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

WOOHOO!!!!! Let's get them all back in there, by any means necessary. Then they can just pump out nonsense laws production style, ie The Patriot Act, Obamacare, etc. Should we have them read the laws before or after they vote?

reply to post by gator1177


LOLOL

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.[7] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.[8][9][10][11][12] Confusion over whether fascism is of the left or right is due to the inability to fit the economic policies into a clear-cut category, because while fascism is considered on the right politically, fascist economic controls were left-wing, though ended up benefiting social groups considered to be supportive of right-wing parties.[13]

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[14] They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.[14] Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[15][16] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[17] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[18]

Idolization and exaltation of violence, war, and militarism are central components of fascism, which fascists see as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through the military service.[19] Fascists view violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[20]

Wiki

Think very carefully about what you wish for - you just might get it...

Originally posted by gator1177
WOOHOO!!!!! Let's get them all back in there, by any means necessary. Then they can just pump out nonsense laws production style, ie The Patriot Act, Obamacare, etc. Should we have them read the laws before or after they vote?

edit on 4-3-2011 by gator1177 because: typo typo typo

Why stop are physically detaining politicians - let's detain ALL VOTERS - in order from them to comply with the government orders.

How about mandatory attendance at government voter "education" classes. Of course the majority gets to decide what's taught in this class.

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

Originally posted by Daughter2
The pro-Walker comments prove, beyond any doubt, the tea-parter, Koch backers, aren't interested in a less powerful government but rather tax breaks for the rich!

If people don't want (or didn't want) reps to be required to vote on every bill, they can pass a law which requires votes.

So let the voters decide - instead of some politician backed by billionaires.

So why not let the voters decide?

It's not just Gov. Walker. Look at Ohio, Indiana, New Jersey....etc.
Do you see a pattern?
The people have spoken. Elections have consequences. Collective bargaining is going bye-bye.
Get used to it.
The people of Wisconsin are in charge of Wisconsin not the union thugs.

Originally posted by Daughter2
The pro-Walker comments prove, beyond any doubt, the tea-parter, Koch backers, aren't interested in a less powerful government but rather tax breaks for the rich!

If people don't want (or didn't want) reps to be required to vote on every bill, they can pass a law which requires votes.

So let the voters decide - instead of some politician backed by billionaires.

So why not let the voters decide?

News flash not everyone is siding with the unions in that state, and unions arent weak helpless people being stepped on by big government. Unions in this country have some of the biggest and well funded lobbiers. If tea partiers were for tax breaks for the rich they would be backing the unions. I remember when chrysler and gm where having problems and remember seeing the union workers saying its so rough we already took a harsh cut we are only getting $50 hr. Makes me sick and wonder what they got before the trouble for just being a mindless drone on a assembly line. $50 an hour we should all wish to be that "broke"

reply to post by budski


Look! Up in the sky! It's SuperLib Michael Moore to the rescue!
Moore says everything is just fine in Wisconsin.
The savior has arrived for the fugitives in Illinois. Solution : Tax the RICH !
They have "plenty" of money in Wisconsin.
It turns out we have all just been looking at it the wrong way.
--- This guy is brainwashed. --

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I'll answer it. Of course I believe they can not stop the bill by illegal means.

What they are doing NOW is illegal, yet strangely you seem to have no problem with it. Yes, the relevant sections of the state constitution have been cited ad nauseum in this thread already, yet seems not to have been noticed at all by a particular faction. Yes, a constitution is "law". It is in fact the very basis that legitimizes any and all other laws. They are violating that constitution, they are breaking the law. What they are doing NOW is "illegal" means.

But illegal to me doesn't mean doing what Walker thinks they should do.

What "illegal" means to you, or to me, is irrelevant. It's not a subject for situational ethics. It is what it is, and "illegal" means "not legal", against the law.

Start using that definition and any majority can claim the minority isn't doing their job.

Which definition, yours or Blacks, Orans, and Websters? This is why objective definitions are agreed upon. Not any majority can 'claim' that any minority "isn't doing their job" if that claim runs counter to objective definitions. Unfortunately for your case, the converse is also true when measured against objectivity.

Who you talk to, the places you travel to, when and how you vote - shouldn't be decided by the people in charge.

Unless, of course, you ARE "the people in charge", which legislators are. They can no more violate the laws that are in place than you or I can. As a matter of fact, that is the entire purpose of a constitution - to keep those same legislators in check, and insure that laws apply to THEM as well as they do us.

They are derelict in their duty, having run away from adversity and left their people uncovered. Luckily for them, the sole remedy is compulsion of attendance to that duty. There are places in this world where they would be shot out of hand.

It would be like having a statute for people which reads it's illegal to do something which offends the police.

A non-sequitur and a straw man. Is that a "two-fer"?

If the voters wanted to make it illegal for reps to leave the State then they could have passed a law which stated this.

They can be derelict anywhere, in state or out. That's why they DID pass the law.

THIS IS THE ULTIMATE BIG GOVERNMENT.
LETTING ONE POLITICIAN TAKE USE PHYSICAL FORCE ON THE MINORITY!!!

Another straw man. It is NOT "one politician", nor has anyone used physical force thus far. If it comes to that, the legislature is well within their rights to do so.

Again, it's in the constitution, the foundation of all American law.

Originally posted by Daughter2
The pro-Walker comments prove, beyond any doubt, the tea-parter, Koch backers, aren't interested in a less powerful government but rather tax breaks for the rich!

I'm interested in balanced budgets, rather than having government constantly operating in the red. It's got nothing to do with Koch (not really a personal friend of mine or anything), or "tax breaks for the rich". I think the rich should get EXACTLY all the tax breaks the rest of us get, and no more - but no less. The concept is called "equality under the law".

If people don't want (or didn't want) reps to be required to vote on every bill, they can pass a law which requires votes.

The law requires a PRESENCE. Whether he votes or abstains, and how he votes, is entirely up to the individual legislator.

So let the voters decide - instead of some politician backed by billionaires.

So why not let the voters decide?

Again, it is no ONE politician deciding, regardless of who or who does not back 'him'. Furthermore, the voters DID decide. Elections were held last November to give the voters a voice, and will be held again before long, to let their voice be heard loudly again.

Until then, it's in the hands of the legislators - well, those who actually work for a living rather than running FROM work, that is.

It's the American Way.

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.

reply to post by Daughter2

THIS IS THE ULTIMATE BIG GOVERNMENT. LETTING ONE POLITICIAN TAKE USE PHYSICAL FORCE ON THE MINORITY!!!

The last I heard, the State of Wi has 33 reps, 19 being Republicans. Do you even have an understanding of what you wish to decry? Your comments appear to be uneducated, as if you are unable to conjure up a constructive thought, rather than repeat what you heard on CNN!

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Whats funny, in the video Michael " Dumbass " Moore didn't bother to mention when he brought up taxing the rich, that the top 2% of the richest folks in the US pay more in taxes than the rest of the middle class combined.

Here are the numbers for 1992 from the Statistical Abstract of the United States: The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes.

People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who's mopping floors.

But let's work our way up the income scale: The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes. The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes. The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more--and Tom Wolfe's little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody's going to tell me those guys aren't rich--paid 10 percent of the taxes. That's a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece.

source: www.straightdope.com...

IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%. When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less.

To put it simply, of the $832 billion in personal income taxes collected in 2004, the richest half of the country paid $804 billion while the poorest half only paid $27.4 billion.

source: www.craigsteiner.us...

This is where I stand; in the military, they would be considered AWOL. They would be charged with dereliction of duty.They aren't public sector employees who can just walk off the job.

See, this is how Demoncrats handle it when the opposing party has a majority. This is the equivalent of a pre-schooler kicking and stomping and running out of the room.

This is how our system of democracy works; the people vote in the representatives and those representatives, in theory, vote the will of their constituents. That's how it works. When one party or the other "walks out" because they don't like "the system", then the system fails and we have a crisis. I believe, if everything is on the up and up, the scum bags who left the state should be arrested for abandonment of public office then relieved of their duties and an emergency election should be held. Allowing politicians to act with impunity only emboldens them and sets a precedence. Mark my words; this little stunt will be repeated every time a minority party doesn't like the direction something is taking.

Just like the Obama crowd said when the One was elected; we won, you lost, get over it. Then he proceeded to shove his agenda up our backsides.

Originally posted by johnny2127
om/forum/thread669554/pg1#pid10703461]post by MindSpin[/url]

 

Whats amusing and sad is that people like you so easily flip sides. If Republicans had all fled Washington DC to prevent a vote on the Healthcare bill last year, people like you would have flipped out saying they were breaking the law and obstructing govt. But because this happens to be about liberals precious unions, people pretend like they are freedom fighters.

Liberals precious unions???

We are fighting for the little guy, you guys fight for the corporation, just like fear campaign against the public option... Save the rich, eat the working man

And you know what???

I would have rather had Recorpropulicans take off than lie their stinking faces into oblivion like they did.

For those of you saying that those absent are doing their jobs and that ordering their arrest is fascist and illegal need to take a gander at the laws regarding the legislature in Wisconsin.

Here Wisconsin Constitution is the part of the state constitution that says that each house of the legislature may make its own rules and that they can compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

Wisconsin Senate Rule 16 requires all Senators to be present for every day of every session unless granted a formal leave of absence.

Also here Journal Times is a summary using the rules in effect created by the Wisconsin Senate IAW the Wisconsin State Constitution that indicates how the use of force is legal in this instance to compel the AWOL Senators to return to their lawful place of duty.

The following is a legal summary of the state Senate powers to compel attendance of absent members sent March 3 to Sen. Scott Fitzgerald from James Troupis of the Troupis Law Office.

"Constitutional Authority to Act: Article IV, § 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, provides that each house "may compel the attendance of absent members in suchmanner and under such penalties as each house may provide." This makes clear that, should each body require, attendance is mandatory. The quorum requirement is not a grant of authority to a minority of the body to prevent it from acting and to frustrate the will of the majority.

Senate Rules Confirm every Senator's Duty to Attend All Sessions: Wisconsin legislators have a non-discretionary duty to attend legislative sessions. The Senate itself has reinforced that constitutional duty. Senate Rule 16 provides that "[m]embers of the senate may not be absent from the daily session during the entire day without first obtaining a leave of absence."

Senate Rules Confer Authority to Compel Attendance: Senate Rule 15, "When a roll call discloses the lack of a quorum...the members present may take measures to procure a quorum...." Senate Rule 84, "[t]he chief clerk shall furnish the sergeant at arms with a list of those who are absent without leave, and the sergeant at arms shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees."

The Senate, and Only the Senate, May Act to Enforce the Duty of Attendance: Article IV, § 8 provides that "each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, [and] punish for contempt and disorderly behavior." On Wednesday, March 2, the Circuit Court of Oconto County found that Senator Holperin violated his plain and positive duty to attend Senate Sessions, as provided in Senate Rule 16, but then held that the Senate, and only the Senate, had the right and obligation to enforce the rule of attendance.

Citing Article IV, §8, the court held " it is the State Senate that mustenforce its own rules, if it chooses to do so." Barthel v. Holperin, Case No. 11CV100 (Order, March 2, 2011). All 14 absent Senators are subject to the same Court holding. The Senate has clear legal authority to act to compel the return of its members. The Circuit Court explicitly stated, "‘Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings...', and may punish for contempt."

The article goes on to provide more case law indicating how they can be gathered and made to be present…they don't have to vote, they can vote no, but they can't just be absent.

So, while you may want them to be absent because it fits your politics that does not make it legal under their own rules under which they all agreed to operate when they took their oaths.

So let’s all get back to work shall we…

Originally posted by General.Lee
This is where I stand; in the military, they would be considered AWOL. They would be charged with dereliction of duty.They aren't public sector employees who can just walk off the job.

See, this is how Demoncrats handle it when the opposing party has a majority. This is the equivalent of a pre-schooler kicking and stomping and running out of the room.

Recorprocans like your self are tyrants in disguise, this is not the military, hopefully you will get your fascist
theocratic dictator in there so you can hang people you disagree with.

GITMO, PATRIOT ACT, CORPORATIONS, OUTSOURCING = GOP

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.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Interesting opinion, Are you then saying you, yourself, would not call Republicans 'heros' if they fled to protect your belief system? And that you would condemn them as criminals if they did?

And I would like to see some example of proof for the assertion that "flip" is what people supporting the democrats would do as supposition hardly counts as evidence, unless evidence is something extra , something that is unnecessary because the statement(s) is(are) self evident.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Daughter2

 

THIS IS THE ULTIMATE BIG GOVERNMENT. LETTING ONE POLITICIAN TAKE USE PHYSICAL FORCE ON THE MINORITY!!!

You realize that the Democrats in the Wi legislature have the majority right?

The last I heard, the State of Wi has 33 reps, 14 being Republicans. Its simple math? Do you even have an understanding of what you wish to decry? Your comments appear to be uneducated, as if you are unable to conjure up a constructive thought, rather than repeat what you heard on CNN!

I have some catching up to do on this thread...and I hate to correct you again...but this needed to be corrected

The WI Senate does have 33 senators...14 are the Democrats that have fled the State...there are 19 Republicans.

You should really get your facts straight.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Seems like they are creating gridlock to me, by staying out of state, holding up the legislative process.

If they can't bring the runaways home, then I would urge any minority in any legislature to do the same thing. It will be the new legislative process, do nothing.

New Legislative Process?????
Gridlock????

Honestly...where have you been?

The GOP proudly declared Gridlock thier goal and employed the Fillibuster more times over the last session of Congress than any other time in history.

GRIDLOCK!! I think GOP congressman even had t-shirts made up with the word.

Wow...