Wisconsin Billboard - Hope and Change - Page 4

KSagal · 04-28-2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Those who comprehend the English language should read through the thread from the start so as to understand the specifics of what was said.

Finally, I agree!

Question is, where will the objective reader wind up?

My guess would be on another thread, as we have been here alone (with Bob) for some time now...

Civicsman · 04-29-2010, 08:06 AM

With the Republicans abandoning their party-line obstructionism of debate on a proposed Wall Street regulation reform bill, there is Hope for Change on that front too. Word on the street is that GOP phone lines were hot with inquiries from constituents wondering why in hell their representatives were not contributing to legislation that was so obviously needed.

With Charlie Crist (reportedly) dumping the Republican party for an independent bid for governor in Florida, and therefore giving a realistic shot to a Democratic challenger, will the GOP figure out that Right of Far Right is not the ticket for electability? Hope for Change there too!

DarthSegVator · 08-05-2010, 07:12 AM

Here is another one along I-94 between Milwaukee and Madison.

WI-Billboard-Embarrassed-Yet.jpg

KSagal · 08-05-2010, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civicsman

...

Clearly, some people believe that "democracy" only applies when they are getting their own way.

...

I wonder about statements like the above. It was offered as a prelude to a complaint about the GOP, but I wonder if it will ever be applied the other direction?

Like in the approximately 90% Democrat party control of Massachusetts legislature which has not acted upon, or ignored popular referendums to reduce taxes. When the majority vote in favor of a thing, is that not democracy?

How about the recent court ruling in California? One judge has decided that the voting majority do not have a democratic right to pass laws by referendum.

Now, I know we actually live in a Republic, not a real democracy. (Technically, it is supposed to be a democratic republic, but there are frequently corruptions to both the democratic part, and the republic part)

In a republic, we are dependent upon the representatives to represent the will of the people who elected them. Instead, we have a political class that is bought and paid for. I have very little faith in the representations of most, and popular support is not nearly as important to these people than organized support (read that as dollar contributions).

Hope and change? This congress and administration is full of secret meetings, bills you "have to vote for before we will tell you what is in it" and many other 'Politics as usual' situations. Perhaps the change was supposed to be that we are even farther from our democratic principals than ever before. Perhaps the change is that we should let these people (the current congress and administration) rule and dictate to all aspects of our life, if we like it or not!

Civicsman · 08-05-2010, 10:55 PM

Quote:

How about the recent court ruling in California? One judge has decided that the voting majority do not have a democratic right to pass laws by referendum.

No sir! That's the kind of neanderthal-inflaming misrepresentation one might expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh, or Sister Sarah.

The judge ruled, as he must, that a law may not violate the Constitution of the United States, no matter how many good people vote for it.

If the majority of people, nationwide, want to legally discriminate against classes of people, they must first repeal the 14th Amendment. It states, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. Who in their right mind would suggest that such a critically important foundation stone of the United States of America, Equal Rights, should be abandoned?

KSagal · 08-05-2010, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civicsman

No sir! That's the kind of neanderthal-inflaming misrepresentation one might expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh, or Sister Sarah.

The judge ruled, as he must, that a law may not violate the Constitution of the United States, no matter how many good people vote for it.

If the majority of people, nationwide, want to legally discriminate against classes of people, they must first repeal the 14th Amendment. It states, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. Who in their right mind would suggest that such a critically important foundation stone of the United States of America, Equal Rights, should be abandoned?

Actually, there is lots of subjectivity here on the part of this self proclaimed gay judge, who states his opinions as to the constitutionality of this law...

By your own quoted words...Those that I highlighted in blue that everyone is subjected to the due process of law. Passing a law by majority referendum IS THE DUE PROCESS of law.

Your leap to conclusion that the opportunity to marry another person is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution is certainly subjective. I do not recall that being a specified right.

I included the wording of that 14th admendendment, and you will see in section 2, highlighted in red that the 14th admendment does not apply to anyone other than males over 21 years. That I would say is antiquated, but it was the law at the time.

This will clearly go to the US Supreme Court. One man cannot change laws over the expressed will of over 7 million Californians.

It is nice that you have declared this an equal rights item, and you are welcome to your opinion. I am not saying if you are right or wrong, all I am saying is that it is subjective.

Furthermore, I feel I have the constitutional right to raise my children with values and respect for traditions that are far older than this nation. I feel that many of the values expressed by great works of great minds should not be changed and redefined to suit the wants of a small percentage of people.

If gay people wanting to change the definition of a word and concept that is Milena old and call that an equal rights issue, than surely would the imposition of a foreign set of values upon my family be an equal rights issue.

There is no absolute here. But there is lots of data about the decline of our modern society, and many feel that this a harbinger of that decline, and further declinations to come.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Civicsman · 08-06-2010, 01:32 AM

These ";" are semi-colons. They are used in the English language to separate parts of sentences that are independent, or semi-independent of other parts of a sentence. Consequently, you should have highlighted the entire section, reading "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Without debating the meaning of that section (which most people would probably understand as meaning something different than what you apparently think it does), the more pertinent statement is, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I did NOT leap to any conclusion that the opportunity to marry another person is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. You simply can not justify your claim with any statement that I made...Rush.

The Constitution certainly does not specifically guarantee a right to marriage. However, when the ability to marry is granted widely by the secular government, as it is, to exclude particular groups from exercising that privilege is a violation of the equal protection clause. I did not declare or invent the concept that this is an equal rights issue. It was argued this way in Federal District Court, and the decision was based on this. You probably should have done a little homework before posting.

Almost certainly it will go to the Supreme Court. One judge will not decide this issue, and with the Lying John Roberts Court throwing out hundreds of years of legal precedents, who know what will happen there. However, the legal precepts cited by Judge Walker are constitutionally strong.

You say, Karl, that you have a "constitutional right" to raise your children with respect for traditions that are older than this nation. Great! So you would agree, then, that other fathers, who respect the long tradition of holding Africans as slaves (also older than this country) also have the same constitutional right? I relish the thought of questioning you publicly about this terribly flawed thinking the next time you run for office!

With Proposition 8 in shreds, what keeps you from raising your own children in the way you want? Nothing. Equal rights for someone else imposes no values upon your family. You're simply unable to accept that someone else is doing something that you don't personally approve of. The most terrible thing you might have to do is teach your kids some tolerance.

Marriage is a secular contract, with permission granted to various religious leaders to perform the rites. You have every right not to approve of gay marriage based on your personal/religious beliefs. Voters do not have the right to mandate that others can not enjoy equal protection under the secular law of the land.

The flawed thinking you have exhibited here is the basis of racial, religious, and sexual bigotry, just as it has been over the millenia. Puhleeze, don't cite "tradition". With regards to equal rights, your "tradition" means the very dark days of the past.

PeteInLongBeach · 08-06-2010, 04:13 AM

Prop 8 Tramples on Basic Civil Rights
By Dr. Drew Pinsky

I am certainly by no means a legal scholar. Nor do I have any special understanding of American History. I am an American citizen with a deep appreciation of the brilliantly balanced system our founding fathers created.

There was a reason they set up our system as a republic and not a direct democracy. The Jacksonian Revolution started us in a direction whereby direct appeal to the people and direct democracy gained a distinct priority in our value system.

But never did the founding generations expect that we might see the advent of a system where a simple appeal to a majority could result in any whim the majority might decide to assert.

A main concern of the founding fathers was to create a system that was sufficiently balanced and thoughtful so as to buffer against one group exerting its will upon another. This to them, was nothing other than mob rule. While we retain a distinct preference for the gloss of a direct democracy the fact is we are not and thankfully so.

Throughout history democracies have inevitably fractured and failed. Even the Greeks felt that a democracy was impossible in populations greater than 100,000 members. Not only are we so much larger but more heterogeneous making this even more treacherous.

Alexis De Toqueville, a Frenchman who came to America in the opening decades of the nineteenth century to study Democracy in America, in his objective assessment remained very concerned that our system had a potential to allow for something he called the Tyranny of the Majority. That is to say he was concerned that merely by being a majority one group could exert its will upon another, even restrict its civil liberties and rights.

Unfortunately, the referendum system in the State of California has become the mechanism for actualizing precisely this tyranny. The California Supreme Court determined that the argument against same sex marriage was untenable.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution (source: Wikipedia).

In other words it was the concerted opinion of the judicial authority that the logic used against interracial marriage was the same as that, which was being used against same sex marriages. In spite of this very clear understanding of the law and the logic of prejudice, the response rendered by the referendum system with the passage of Proposition 8 was: “too bad”.

Now my point here is not to get into whether or not gay marriage is good, right or should even be included in the definition of what we consider marriage. My concern is that the referendum system in California can rescind the civil rights of a minority group, independent of the operation of other governmental authority.

Abraham Lincoln famously argued in his debates with Stephen Douglas that there are certain things that the majority simply cannot decide. We simply could not allow for a majority to decide that it is acceptable to enslave another population of humans no matter how substantial that majority.

He famously quipped that “squatter sovereignty’s” right to determine whether or not a state should be free or slave was based on an argument that was thinner that the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that was starved to death! And so are the arguments flying about today to justify and legitimate Prop 8 and the Referendum system from which it was unleashed.

I ask my fellow citizens to give this careful thought. The protection against the tyranny of the majority has been an important consideration throughout the history of our government and we have quietly allowed, out of our own ignorance and apathy, a very important threshold to be crossed. A majority has restricted the basic civil rights of a minority. Beware, it may be your rights next to be trampled merely because there are enough people who think it should be so.

DarthSegVator · 11-21-2011, 11:16 AM

Another one is up.

WisconsinI94Billboard.jpg

PeteInLongBeach · 11-21-2011, 11:38 AM

What a heroic post that was. Nice to be in such an inclusive and inviting community here.

Saving the world, 1 billboard at a time. Thanks for the intelligent commentary.

08-05-2010, 07:12 AM	#33
DarthSegVator Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 688	Another One Goes Up Here is another one along I-94 between Milwaukee and Madison. WI-Billboard-Embarrassed-Yet.jpg

08-06-2010, 04:13 AM	#38
PeteInLongBeach Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 1,127	And then, there's this.... Prop 8 Tramples on Basic Civil Rights By Dr. Drew Pinsky I am certainly by no means a legal scholar. Nor do I have any special understanding of American History. I am an American citizen with a deep appreciation of the brilliantly balanced system our founding fathers created. There was a reason they set up our system as a republic and not a direct democracy. The Jacksonian Revolution started us in a direction whereby direct appeal to the people and direct democracy gained a distinct priority in our value system. But never did the founding generations expect that we might see the advent of a system where a simple appeal to a majority could result in any whim the majority might decide to assert. A main concern of the founding fathers was to create a system that was sufficiently balanced and thoughtful so as to buffer against one group exerting its will upon another. This to them, was nothing other than mob rule. While we retain a distinct preference for the gloss of a direct democracy the fact is we are not and thankfully so. Throughout history democracies have inevitably fractured and failed. Even the Greeks felt that a democracy was impossible in populations greater than 100,000 members. Not only are we so much larger but more heterogeneous making this even more treacherous. Alexis De Toqueville, a Frenchman who came to America in the opening decades of the nineteenth century to study Democracy in America, in his objective assessment remained very concerned that our system had a potential to allow for something he called the Tyranny of the Majority. That is to say he was concerned that merely by being a majority one group could exert its will upon another, even restrict its civil liberties and rights. Unfortunately, the referendum system in the State of California has become the mechanism for actualizing precisely this tyranny. The California Supreme Court determined that the argument against same sex marriage was untenable. The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution (source: Wikipedia). In other words it was the concerted opinion of the judicial authority that the logic used against interracial marriage was the same as that, which was being used against same sex marriages. In spite of this very clear understanding of the law and the logic of prejudice, the response rendered by the referendum system with the passage of Proposition 8 was: “too bad”. Now my point here is not to get into whether or not gay marriage is good, right or should even be included in the definition of what we consider marriage. My concern is that the referendum system in California can rescind the civil rights of a minority group, independent of the operation of other governmental authority. Abraham Lincoln famously argued in his debates with Stephen Douglas that there are certain things that the majority simply cannot decide. We simply could not allow for a majority to decide that it is acceptable to enslave another population of humans no matter how substantial that majority. He famously quipped that “squatter sovereignty’s” right to determine whether or not a state should be free or slave was based on an argument that was thinner that the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that was starved to death! And so are the arguments flying about today to justify and legitimate Prop 8 and the Referendum system from which it was unleashed. I ask my fellow citizens to give this careful thought. The protection against the tyranny of the majority has been an important consideration throughout the history of our government and we have quietly allowed, out of our own ignorance and apathy, a very important threshold to be crossed. A majority has restricted the basic civil rights of a minority. Beware, it may be your rights next to be trampled merely because there are enough people who think it should be so.

11-21-2011, 11:16 AM	#39
DarthSegVator Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 688	Wisconsin Billboard Looney Left I94 Another one is up. WisconsinI94Billboard.jpg

04-29-2010, 08:06 AM	#32
Civicsman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Freedonia! Posts: 1,703	With the Republicans abandoning their party-line obstructionism of debate on a proposed Wall Street regulation reform bill, there is Hope for Change on that front too. Word on the street is that GOP phone lines were hot with inquiries from constituents wondering why in hell their representatives were not contributing to legislation that was so obviously needed. With Charlie Crist (reportedly) dumping the Republican party for an independent bid for governor in Florida, and therefore giving a realistic shot to a Democratic challenger, will the GOP figure out that Right of Far Right is not the ticket for electability? Hope for Change there too!

08-06-2010, 01:32 AM	#37
Civicsman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Freedonia! Posts: 1,703	These ";" are semi-colons. They are used in the English language to separate parts of sentences that are independent, or semi-independent of other parts of a sentence. Consequently, you should have highlighted the entire section, reading "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Without debating the meaning of that section (which most people would probably understand as meaning something different than what you apparently think it does), the more pertinent statement is, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I did NOT leap to any conclusion that the opportunity to marry another person is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. You simply can not justify your claim with any statement that I made...Rush. The Constitution certainly does not specifically guarantee a right to marriage. However, when the ability to marry is granted widely by the secular government, as it is, to exclude particular groups from exercising that privilege is a violation of the equal protection clause. I did not declare or invent the concept that this is an equal rights issue. It was argued this way in Federal District Court, and the decision was based on this. You probably should have done a little homework before posting. Almost certainly it will go to the Supreme Court. One judge will not decide this issue, and with the Lying John Roberts Court throwing out hundreds of years of legal precedents, who know what will happen there. However, the legal precepts cited by Judge Walker are constitutionally strong. You say, Karl, that you have a "constitutional right" to raise your children with respect for traditions that are older than this nation. Great! So you would agree, then, that other fathers, who respect the long tradition of holding Africans as slaves (also older than this country) also have the same constitutional right? I relish the thought of questioning you publicly about this terribly flawed thinking the next time you run for office! With Proposition 8 in shreds, what keeps you from raising your own children in the way you want? Nothing. Equal rights for someone else imposes no values upon your family. You're simply unable to accept that someone else is doing something that you don't personally approve of. The most terrible thing you might have to do is teach your kids some tolerance. Marriage is a secular contract, with permission granted to various religious leaders to perform the rites. You have every right not to approve of gay marriage based on your personal/religious beliefs. Voters do not have the right to mandate that others can not enjoy equal protection under the secular law of the land. The flawed thinking you have exhibited here is the basis of racial, religious, and sexual bigotry, just as it has been over the millenia. Puhleeze, don't cite "tradition". With regards to equal rights, your "tradition" means the very dark days of the past.

11-21-2011, 11:38 AM	#40
PeteInLongBeach Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 1,127	What a heroic post that was. Nice to be in such an inclusive and inviting community here. Saving the world, 1 billboard at a time. Thanks for the intelligent commentary.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)