As said - - if you can't see the "Right and Wrong" on both sides - - there is no credibility of logical reasoning.

Not everything is Obama's fault. Only everything that came after his inauguration. I don't do doublethink. Politicians love it when you "try to see both sides".

Originally posted by spicypickle
I don't do doublethink.

Half right.

Originally posted by spicypickle
Politicians love it when you "try to see both sides".

Precisely the opposite.

That is like saying car salesmen love it when you read the fine print.

Not being able to think objectively is not something to be proud about.

Originally posted by maybereal11


Not being able to think objectively is not something to be proud about.

Oh please. Being told to be objective by someone defending Obama is about the funniest thing I can imagine. No wait. It's not funny. It's twisted. Grotesquely. I remember being told the same thing by Bush supporters. Just Mind-bending.

No. I'm sorry. I'm not objective about Obama. I voted for him. I #ed up. I obviously didn't like the alternative any better but next time I'll vote conservative because the Democrats have proved they aren't any better.

In fact, there's nothing to apologize for. Obama doesn't deserve objectivity. He's just another lying politician. I don't know about you but I don't trust liars.

I can't wait to help vote him out. And I hope whom ever is elected is the most anti-liberal president in history.

reply to post by maybereal11

Originally posted by spicypickle
Politicians love it when you "try to see both sides".

Precisely the opposite.

That is like saying car salesmen love it when you read the fine print.

Not being able to think objectively is not something to be proud about.

In my opinion finding the truth would be much better that one side or the other and you aren't going to hear the truth from either.

"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."
PJ O'Rourke

Originally posted by bphi1908
In my opinion finding the truth would be much better that one side or the other and you aren't going to hear the truth from either.

"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."
PJ O'Rourke

agreed

Originally posted by spicypickle

Originally posted by maybereal11


Not being able to think objectively is not something to be proud about.

Oh please. Being told to be objective by someone defending Obama is about the funniest thing I can imagine. No wait. It's not funny. It's twisted. Grotesquely. I remember being told the same thing by Bush supporters. Just Mind-bending.
....
I can't wait to help vote him out. And I hope whom ever is elected is the most anti-liberal president in history.

edit on 9-3-2011 by spicypickle because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2011 by spicypickle because: (no reason given)

Obama? I thought the OP and what we were debating was Govenor Walker and the unions in Wisconsin.

The most you are able to contribute is Obama=Bad?

What cracks me up is how prideful you are about your unwillingness to think.

reply to post by KOLTON


Probaqbly so...

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Hello sonofliberty,

If elected officials stay away from their post to block the legislative process as they seem to be doing in WI, perhaps the solution can be found in the riles of the WI Senate. At some time after notice of their missing a session of the legislature the leader of the Senate should be able to declare the seat of the absent member " vacant " .
The necessary quorum neede to proceed with the State Senate business wpould then be found among the members who are present. Why is this hard?

Originally posted by bphi1908
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."
PJ O'Rourke

"Fleas have to find the dog - before they can "lunch""

If you don't get elected - - nothing you say or believe will matter. A politician's first job is to get elected.

Does anyone honestly believe the President has all that much power to do exactly what he wants?

The Presidency is not one person. It is a whole group of people visible and behind the scenes.

To me its childish to attack and blame the figurehead. But - of course - that is exactly what is the purpose of a figurehead.

Originally posted by whatwasthat
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Hello sonofliberty,

If elected officials stay away from their post to block the legislative process as they seem to be doing in WI, perhaps the solution can be found in the riles of the WI Senate. At some time after notice of their missing a session of the legislature the leader of the Senate should be able to declare the seat of the absent member " vacant " .
The necessary quorum neede to proceed with the State Senate business wpould then be found among the members who are present. Why is this hard?

The leader of the Senate is going to usurp the vote of the people?

I don't think that's gonna fly.

If you don't get elected - - nothing you say or believe will matter. A politician's first job is to get elected.

You seem to have just discredited every single person on this planet aside from politicians.

Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.
Gore Vidal

Does anyone honestly believe the President has all that much power to do exactly what he wants?
The Presidency is not one person. It is a whole group of people visible and behind the scenes.

Yes, even more so if he has control of the House and Senate.The Presidency is one position, one man. It is up to him or her how much advice they are willing to accept. The Presidential Cabinet are appointed by the President and are also fired by him as well. The past two Presidents have shown you just how much can be accomplished, if you can call it that, by a single person when they have party control over the Legislative branch.

Too me its childish to attack and blame the figurehead. But - of course - that is exactly what is the purpose of a figurehead.

The Queen of England is a figurehead, President Obama is not. He is much closer to a quarterback of a football team, bearing much more responsibility for the actions of the Executive branch than the Queen does over the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. To say it is childish to "attack" the primary person driving policy, if you disagree with it, in an organization is strange to me.

But regardless, I never attacked anyone. If you are referring to my comments awhile back about President Obama's policies in his first two years in office contributing to a political climate in this country that allowed Gov. Walker and Republican control of the Wisconsin Senate to take place I still stand by those words.

Originally posted by bphi1908
The Queen of England is a figurehead, President Obama is not. He is much closer to a quarterback of a football team, bearing much more responsibility for the actions of the Executive branch than the Queen does over the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. To say it is childish to "attack" the primary person driving policy, if you disagree with it, in an organization is strange to me.

Well - - believe what you want. I like the quarterback analogy though. Appearances of power are deceiving.

Yes - I still think the constant Obama bashing is childish and negative.

I'd say spend more time trying to support what and who - - - which is positive.