Wisconsin Billboard - Hope and Change

[DarthSegVator]

Saw this the other day. It apparently went up just after the health care vote. It is located on I-94 westbound at CTH E in the Town of Concord enroute from Milwaukee to Madison. I had to stop and take a couple of pictures:

Billboard Wisconsin Hope and Change 2.jpg

Billboard Wisconsin Hope and Change.jpg

[Civicsman]

How's that working out? Actually, it's working out pretty good for the people that voted to make it happen.

For others, responses range from disgruntled to a distressing increase in lunatic fringe.

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

Things would probably be better if the Republicans didn't decide to secede from government. Legitimate participation on their part would likely make for better legislation. However, they have decided that they will adopt the strategy used by the Sunni in Iraq a few years back, to act like children and not participate.

So, how's that working out for ya?

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

How's that working out? Actually, it's working out pretty good for the people that voted to make it happen.

For others, responses range from disgruntled to a distressing increase in lunatic fringe.

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

Things would probably be better if the Republicans didn't decide to secede from government. Legitimate participation on their part would likely make for better legislation. However, they have decided that they will adopt the strategy used by the Sunni in Iraq a few years back, to act like children and not participate.

So, how's that working out for ya?

I don't know that what you say is accurate... If they were left out in the cold as they claim, it may not be fair to place this on them... If they chose not to participate, then your claim may have some merit... I did not see any claim to have evidence either way...

Regardless of all that, I firmly believe that if the legislature were prohibited from exempting themselves from their own plans, then our country would be better off... Fix Social Security? Include congress. Fix healthcare, include congress (instead of their super healthcare they have now, a Cadillac plan if there every was one). Fix the tax code? Remove all special considerations for congress...

One thing I do know, and that is simply blaming a party for this or that failing is not productive. The Democrats nor the Republicans are evil, or even wrong, but several individuals are not speaking the truth, and are often motivated by personal agendas, instead of what is honestly in the public good... And even the definition of the 'public good' is not a concept that is the same to all people...

I happen to like the United States, and feel that to be a good country it does not need to be remade (but I am happy to concede that there are improvements available)... Others do not agree. Some even campaigned on their ability to remake it as it should be...

[Civicsman]

In the last few months there can be no question that the Republican strategy was to sit on their hands and watch the Dems fall on their collective faces for lack of votes. It was (and is) a high stakes strategy that has, so far, failed pretty miserably.

Please don't suggest that Democrats blocked Republican ideas. If Republicans had decided to offer alternatives they have plenty of ways to reach the public. Rush, Bill, and Glenn (who says he is getting direction from God) would have been thrilled to be conduits for Republican alternatives, but there were none of consequence. In the end, the Dems voted on their own package because the Republicans refused to engage. This '"just say no" approach is well-documented by some highly conservative people who thought it was a real bad idea. Turns out they were right.

Your point that the definition of "public good" is not the same for all people is spot on, just as the list of "improvements" to be made to the USA would not be the same for all. You have every right to have your own opinion on these things, but you must conceded that in a democracy, the people have the right to change their society and the laws that define that society.

Some people DID campaign on remaking the United States "as it should be", and a lot of people voted in agreement with that. Some people will not be happy with the way some things may progress, but that is the nature of a democracy.

Personally, I believe one should be highly suspicious of anyone suggesting that they "want their country back". This is the fundamentally flawed thinking of an elitist, but if the country takes a different direction from the elitist's "right path", then it means that the elitist is no longer in the majority. Some people have a lot of difficulty with that.

.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

In the last few months there can be no question that the Republican strategy was to sit on their hands and watch the Dems fall on their collective faces for lack of votes. It was (and is) a high stakes strategy that has, so far, failed pretty miserably.

Please don't suggest that Democrats blocked Republican ideas. If Republicans had decided to offer alternatives they have plenty of ways to reach the public. Rush, Bill, and Glenn (who says he is getting direction from God) would have been thrilled to be conduits for Republican alternatives, but there were none of consequence. In the end, the Dems voted on their own package because the Republicans refused to engage. This '"just say no" approach is well-documented by some highly conservative people who thought it was a real bad idea. Turns out they were right.

Your point that the definition of "public good" is not the same for all people is spot on, just as the list of "improvements" to be made to the USA would not be the same for all. You have every right to have your own opinion on these things, but you must conceded that in a democracy, the people have the right to change their society and the laws that define that society.

Some people DID campaign on remaking the United States "as it should be", and a lot of people voted in agreement with that. Some people will not be happy with the way some things may progress, but that is the nature of a democracy.

Personally, I believe one should be highly suspicious of anyone suggesting that they "want their country back". This is the fundamentally flawed thinking of an elitist, but if the country takes a different direction from the elitist's "right path", then it means that the elitist is no longer in the majority. Some people have a lot of difficulty with that.

.

You can say that you have no question about the Republican strategy, but that does not make it so, and when I asked if there was any proof at all, you seem to have forgotten to offer any... You are indeed welcome to your opinions, but that does not make them facts...

You do have a point about democracies or more specifically voters getting the government they deserve, in that they get the politicians they elect. If you don't like the things they do, fix it in November... I happen to think that a change will be voted into office this November, but we will see...

As for your last comment about it being appropriate to be suspicious of anyone claiming they will "want their country back". It is not a new phenomenon... Since the Democrats are in power, the current folks who want to do so are not Democrats... Prior to 2008, it was a different crowd who was chanting the same words... You were right to be suspicious of them, as look at the spending mess they have made!

I cut and pasted a couple hits on a google search of those words...


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1022-13.htm

Published on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
An Open Letter to America: It's Time to Take Back Our Country
by John & Elaine Mellencamp

http://pickrset.com/musicnews/1395/s...love+this+fall

Posted By: Indiependentmusic on Aug 27th, 2008 @ 7:20pm
Boston's State Radio have announced a headlining tour "Take The Country Back Tour" this fall. ... In a special show on November 29 at Terminal 5 in New York City, punk rockers Anti Flag will join the bill.

"The 'Take The Country Back Tour' is dedicated to the people who've been victims of the government cut backs," says State Radio frontman Chad Stokes Urmston. "Whether it's veterans unable to pay for their hospital bills or inner-city kids who've lost funding for their music program, all of these issues are human issues and have been disregarded for so long. We'd like you to join us in finding your voice and taking the country back."



http://www.thenation.com/doc/2006073...ck_our_country

Take Back Our Country
by ELSIE FOX

...
I want to voice my appreciation for all of you that are here today. I also want to voice my appreciation for "Montana Women For Peace, Equality and Justice". Their aims embody the tradition of Jeanette Rankin. They are fast becoming spokespersons for we, the people. Let's give them a cheer that can be heard up the mountainsides of the Gallatin Valley!
Elsie Fox, a 98-year old activist, delivered this speech at a Mother's Day rally for peace in Bozeman, Montana. It is published here as part of The Nation's Moral Compass series, focusing on the spoken word.



All people should be suspicious of those who state their opinion and call it obvious or undeniable facts... If you do this, it is disingenuous, even if you honestly believe your opinion to be accurate... Facts are facts, conclusions are conclusions, and what may be obvious to one, may be propaganda to another...

[KSagal]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Civicsman]

Actually, Karl, you did not ask for proof. You simply said you did not see any claim to have evidence. Not the same thing, of course.

I did not offer evidence about the Republican strategy. Those who read widely and are open minded can draw their own conclusions, and certainly should have by now. I have learned that evidence, for some people, is beyond the realm of possibility. These folks already "know" the answer and only seek confirmation of their personal beliefs.

However, searching for "republican strategy" on Google, I found this within 30 seconds. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

David Frum is very politically conservative, and is well connected within the Republican party. Look him up on Wikipedia (if you trust that gol-derned internet!). He is in a position to know and is intelligent enough to comprehend the strategy of the Republican party.

Summarizing the salient point of his article:

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
...
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

This is not "proof", of course, but is is surely evidence. Even a half-baked search of conservative sources could easily confirm the Republican "do nothing and let them fail" strategy. As a result of this strategy, the legislation that is passing is entirely the product of the Democratic party. It didn't have to be this way. The resulting legislation probably would have been better.

Will the political landscape change in November? Almost assuredly! Historically, it always has. However, as the Frum article states, the big ticket items, like health care, are not going to be repealed, no matter what happens in November.

So, going back to the OP, the "hope and change" thing is working out reasonably well for those that voted for hope and change. Big things have already happened. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

...and just for the record, I view the statement "take our country back" as suspicious and elitist no matter where it originates. However, as long as "take it back" means voting in November, I can live with it.