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

reply to post by Eurisko2012


"elections have consequences" , "union thugs", the "people" have spoken?

Really.

hmmm, does the term "elections have consequences" seem even a little facile to you ? Even just a little , no? well a-parrot-ently not.

Every action has consequences (duh) but actions themselves do not justify subsequent actions. For example If we elect a president of the Boyscouts he would get protests to immediately pulling out a shotgun and blowing people away because "elections have consequences". In fact the reason we have elections at all is to facilitate by concentration the democratic process not to sanctify being elected as the same as being anointed by god.

If the rule of law by the people ,and co-operation upon disagreement is no longer part of the political process and undefined, unchecked and unassailable "consequences" are the outcome then they are no longer elections but instead coronations.

To take this ("elections have consequences") term to it's roots, it boils out to "the beginnings justify the ends". An interesting concept to say the least. Literally speaking (that means in writing as 'literally' is the most misused word in the English language ) it places the concept of the election (beginning) as predominate over everything INCLUDING ANY OUTCOMES, so it is even more far reaching philosophically than saying 'the ends justifies the means' . In the case of your often parroted quote the implication is that the outcome is not something that should be considered and only the initiating circumstance is of importance.

The short term for that is ass-backward

Also state lines are political divisions, not physical ones, they were designed so that many different systems of political expression could be enacted, which brings up and interesting point: why would people from other states need to come to protest in wisconsin if they were so readily agreeing with similar legislation in their own states ?
so I suppose we have to ask what people do you think have spoken? and for whom do they speak?

I doubt that you could identify a thug if he were staring you in the face, generally teachers and stateworkers lack a certain physical capacity to be thugs so the 'union" (if that is as far as you can think) would need to reach out to private sector members to get construction,concrete and mason workers and other 'heavy hitting' mofo's out there, but I ask you why ? WHOM WERE THEY SUPPOSE TO BE INTIMIDATING?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Daughter2
We can all learn how great Billionaires are and how teachers and firefighters are just greedy pigs for wanting health insurance!

Not for "wanting health insurance", but rather for wanting US to buy it for them, and attempting to use force of numbers (most places call that an "army" or a "militia", we evidently call that a "union") to extort that from us.

You were the biggest oak during the faux healthcare debate, you denied the validity of mathematics on many occasions. Corporate shills like yourself should find and nice dictator and make your move already.

I don't know about "oak", but I seemed to be the biggest splinter in the collectivist would-be tyrant's sides. What sort of wood that splinter was made of probably isn't relevant. At NO point did I "deny the validity of mathematics". NO point. Mathematics dictates that they cannot force more money out of me than I have. Common sense dictates that they can at no point force me to purchase anything I don't agree to.

You made a (false) point above about "... CORPORATIONS,... = GOP". How does the DNC Obamites trying to line the insurance CORPORATIONS' pockets with money for nothing figure into that? Oh, right, that just ain't a done deal yet, is it? I reckon maybe it just doesn't count in YOUR worldview, either, or you would have acknowledged that by adding the DNC to the GOP side of that equation.

Here's a clue: it will NEVER be a done deal as far as I'm concerned. It just ain't gonna happen in my house. I'll decide what I do and don't want to buy, and playing the insurance lottery ain't gonna be one of those things. I meant what I said then, I mean it now, and we've still got a couple of years to go to find out if I'll mean it when the rubber meets the road - unless, as appears likely, it will get tossed aside. You'll just have to wait and see, hide and watch, I reckon, to find out if I mean what I say and say what I mean.

You can call me an "oak", a "corporate shill", and claim that I'm in search of a dictator (I didn't vote for Obama, btw, so that argument is out the window right there) all you please, but it won't change reality.

Neither will emotion-laden arguments devoid of a factual basis.

ETA: Just so you'll know precisely where I stand, Unions are one of the few things left that I am still willing to take up arms against, having personally seen nothing but violence against the innocent and uninvolved from them. IRS "enforcers" for the insurance CORPORATIONS are another. As long as they all keep to themselves and bother no one else, all is well, but we both know that neither of those organizations can do that - they will insist on forcing their will on others, and it will be on.

reply to post by maybereal11


And a fat lot of good that did for the Revolutionaries. A fat lot of good that did to prevent the Boston Massacre!

I don't want to quote Thomas Jefferson here, it's been done to death. But it needs to be said; the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots. There must be a revolution in every generation or else liberty will die. Evidently you think that the government is perfectly capable of defending liberty all by itself and does not need the public to tell it what to do. The law of the Republic trumps the will of the people! Sit down, shut up, and do as you're told, Americans! This is the liberty that you have fought so hard for.

Yes, the job of the Senators is to represent their constituents, not all of whom belong to unions. However, you are misrepresenting them by claiming that they are ONLY representing unions by this action. They are standing up for labour rights, rights that are available to EVERYONE whether or not they participate in labour unions. They are standing up for rights that all of their constituents have. What more do you want? They are Democrats, I presume that their election campaigns involved some sort of respect or tribute to the working classes and labour rights. I presume that they were not running on platforms of union-busting. I presume that these 14 Democrats received a majority of the votes in their districts and that the electorate is supportive of their positions.

How can you demonstrate that they are NOT representing their constituents? Should there be a referendum in every district with a Democratic senator? Should every constituent be polled?

Why is it that the DEMOCRATS have to justify their actions as representative of their constituents, but the REPUBLICANS are not held up to the same standard? Do their constituents actually want them to abolish labour rights? Do their constituents actually support their decision to use the police to put political pressure on their rivals? Do their constituents support a Governor that takes orders from billionaires?

reply to post by Xcathdra


The political process is not the same as putting fruit in jars. Imagine that it was though and you had been doing it for twenty years then one day you noticed it wasn't peaches in the jar is was hunks of dead babies. Perhaps being a pragmatism you wouldn't worry about it assuming that wherever the babies came from there was and is a perfectly rational and good reason for
a) acquiring them
b) putting hunks of them in jars
and
c) the need for the full jars after they leave the assembly line

As a line worker you could either accept that or quit and find another job, unfortunately the very nature of politics makes it impossible to ignore the contents of those jars , their acquisition and their use...in fact it is at the very heart of the problem.

If an elected official or any of his constituats disagrees with the contents of the jars or even has questions about them he is bound by his responsibility as an elected official to asks questions and gain information at the very least to try and seek a balance in the event that some people want babies in jars and some do not. If a politician resigned every time these type of situations arose we would be having elections every week, so anyone with any integrity is faced with a terrible dilemma when the system of checks and balances is subverted and the subject of babies in jars is one with "no compromise".

I am neither condemning nor condoning, merely pointing out that jobs(politics) that involve the application of systems of thought ( philosophies ) to the real world which effect majority and minority alike cannot be examined solely by the process of your job is simply input+work=output, in government IT IS THE THOUGHT THAT counts until the sh@t hits the fan or the flowers start to grow. the people that do it everyday spend most of their time trying to figure out which one is being thrown at the fan at any given time.

Given the nature of the police initialization in "acquiring" the democrats what you have is a policy previously abhorrent in America wherein force is used to push a singular philosophy without compromise at any cost.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Thank you - - I always love your posts. They are well written - intelligent - and pithy.

I honestly can't fathom anyone supporting what Scott Walker is doing. All I can come up with is - - they haven't educated themselves on the whole of what is going on or they just want to blame the Democrats.

reply to post by nenothtu


You do not remember your own posts

I spent the better part of ten pages arguing with you about fiscal disaster which is the current health insurance paradigm, you paced me for ten pages attacking the merits of mathematic trajectory when it is applied to speculating about the future. When you could not attack my equation or my figures, you attacked the validity
of math when trying to determine mathematical outcomes... Now that your true sentiment is not obscured by the cowardly tactic of days past, I feel vindicated. Your sentiment is exactly what I suspected it was back then, the sentiment you previously denied, you are not retarded, you were just frightened to debate in the square, tactical
Manipulation and denial usually reserved and utilized by teenage females, lawyers and politicians.

You go ahead and go for the working class, I can't wait

reply to post by Annee


What if its neither? And wish to simply suggest that ALL representatives abide by the Wisconsin State Constitution?

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

They are standing up for labour rights, rights that are available to EVERYONE whether or not they participate in labour unions

That's why you see so many representatives walk out of session for the private sector labor huh? Yeah, its not because of the fact its Unions...oh no, thats not it at all?..., and its not because of the fact the unions contribute 90% of their proceeds to the Democratic party. Nah, there fighting for everyone, even those whom don't contribute to Democratic party.

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Thats a problem when the top 1% of the richest people pay more in taxes than the rest of us? And that's a problem? Explain your logic behind that riddle?

All you did was reverse what I said. In this case I am right, because wealth used to be less concentrated in a few hands, and at this point taxing is one of the reasons of the inequalities! Disinfo much?

Wow...

People are actually willing to see rights taken away to prove a politcal point.

You guys should take a long hard look at what's happening in Wisconsin - how many rights do they need to take away before you cry "foul"?

Because by that time, it's too late.

Have you learned nothing from history?

Still, as the stormtroopers are kicking down your door, you'll have the satisfaction of being a supporter of those policies.

And you guys slate Iran

reply to post by Whereweheaded


First of all, unions may give 90% of their POLITICAL DONATIONS (not total proceeds) to the Democratic party, but that does not mean that all of these 14 Senators got 90% of their funding from unions.

Second, lobby groups are a necessary part of modern politics. They raise awareness among elected officials regarding affairs that the public cannot present due to constraints of resources, expertise, and/or the ability to get to the capitol and secure an audience with busy politicians. If a private labour lobby exists, then it probably would be petitioning politicians. I don't know who they would find more pleasant and agreeable, a Democrat or a Gopper, but I know that unions tend to support Democrats. Is there something wrong with that?

But you must be right, because you are so confident in what you say. The Democratic party is run entire by and for unions, who are the only people to benefit from Democratic policies, and everybody else loses tremendously when unions exist and corporations are not allowed to rape us.

reply to post by Skerrako


Please submit evidence suggesting i presented Dis-information. Are you claiming that the top 1% of the rich do NOT in fact pay the most in US taxes. I can refer you to the page and post number if need be, that would show proof that the richest do in FACT contribute the most annually. Its based off of the AGI wages.

Please, enlighten us since you're privy to information that apparently the rest of us are not.

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You do not remember your own posts

It's possible. I AM getting a bit long in the tooth. Refresh my memory.

I spent the better part of ten pages arguing with you about fiscal disaster which is the current health insurance paradigm, you paced me for ten pages attacking the merits of mathematic trajectory when it is applied to speculating about the future. When you could not attack my equation or my figures, you attacked the validity
of math when trying to determine mathematical outcomes... Now that your true sentiment is not obscured by the cowardly tactic of days past, I feel vindicated. Your sentiment is exactly what I suspected it was back then, the sentiment you previously denied, you are not retarded, you were just frightened to debate in the square, tactical

My "true sentiment"? My "cowardly tactics"? Again, refresh my memory. I've been accused of many things before at ATS, but those two things were not among them. I can't imagine arguing that ANY health insurance, current, former, or future, is anything BUT a disaster. That's why I don't, and won't participate in that particular lottery.

Speculation is just that. It bears no resemblance to reality, it's, well, speculative. It may or may not turn out that way.

Since part of my formal education is in Physics, I can't imagine attacking the validity of mathematics, either. Perhaps whatever I DID say, you read it through emotional lenses? That does seem to be a strong suit with you - not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be tempered with reason occasionally.

Manipulation and denial usually reserved and utilized by teenage females, lawyers and politicians.

Yeah, those who don't run squealing away from their duties to Illinois.

You go ahead and go for the working class, I can't wait

If by "working class" you actually mean Unions, I have a couple of points for you to consider:

1) They are NOT the same thing, at all. I AM "working class", and have no use for Unions whatsoever. I know a LOT of people just like me, in that same boat. It's actually "working class" stiffs I saw abused and killed at the hands of Union thugs in Ohio in the 70's (Teamsters) and in the Appalachian coalfields in the 70's and 80's (UMWA). Go figure.

2) What on Earth have I said to make you think I HAVEN'T gone after them before? I assure you, I did not mean to foster that false impression. Whenever they want to have at it again, I stand ready. I've learned a thing or two during those times, and since then. It ought to be exciting.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

lobby groups are a necessary part of modern politics. They raise awareness among elected officials regarding affairs that the public cannot present due to constraints of resources, expertise, and/or the ability to get to the capitol and secure an audience

You honestly believe that lobbyists are a necessity of modern politics? Do you not think for one minute, that a politician cannot do his/her own research, and establish items that said Representative wishes to defend? Can capitol, whether it be for campaigns or other issues, not be obtained simply by the " following " peoples? Politicians just have to have lobbyists?
If that's the case, please explain to me how Thomas Jefferson gained the Presidency? Did he have lobbyists, and massive campaign supporters that contributed funds to his cause? If so, where is the record?
See what I'm getting at? To an extent I agree with your view, and in some cases your spot on. However, to suggest that the only way in our country to run a campaign or anything of the like, without lobbyists, ( including back door deals with those same lobbyists) in my eyes is asinine.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Annee

 

What if its neither? And wish to simply suggest that ALL representatives abide by the Wisconsin State Constitution?

Or - - the interpretation of the constitution and laws.

What gets me - - is those on the Right keep saying Liberals want socialism and a police state.

But - they can't see that in this situation. It is the Right "thinkers" supporting Walker - - - who is creating a police state.
.
I think they are called the Right - - - because they have to be Right all the time - - even when they aren't

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Annee

 

What if its neither? And wish to simply suggest that ALL representatives abide by the Wisconsin State Constitution?

Or - - the interpretation of the constitution and laws.

What gets me - - is those on the Right keep saying Liberals want socialism and a police state.

But - they can't see that in this situation. It is the Right "thinkers" supporting Walker - - - who is creating a police state.
.
I think they are called the Right - - - because they have to be Right all the time - - even when they aren't

I will give you that, interpretation is the key. But to suggest that one side over the other is pushing for a " Police State ", I tend to disagree. I think they are all involved in one form or another, or one fashion or another. When put into a position of power, that power eventually goes to their head. And considering many in office are sacred cows, and have been in their seats for over 30 years, would suggest my assumption is correct.

reply to post by budski


What rights are being taken away, and who is taken them from whom?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I will give you that, interpretation is the key. But to suggest that one side over the other is pushing for a " Police State ", I tend to disagree. I think they are all involved in one form or another, or one fashion or another. When put into a position of power, that power eventually goes to their head. And considering many in office are sacred cows, and have been in their seats for over 30 years, would suggest my assumption is correct.

Well - you won't get an argument from me on the connection between Power and Corruption.

However - in this case - - I absolutely see Walker creating a Dictatorship and police state.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Count them.

Count the constitutional violations, count the hard earned rights of workers, count the billionaires wanting to take them away.

Money isn't a god, although some people act like it is.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


union bargaining is only one part of the 'bill". Power deregulation , ethics arbitration, environmental protection ( the bill guts Wisconsin's highly effective recycling program, and undermines the DNR's power ), cuts without negotiations to every sector of State spending except road repair, the sale of state property without bidding, and most importantly a complete disregard for the governmental policies and procedures that ensure freedom for ALL AMERICANS remains in place regardless of political philosophy are worth fighting for.

The Democrats may not be angels but if the tables were turned (as has been pointed out in this thread with the 911 first responders and the gop filibuster ) what would the democrats being trying to cement into place and what would the Republicans be trying to defend....according to their own spokesmen on the issue of the 911 responders they chose filibuster (to walk out ) because " of the cost ".

So let's see it's impossible to actually work for everybody (the ALL you mention) because there are lots of dissenting ideas on how and why things get done but, at this time the Wisconsin Democrats are filibustering for the process of government to remain co-operative and at least somewhat representative through negotiation and the republicans have filibustered for cost.

Doesn't really matter to me whom is paying for it or what the motivation the lesser of two evils here is sticking with negotiation and the preservation of hard won rights, as opposed to having no voice at all .

More importantly such draconian tactics are unnecessary in Wisconsin, the labor unions here have worked with state governments for over 40 years, and even before walker snubbed them at the bargaining table they were coming in with over 100,000,000 million in concessions, the point being is that the wisconsin public(unions and non) has always been very flexible in working with the government in controlling the budget, and this treatment is a bit like smacking a full grown adult on the nose as if it were a puppy that just sh@t on the carpet