The Wisconsin Governor does not like unions.

MattDaddy wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Matt, are you more steamed at the Democrats doing something "cowardly" but legal, or the absurd and/or illegal actions taken by Republicans-short notice meetings, locking the capitol, sending police against protesters, calling for the arrest of absent democrats?

I would think that the outcome of the forthcoming recalls will spell out what the constituents feel was ridiculous.

This is what I would call trolling. This is phrased as "heads I win tails you lose". If you want to honestly discuss something related to this, then please don't come at me with this kind of thing and expect me to bite.

Call it what you will. Certainly the Wisconsin elected officials have been much more polite on the matter. And you can refuse to answer. It is just a phenomenon that I find fascinating. People often get more up in arms with behavior that they find distasteful regardless of its legality. A common one is refusing the police to search your car, or refusing a bag inspection at a store. Here, I want to know if you find cowardly behavior more distasteful than illegal behavior? Simple as that. Paranoia is not necessary, you are not so important that I am out to get you. And I am pretty sure you are running no risk of losing internet debate points. I could be wrong on that.

I think that his issue was your classifications of the Republicans actions as illegal, which he would imply agreement with if he answered your question.

MattDaddy doesn't believe that the meeting that was called <2 hours early was illegal, and he doesn't believe that the idea of outlawing recording devices went against existing statutes.

From his response I am guessing that he also doesn't want to characterize the Republican's actions as absurd.

But that would be an answer. If he does not take issue with setting police against protesters, only to have the police join in, or calling for the arrest of the democrats, or the numerous violations of parliamentary procedure illegal, that is an answer. Looking at some of the articles written, or news stories, there are also people who feel that regardless of legality, it was too important to eliminate CB rights to let anything stand in the way.

he doesn't believe that the idea of outlawing recording devices went against existing statutes.

I don't understand how anyone can make that claim in good faith. That law is absolutely unambiguous.

Robear wrote:

First off, the main thrust of this you entirely ignored.

Did you really expect an answer after calling me disrespectful?

You're arguing that you respected the Democrats? The reason I posted that you didn't is stuff like the following:

Good for Walker. It's about time the unsustainable gravy train (lefties love trains, even the gravy kind) came to a halt.

Didn't Pelosi say a couple of years ago something along the lines of: "Too bad, you lost". They sure loved using that excuse then, but can't take it when they are the ones who lost.
...
Save the bought and paid for rhetoric for the Democrats, who the unions bought long ago.

He's not "tricking" them, unless they simply are too stupid to know what is going on.
...
Everything they are doing is perfectly legal, which is more than the Democrats who fled the state can say about their actions.
...
I was being facetious. I'm glad they decided not to follow the same low road that some on the other side of the issue have taken. (NB - of Republicans not planting folks in crowds to agitate.)
...
Low roads:

1) Democrats running away to Illinois.
2) Doctors giving out fake excuses
3) Signs with pictures of Walker with a gunsight on his forehead, calling him Hitler, etc..
4) Calling under a false identity and trying to bait Walker into saying something that could used against him.
5) Union members showing up at the homes of republicans and saying things like "we know what your kids look like".

The Fox lies guy was amusing though.
(NB - When asked, you could not list anything that you thought Wisconsin Republicans did which would be a "low road" to you. Kind of a problem for the idea that you're critical of both sides.)
...
Bad faith is skipping town when you don't get your way. They are following the democratic process. The democrats who ran away are the ones preventing it.
...
So if you can't win, run away. Classy move. What happened to "elections have consequences"?

That is not even all the way through the thread. And you've still not addressed the other point I actually made. In fact, you even posted the opposite at one point - you said you thought that Walker *should* go ahead unilaterally and pull dirty tricks and the like, as a tit for tat response. Then later you claim you want stuff that both sides can accept? That's a hard change to make. I honestly find it hard to believe that you're in the middle on this, and respect or disrespect the two sides equally as your lament earlier suggested. It's that attempt to position yourself after the fact as somehow in the middle on this issue that I pointed out.

I never said I was in the middle on the issue. I still stand on the side of Walker. I can stand definitively on one side and still be respectful. Maybe after some debate, initial heated feelings cool off and both sides deal with the issues a little more calmly. I think that has been the case between Dimmer and myself. We are still quite a ways apart on a lot of this, but I feel that we have had much more productive debate lately. Instead, you want to try and trap me into some kind of "gotcha" corner by trying to prove I'm saying two different things. That fact that you went back and cherry-picked so many quotes shows me that you are out to get me.

Disagreement is not disrespect, and altering ones stance, even if slightly, should be something you promote, not condemn.

By your definition, a number of others in this thread has been disrespectful to the Republicans and to me. I don't feel that many have been disrespetful, but by your definition they would be.

I never said Walker should pull dirty tricks. I'm sure you can find the exact quote, but I was being sarcastic and even stated that.

MattDaddy wrote:

That fact that you went back and cherry-picked so many quotes shows me that you are out to get me.

I feel I should disagree with this. Robear, while an excellent orator and good at clarifying his opinion via text, has never, in the several years I've been posting here, been "out to get" someone, nor have I seen him use a "gotcha." I'm human, of course, and may have missed one, but I do read most threads even if I don't input in them. Either way, I wouldn't consider Robear's post above constituting out to get you or an attempt at a "gotcha" moment.

He's using your words to point out inconsistencies in your own logic, sure, but he's done that to pretty much everyone here.

I should also point out that, as my friend Rich once said, the only safe assumption to make regarding sarcasm online is that nobody will understand it as sarcasm.

I do think, MattDaddy, that you're demonstrating double standards, in that if Democrats do something, you think it's awful, where if 'your team' does the same thing, you might raise an eyebrow.

From what I've seen of this, the sum total of possible wrongdoing by the Democrats was leaving the state to prevent a quorum, where the Republicans just went off the freaking rails, outright breaking multiple laws, ignoring repeated court orders, and badly violating the principles under which the Wisconsin government has run for so many decades. I don't see that there's any possible way you can cast the two sides as even vaguely equivalent.

I've seen plenty of liberals do the same thing; when Bush did things, they hated it, but when Obama does the exact same things, somehow it's okay. I think it's just as bad from that side. I think we need to be scrutinizing our own sides, if we have them, more carefully than the opposition, holding them to a higher standard. Hopefully, after all, that's why we're supporting them.

Instead, you want to try and trap me into some kind of "gotcha" corner by trying to prove I'm saying two different things. That fact that you went back and cherry-picked so many quotes shows me that you are out to get me.

Or maybe it shows that I'm actually trying to figure out what you're saying. You said all along you're on Walker's side, then you claim that you want both sides to be able to work together and reach agreements together. The entire situation developed because Walker decided that that was exactly what he was *not* going to do, but you backed him all the way. When you change your position to such a large degree, it's reasonable to go back and say "Hey, did I mistake Matt's position - was he really arguing that both sides were at fault, instead of one?" I didn't find that. Instead, I found statements that indicate, as you have in many previous threads, that you not only disagree with "lefties", but you don't respect them. And I pointed that out.

I don't mind you changing your stance. As you say, flexibility is a good thing - when it actually can have an effect. Waiting until after the slapfight is over and then saying "Hey, we shouldn't slap each other anyway" looks to me like you've forgotten that you were out there throwing shots just like the rest of us. That's your business, of course. But I don't believe your stance has actually changed. You didn't put any skin in that part of the game while it mattered.

By your definition, a number of others in this thread has been disrespectful to the Republicans and to me. I don't feel that many have been disrespetful, but by your definition they would be.

Absolutely, most likely including me. But I'm also willing to give the bad points of both sides, because I *am* in the middle on many issues. I lean one way or the other on some, but on most, I can identify things in both sides that I'm willing to condemn and things to praise. You had chances to do that, even explicit questions, which you mostly just blew by and left stand. Part of taking that stance is walking the walk. If you want to be seen as in the middle, then you need to back it up in your positions. Otherwise, claiming the middle, wanting both sides to work together after arguing that one is all wrong just seems to be too much of a change to credit without also hitting the other side as hard.

I never said Walker should pull dirty tricks. I'm sure you can find the exact quote, but I was being sarcastic and even stated that.

"Lefties love trains, even the gravy kind". You did say that, right? If you were looking to respect them, and I'm part of that crowd, why is that stuff necessary? If you want respect, then offer it. If you want sarcasm and digs, keep offering them. But don't tell me it's raining when really...

I should also point out that, as my friend Rich once said, the only safe assumption to make regarding sarcasm online is that nobody will understand it as sarcasm.

What people consider as sarcasm or humor can often reveal where they stand on issues. To say the least.

MattDaddy wrote:

Disagreement is not disrespect.

Nobody here is saying that, we're just saying that a large number of your statements about democrats went past disagreement and into belittlement and disrespect.

A temporary restraining order has been issued against the collective bargaining provisions which were passed by our State Senate in violation of Wisconsin Law § 19.84.

WisPolitics Budget Blog[/url]]Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi today granted a temporary restraining order blocking publication of the collective bargaining bill.

Sumi said she was given no evidence to show why the conference committee could not have given a 24-hour notice for it meeting last week or why a timely notice was not provided.

Sumi said some may ask how a bill can be stopped in its tracks by a "minor" issue like failure to properly notice a meeting.

"My response is it's not minor; it's not a minor detail," she said, adding it is of utmost importance that nothing that happens in government occur in secret.

Robear wrote:
I should also point out that, as my friend Rich once said, the only safe assumption to make regarding sarcasm online is that nobody will understand it as sarcasm.

What people consider as sarcasm or humor can often reveal where they stand on issues. To say the least.

Except that I explicitly stated that it was sarcasm. So are you now calling me a liar?

So... what are people's thoughts on the TRO Judge Sumi just issued?

Edit: for myself, the fact that our state GOP were unable to present any reason for giving insufficient notice makes me think that there were other Republican senators who were wavering in their support for passing the bill. I'm open to other theories, of course.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

So... what are people's thoughts on the TRO Judge Sumi just issued?

Edit: for myself, the fact that our state GOP were unable to present any reason for giving insufficient notice makes me think that there were other Republican senators who were wavering in their support for passing the bill. I'm open to other theories, of course.

I like the judge's reasoning.

WisPolitics Budget Blog[/url]]Sumi said some may ask how a bill can be stopped in its tracks by a "minor" issue like failure to properly notice a meeting.

"My response is it's not minor; it's not a minor detail," she said, adding it is of utmost importance that nothing that happens in government occur in secret.

I'm sure everyone will be screaming about judicial activism and playing favorites and all that, but I think this is a really important place to hold the line. I hope there will be other judges who take the opportunity to explicitly demonstrate that kind of reasoning for both "teams".

What people consider as sarcasm or humor can often reveal where they stand on issues. To say the least.

Except that I explicitly stated that it was sarcasm. So are you now calling me a liar?

I can't understand how you get from a simple social observation to calling you a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would. For the record, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that you are, in this thread or others.

I took issue with your claims, not you personally. As you said above, disagreement is not disrespect.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

So... what are people's thoughts on the TRO Judge Sumi just issued?

I'm disappointed by the ruling.

I would say now that the 14 are back, take a vote on the original bill. If they run out again, then go through the alternative route agin, but this time make sure you do it so there is no doubt of it's legality.

I don't think they could do that without a vote to repeal the bill, which probably has a few months worth of precursors to it. Maybe they could speed that up, but then they'd have to deal with seriously angry constituents again. It'd be a real mess.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

So... what are people's thoughts on the TRO Judge Sumi just issued?

I'm disappointed by the ruling.

I would say now that the 14 are back, take a vote on the original bill. If they run out again, then go through the alternative route agin, but this time make sure you do it so there is no doubt of it's legality.

Translation: You think that if the bill is overturned because the way it was done was illegal, the Republicans should try again, but make sure to give 24 hours notice.

However, you're disappointed by the ruling.

That doesn't square. If it's illegal it's illegal. You shouldn't want your "team" to "win" by illegal means. If they're in the right then surely they can redo the vote and actually give notice this time.

DSGamer wrote:

Translation: You think that if the bill is overturned because the way it was done was illegal, the Republicans should try again, but make sure to give 24 hours notice.

However, you're disappointed by the ruling.

That doesn't square. If it's illegal it's illegal. You shouldn't want your "team" to "win" by illegal means. If they're in the right then surely they can redo the vote and actually give notice this time.

I am disappointed because I do not think it was illegal. If a judge rules otherwise, then you have to abide by the decision. In that case I'm all for getting it passed so that it can't be challenged. What "doesn't square" about that?

I don't have a team, but it's revealing that you have now mentioned this term twice. I guess that's how I'm viewed here, as being from the "other team". It's not about dicsussion, it's about beating the opponent. At htis point my best option is to essentially take my ball and go home. Sorry to those that want to discuss the issues, but I'm not going to keep posting if every time I do I get jumped on by a mob of people looking at me like an enemy that needs to be beaten.

The reason I use the term "team" is because it often seems like you don't care about facts or your beliefs as much as the group you affiliate with "winning". I actually don't think politics should be a team sport. And I don't consider myself to be on a team. And I find it revolting when anyone acts like they're on a team, Democrat or Republican. So my reaction isn't because I'm trying to put you on a team when you aren't. It's because you act as if it's all about the team.

MattDaddy wrote:

I am disappointed because I do not think it was illegal. If a judge rules otherwise, then you have to abide by the decision. In that case I'm all for getting it passed so that it can't be challenged. What "doesn't square" about that?

Dimmer posted the law the Republicans broke earlier in the thread. It required advance notice. It's a pretty big problem when legislators can't follow laws or, worse, think they're above them.

MattDaddy, what didn't square, by the way, is that you seemed to think it was illegal, but yet were disappointed that it was overturned. You clarified saying that you thought they didn't do anything illegal. I'm always in the camp of legality trumps expedience. It's why I was against the health care legislation and why I was against the *it* was passed and why I was against the way this legislation passed.

I am disappointed because I do not think it was illegal.

How on earth can you hold that position? The law says 24 hours except in case of emergency, and a minimum of two hours, and they didn't even manage the two hours.

How can you possibly, possibly sit there and seriously think that this was an emergency that needed to be handled sooner than 24 hours?

MattDaddy wrote:

I am disappointed because I do not think it was illegal.

I am going to flaunt my credentials here a bit because I work for a quasi-government agency in Arizona which is, therefore, governed by the state's open meeting law. In my capacity, I serve as the recording secretary and the parliamentarian for the boards and committees of this agency. I have been extensively trained in open meeting law including the nuances of the statutes and the horror stories of people trying to circumvent the law.

What the legislators in Wisconsin did was absolutely in violation of the Wisconsin open meeting law statutes. Those laws are there to ensure transparency in government and ensure that we don't have secret votes in the middle of the night with no one watching. Every thing I have ever read on open meeting law is very clear: when the statute states time for notification in hours it means that each hour is exactly 60 minutes. Not 59 minutes and 45 seconds. 60 minutes.

The reason for that is clear. You can do significant damage in under a minute. I know that it takes less than 30 seconds to make a motion, get a second, call the vote and announce passage or failure of the motion. To allow that to happen outside of the posted time limit is an absolute threat to democracy because the minute you allow one minute's grace, there is no reason why you shouldn't allow two minutes. In two minutes, several motions could be made.

Additionally, if any part of a meeting is in violation of the open meeting statutes, then the entire meeting is in violation. That is the penalty for violation and is there to ensure compliance, particularly if you have, say, a four hour meeting.

I am as partisan as the next person, but when it comes to open meeting law, I am a hawk against everyone. I refuse to let anyone on my board or committee violate the law by starting the meeting early. I would be on the phone in a heartbeat to the AG's office lodging a formal complaint if I knew of any state agency, including my own, trying to get around open meeting law.

I don't care if Republicans or Democrats are doing it, it is wrong, it is illegal, and if the people, particularly legislators, can't follow the open meeting statutes, they should leave their positions.

MattDaddy wrote:

I am disappointed because I do not think it was illegal.

I'm very confused by this.

I know I cited it before, but here's the statute in question.

Wisconsin Law[/url]]19.84 Public notice.

(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.

Notice was just after 4pm on March 9th for a 6pm meeting.

It's one thing to argue that it's not an important law, or that the violation shouldn't stop the legislation the Senate passed from taking effect (and maybe that's the position MattDaddy is actually taking but not articulating well). I'd disagree with that interpretation, for reasons similar to what Phoenix Rev outlined above. However, I can't understand how anyone can argue in good faith that the law wasn't broken when less than two hours was given for the meeting where the Senate passed this bill.

And I don't understand how anyone can argue that this clause:

unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical

could possibly have applied. There was no emergency, and no reasonable way to claim one existed. Therefore, 24-hour notice applied, not 2-hour.

I'm seeing a general trend for republicans in power claiming everything is an emergency and not given reasons why. Oh no we must defund npr and pbs or something bad will happen.

For anyone that actually thinks this was emergency, why was it an emergency?