More union busting in Wisconsin

[alguien]

Alguien,

Yes, those on the left never play "gotcha".

Its more the false equivalency that bugs me, Scot.

[Swordfish]

Its more the false equivalency that bugs me, Scot.

How so?

[alguien]

Ha.....

I'll even go meta on you...

People have been playing the gotcha game all thread,hell in almost every thread, so why is it so important to you that it be called out now?

Seems a little convenient, doesn't it?

:smoking:

You just blew my mind. :)

But it was more how it was faulty comparison that bugged me.

[awesome possum]

While violent rhetoric is stupid no matter what, I think there is a ton of difference in rhetoric coming about due to clear lies (Death Panels!) and rhetoric coming about due to a state political party trying to strip away certain rights from many of it's citizens. Neither is acceptable, but to consider them equal is absurd.

[Swordfish]

While violent rhetoric is stupid no matter what, I think there is a ton of difference in rhetoric coming about due to clear lies (Death Panels!) and rhetoric coming about due to a state political party trying to strip away certain rights from many of it's citizens. Neither is acceptable, but to consider them equal is absurd.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect it might be mutual.

This has nothing to do with death panels.

You just blew my mind. :)

How i roll....

;)

But it was more how it was faulty comparison that bugged me.

How?

Either that kind of imagery contributes to the atmosphere that leads to people being shot, or it doesn't, right?

[alguien]

How so?

Was the Rep. being a hypocritical idiot when he made that statement? Yeah. It went without saying. I don't think any left-leaning poster would defend that. As Shryke said, I didn't even know about it until you posted. So to portray it as though we were ignoring or accepting that kind of rhetoric is false.

And by faulty comparison, what I mean is that if a government official was, god forbid, shot at the WI rally, and that official had previously specifically mentioned how violent rhetoric made them feel unsafe, it would be apt comparison to the tragedy that went down in Arizona.

[Swordfish]

Was the Rep. being a hypocritical idiot when he made that statement? Yeah. It went without saying. I don't think any left-leaning poster would defend that. As Shryke said, I didn't even know about it until you posted.

I was really more referring to the crosshairs.....

But what I mean is that if a government official was, god forbid, shot at the WI rally, and that official had previously specifically mentioned how violent rhetoric made them feel unsafe, it would be apt comparison to the tragedy that went down in Arizona.

I'm not comparing anything to the tragedy that happened in AZ.

I'm comparing it to the twenty pages or so of outrage we had specifically over the imagery of crosshairs, and how said imagery contributes to incidents like the one in AZ.

[TerraPrime]

And, really, I think you will find condemnation from leftists on things like comparison to Hitler, as well as the use of violent rhetorics. I mean, if it makes some of you feel better, then yes, I, too, find the use of phrases like "bloody" in the context to be unacceptable. Some of us have also said that we don't think the Democratic state senators stalling the process by making themselves absent is acceptable, either.

I don't know what else you all want. Some sort of signed collective apology issued by DailyKos or MoveOn?

Can leftists be hypocrites? Sure. We are humans, too. But, honestly, trying to draw equivalence between these protest signs to Palin's electoral map with crosshairs and the campaign slogans like "don't retreat, relaod" or have fund-raising activities where you shoot real guns at a dummy with the name of your opponents next to it? I just don't see it. Yes, the use of violent imagery is not acceptable in political speech when the violence is directed at your opponent, and I wish that everyone on our side will stick to that principle. Alas.

[Merentha]

This new law requires a 2/3 majority to change those taxes, but changing the requirement apparently did not. According to my linked article, this new law passed 57-36. If you can change the requirement with less than 2/3, then it is purely symbolic.

It seems to me that any law imposing a supermajority requirement should require that same supermajority to pass.

Already covered this in the last thread. iirc, FLoW mentioned that Wisconsin law requires a law to be on the books for two consecutive election cycles, or some such, before it can be proposed as an amendment. So, its there to be a) symbolic and B) lay the grounds for an amendment.

[awesome possum]

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect it might be mutual.

Hmm, did I accidentally use a "Summon Troll" command?

[TerraPrime]

Already covered this in the last thread. iirc, FLoW mentioned that Wisconsin law requires a law to be on the books for two consecutive election cycles, or some such, before it can be proposed as an amendment. So, its there to be a) symbolic and B) lay the grounds for an amendment.

It is about making State Constitutional Amendments. The proposed law has to be passed by state government in 2 consecutive sessions, and then be ratified by the voters. I don't recall requiring a 2/3 majority, though. I think we're talking about 2 separate issues.

[Bronn Stone]

I do feel the need to point out that it is much more likely that one will get bloody by getting beat up. Beating up someone else usually doesn't leave one bloody.

The metaphor intended here is "let's put ourselves in the position to be the ones taking the damage".

The misplaced period on the above quote was intentional. Gotta yank the chains of the grammarstapo when you can.

[alguien]

I was really more referring to the crosshairs.....

Crosshairs? At the WI rally? I didn't even know about that. If some idiot was using those they should stop. Pardon my French, but that's fucking stupid, given what's happened. By which I mean, it damages a cause way more than it helps.

I'm not comparing anything to the tragedy that happened in AZ.

I'm comparing it to the twenty pages or so of outrage we had specifically over the imagery of crosshairs, and how said imagery contributes to incidents like the one in AZ.

That doesn't really make sense. The crosshairs thing was made prominent because outrage felt over the AZ shootings. It was brought up in threads because Rep. Giffords herself specifically referenced them as a dangerous, bad idea before she was shot. IIRC, after learning more about the shooter, pretty much everyone here agreed he was just nuts.

ETA: or to put it more succinctly, what Terra--Markoswhathaveyou said. :)

[Shryke]

Already covered this in the last thread. iirc, FLoW mentioned that Wisconsin law requires a law to be on the books for two consecutive election cycles, or some such, before it can be proposed as an amendment. So, its there to be a) symbolic and B) lay the grounds for an amendment.

Ahh, so they really don't know the state of California exists.

[Bronn Stone]

Already covered this in the last thread. iirc, FLoW mentioned that Wisconsin law requires a law to be on the books for two consecutive election cycles, or some such, before it can be proposed as an amendment. So, its there to be a) symbolic and B) lay the grounds for an amendment.

Do not those grounds have to be laid from the beginning (ie, proposed as an Amendment from the first vote)? I've seen nothing on Special Bill 5 suggesting it amends the state constitution.

[Shryke]

Hehehehehe: http://www.bobcesca.com/images/fetus_republican_sign.jpg

[Inigima]

I didn't know about the crosshair thing. I disapprove. So does everyone else. Can we move on now or do you halfwits have more trolling to do?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And, really, I think you will find condemnation from leftists on things like comparison to Hitler, as well as the use of violent rhetorics. I mean, if it makes some of you feel better, then yes, I, too, find the use of phrases like "bloody" in the context to be unacceptable. Some of us have also said that we don't think the Democratic state senators stalling the process by making themselves absent is acceptable, either.

I don't know what else you all want. Some sort of signed collective apology issued by DailyKos or MoveOn?

No. I don't believe in that collective apology thing, regardless of whether the offending party is a U.S. Congressman or an individual tea partier. However, the President chose to insert himself into this state issue by saying he supported the union position. If he doesn't have an obligation to speak out on this, then I don't want to hear anyone down the line calling out GOP leaders for not respondiong to something stupid some other Republican said.

[Shryke]

Indiana AG's office fires deputy AG Jeff Cox for posting inappropriate online comments on his private account about Wiscconsin protesters.

Jeff Cox's original comments, fyi, were to use live ammunition on the protesters to clear them out.

[Guest Raids]

Well, one random protestor did publish something with crosshairs on the governor, so I suppose it's natural that he suggested going all Tiananmen Square on them.

Also, surely we can equate that with what a past candidate for Vice President put up on her Facebook page, right? And isn't "repeal" just another word for "reload." I always carry extra clips around with me so I repeal my semiautomatic glock.

ETA: In all fairness, that one protestor is probably, if anything, more qualified to be Vice-President than Sarah Palin, it's just that we don't take the crazy fringe elements of our party and run them for the second highest office in the country. Sure, we let Kucinich stand up in the debates and trade barbs, but him one step away from the button? I don't think so. So, really, don't blame Sarah. It's not her fault she's a militant idiot. Blame you the Republicans for elevating her to a position where a huge portion of the population actually listens to her.