Gov. Walker is now demanding that the capital be cleared, and is trying to get the Democratic Senators to come back by threatening to cut off state support for :::get this::: nursing homes.
As a response, the police have vowed to ignore his order, and are now going to be sleeping on the capitol floor with the protesters.
...and I don't think he realized the consequences of his plan. At this point he's playing into the hands of the Democrats, who would like nothing better than to see Walker and Republicans in general go toe to toe with the police. People whose first priority is law and order will have their heads expolde. But a lot of them won't be voting Republican any more.
I am sorry, but extreme slipperly slope arguments are usually silly.
There may be some restricting the right of public employee unions to collectively bargain for pensions, a "right" that was only recognized in my life time on the federal level under JFK, and by executive order at that, and only a short time before that on the state level in a couple of states.
And from that you jump to a state ban on First Amendment rights to petition the government, a right that is probably the most core function of the First Amendment, with the highest level of protection
That is one hell of a slippery slope.
It is almost like saying the State wants to tax me, so they want to strip all of my property. Since my tax level is pretty much around 60% anyway, counting fed, state, local, business, sales, gas, phone, etc, my leap of logic is actually much closer.
I know: The feds want to control the cost of health care, and people like Barney Frank already have spoken in favor of Fed single-payer. What is the next step? Mandatory euthansia for strep throat?
I love the slippery slope.
As a response, the police have vowed to ignore his order, and are now going to be sleeping on the capitol floor with the protesters.
The governor is trying to kick the protesters out of the capitol building. I.E. prevent them from practicing their right to peacefully petition the government for a redress of grievances. nice try, Phil.
A strawman is making up the argument of the other side to knock it down. He isn't doing a straw man argument by wanting them to leave the capitol. He is not making up any position and calling it theirs.
If you were talking about my argument it was not a straw man. I was not using those examples to say that is anyone's position. I was using that as an example of a slippery slope. Not attributing it to any real party.
As the the mis-labeled merits of your post: I have seen videos and it would be very hard to get anything done with all the shouting I have seen in the assembly chamber in Wisconsin.
Peaceful assembly never, never, never included the right to distrupt the legitimate and proper action of the governement. You can demonstrate outside. You may be able to bring signs inside, although even that is pushing the limits. No one ever had the right to make a peep from the gallaries. Never.
You cannot peacefully assemble in a court house and make noise during the proceeding. THAT IS NOT PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY. You can get thrown out just for making faces or doing anything that distracts.
The same applies for the legislature. Go to Harry Reid's Senate next time it is in sesson and shout out, "Repeal Obama Care." Your ass will be out of there so fast your head will spin. AND YOU KNOW IT.
To prevent illegal action is not to prevent peaceful assembly, and distrupting the legislature is illegal.
Preventing non-peaceful assembly ain't exactly the brown shirts.
Nice try Willie, but get back off that slope.
Strawman argument: He said that. Isn't that bad?
You called my argument a slippery slope when you linked the right to petition for a redress of grievances to protecting collective bargaining.
I called it a strawman because the right to peacefully petition for a redress of grievances is entirely different from getting what you want.
As is typical with your tortured logic Phil.
"As the the mis-labeled merits of your post: I have seen videos and it would be very hard to get anything done with all the shouting I have seen in the assembly chamber in Wisconsin."
Yes. That is the point.
"Peaceful assembly never, never, never included the right to distrupt the legitimate and proper action of the governement."
Yes, it really does. That's the purpose of it.
"You cannot peacefully assemble in a court house and make noise during the proceeding. THAT IS NOT PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY. You can get thrown out just for making faces or doing anything that distracts."
It's not a court house.
"The same applies for the legislature. Go to Harry Reid's Senate next time it is in sesson and shout out, "Repeal Obama Care." Your ass will be out of there so fast your head will spin. AND YOU KNOW IT."
If, I, alone did, yes I would be. But that's not what is happening in Madison, is it Phil?
"To prevent illegal action is not to prevent peaceful assembly, and distrupting the legislature is illegal."
Except in one case, Phil.
"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it"
Government can only operate when the People let them operate. With their expressed consent. Wisconsans are right now occupying the Capitol building, because the government does NOT have their expressed consent.
I am not going to cover every point, since I have to get work done.
But you don't understand how analogies work.
To use one example, I said you can't make disturbances in court. You said legislatures are not courts.
That is true, and obviously I know legislatures are not courts.
You missed the point.
I was saying you can't disturb public business. I used courts as an example. It is an analogy. It applies to other institutions as well.
There are never demonstartions of this nature inside the Senate where they disrupt it for a long time and you know it. You are lying to yourself and me if you deny it. People are removed, and that is a fact that you can't deny with a quote about the governments deriving power. I can toss out undeniable quotes also. "It's not nice to fool with mother nature."
You admit if you did it alone, you would be thrown out. The same applies to 20 Willies. The Pink Ladies were thrown out as a group.
As to the consent of the governed, I think they recently had an election in Wisconsin. I have an idea. They will have one in two years, or if the governed so desire, they can call a special election. Fine. Let's have it your way, and test the consent of the governed in the next election. Until then, the last elections had consequences, as great man once said.
-- Modified on 2/26/2011 8:33:12 AM
-- Modified on 2/26/2011 8:34:27 AM
Will the state senate democrats be docked a days pay for each day they are away from their elected duties....not gonna happen. Doesn't matter which political party, they all look out for each other when money is involved.