Bowlgal, I guess I'm confused. As I've said many many times on here I am not a liberal or a democrat. I have voted for both parties in the past 2 years. I don't believe in blind partisanship and have ranted on here many times about it. I don't judge a politician by the letter next to their name, I judge them by their words and actions.

Don't you mean true or false. R or D?

sad

RAF, good argument. Bowlgal, again, the 1st amendment says what it says, you can add in what you want because you think it's right or wrong.

concernedwi
Jan 13, 2013 at 4:10 p.m.
The state shall not impose will upon religious order. How dare you make the Catholic church provide abortion.
Bush 42 did not receive my vote for his second term as I told you before in early post.
How can you be outraged with one and not the other simply because of an R or a D??
Sad

So much for consistency.

Cars are used on a larger basis by a larger quantity of people. Lets get rid of all of the laws involving cars and see if deaths increase. The purpose is to make society safer, not more laws.

All those restrictions and they still kill more people than guns. So what is you purpose saving people or just adding more laws?

We register cars, they have safety standards they have to pass to be legal to operate and we have age limits and require a license to drive. There are speed limits, street signs that control which direction you can travel, and stop lights. The state statutes for restrictions on cars and operating them are very lengthy. I guess you could say that we have car control.

banning cars would save lives...if that was your objective.

Laws are created for several reasons, some are morally based, some are safety. To say that there are no new gun laws that could do any good is a bit obtuse if you ask me. Things like limiting high capacity magazines and better background checks for private firearms sales have the potential to save lives.

"With that rational restrictions can be put on the second amendment too."

There are restrictions on "use" and possession of some items already protected under the 2nd amendment. A person carrying a gun or having one in their home in no way infringes on any of your rights, so why restrict it further? Laws are created to establish what actions can't be performed like murder. Carrying a weapon may bother others but there are no protections from being bothered, just like speech. The idea of making another law to stop something that is already illegal plays into feel good measures and does absolutely nothing to address what happened.

RAF, are you sure about that? http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

unless something has changed, you can still carry a firearm in the capital, but that isn't what I was getting at. You made the statement, "Natural rights have limitations. Your right for free speech and assembly ends when it impedes upon another persons rights. You have the right to talk but you have no right to walk into my house, uninvited and talk. You have the right to your personal property but you have no right to take your stick and bang it on something to disturb others."

With that rational restrictions can be put on the second amendment too.

concerned if you are looking for an "equal" you might want to look at the gun policy for the capital, they are also not allowed.

RAF, so you naturally are for gun control then right?

Bowlgal, he hasn't done anything to amend the Patriot Act and I call him out on it. I think it should be disolved. As for Obamacare violating the 1st amendment, it does not violate it, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION". The intent of this was to avoid having a similar situation as England with a national religion. People cannot be forced to join a religion but it doesn't give absolute power to do whatever you wish.

Since you are so against the amount of executive orders that Obama has enacted, I'm sure you are outraged that Bush 42 used 160 in the same time frame that Obama used 139.

Raf - Your ideas disturb others, so by your own logic stop posting.

Natural rights have limitations. Your right for free speech and assembly ends when it impedes upon another persons rights. You have the right to talk but you have no right to walk into my house, uninvited and talk. You have the right to your personal property but you have no right to take your stick and bang it on something to disturb others.

As far as rulzzz for the gallery, I agree, I don't think any rules should be required;if all acted like respectful adults it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that others, in the past, have performed actions that required placing limits (rules) should make everyone mad. Directing blame on legislators for adding rules based on previous behavior is like blaming AAA for drunk drivers.

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

Tell that to Executive Order Obama.
The Constitution is to restrict the Government from becoming tyrannical.

If you aren't angry with his power grabs, you aren't paying attention.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble

peaceably

You have your answer, roll the news footage if you happen to miss the screaming drum banging and shouting. The girl who locked her head to the chamber bars was my favorite.

I find it fascinating the left are in love the amendment rights all of a sudden

..all but the 2nd while violating the 1st -religion and Obamacare mandates to pay to abort babies and the 4th while they fly drones over cities and talk of confiscating guns.
Tisk tisk left wingers. tisk tisk

Wisconsin Constitution, Article I
SECTION 4. [Right to assemble and petition.]
The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall NEVER be abridged.

"Screaming, banging drums, and chanting from the gallery is hardly peaceably..." ... spoken exactly as someone who believes rumor and innuendo to mislead and demean instead of actual witness to events of the past 2 years. As someone occupying a gallery seat on numerous occasions, I have seen a quiet, and respectfully observing, elderly man removed from the gallery for (get ready) holding - not waving - a tiny 5"x7" U.S. flag; another removed for having a Bible in his lap; and then of course there was the time when numerous gallery visitors were removed (some forcibly) for holding 5"x7" pieces of paper with a (gasp!) PICTURE of a gun upon them. If they had been REAL guns, such possession and display in the gallery would not be a violation of the arbitrary and capricious "rules". The new "rules" say hats aren't allowed. REALLY? Then whey do the State Troopers wear their hats? Why do numerous touring school children wear their winter hats? Will they now confiscate children's school notebooks prior to gallery entrance per the "rules". If the GOP were truly concerned with transparency in government, why did they just replace clear glass windows of the chambers with frosted glass. Just saying as a WITNESS....

concernedwi
Jan 12, 2013 at 7:56 a.m.
What has Obama done to reverse the accused 4th amendment violation?
And Pelosi came in to "drain the swamp"
Ask Harry Reid about being accused in a bribe scandal hitting the news this weekend.

Wislady, I'm a little confused. Can you point out what you based your statement on that I am not ready for both parties to work together? What did I say that prompted that?

will_kirchmayer, I'm very aware that attempting to point out rational facts to Wislady is like screaming at a brick wall.

Sadly the hyperbolic left fringe didn't read the rulzzz

And they have to be blindfolded, with their hands tied securely behind their backs.

Ah well, at least they offer the "observers" a cigarette before they walk 'em down the "marble mile" to the "gallery"!

Unwarranted? I think not.

will_kirchmayer

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
Robert Heinlein

You really should give credit when you use the words of others.

will_kirchmayer

"Your post was offensive and paints you in an unflattering perspective." (a statement you made not too long ago).

SHAME on you for your unwarranted comment about me.

concernedwi: Attempting to rationally debate wislady is much akin to trying to teach a pig to sing...you are only wasting your time and annoying the pig.

I am pleading with both parties to work together, how is that showing that I am ready for it? I am not a liberal. I am not a liberal. I am not a liberal. I'm not sure how many times I can tell you that.

Perfect....you get upset when I remind you what the left has said. Obamacare is the "law of the land", doesn't mean everyone loves what it is doing to our country.

Your responses have shown NO indication that you believe it is time for both parties to work together, particularly in Wisconsin.

I do not like the fact that Obama has been returned to office. I will venture to say that I am less upset about that, than you are about the Republicans and Walker in Wisconsin.

Have a great weekend!

Remember, the regressives in the assembly got 200,000 less votes than the Democrats in the 2012 election. Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement.

Sorry, I misquoted you, "he won the recall, accept it" And couldn't the same thing be said about Obamacare? It was voted in and approved by the supreme court, accept it. It can't just work that way for one party.

Wislady, I would also like to point out that you were upset about Obama saying things like you lost get over it, then you end your statement with "He won the recall get over it".

Wislady, you wan't to discourage people from protesting what they think is wrong? Isn't the peoples right to assemble part of the constitution? Isn't the ability to petition our government also included? So you only like parts of the constitution that effects you. If you are going to call on democrats to speak up on the protest, then shouldn't republicans do the same to the tea party protests? How about the disgusting comments that have been made to our president? Mitt Romney should have said that what Ted Nugent said about shooting the president was reprehensible. Both parties have nut jobs and bad eggs. both parties have good people. Not one party has a monopoly on being wrong, disgusting, or out of line.

The dems could offer up an amendment to cure cancer, but it won't go anywhere unless the republicans are willing to listen. And what Obama said there is wrong, I've never said I agree with him. I think you keep getting me confused as a liberal. I expect the same from BOTH parties and I demand that our elected officials work for what is best for everyone as a whole while still standing up for the little guy who doesn't have a voice. I cast blame on both. Since you called liberals children before, let me use that analogy. The republicans in Wisconsin are the parents as the majority. The democrats are the children as the minority. The children want to go to Disney World, but they can't drive there themselves so they have to convince the parents to take them there. Now flip it, the parents want the children to go to the doctor. The child doesn't want to go but doesn't have a choice because they aren't in control of the situation.

I would like to see some of the democratic leaders in Wisconsin step up and call for an end to the constant protesting, and disgusting comments regarding Governor Walker. He won the recall, accept it.

You can vote again in 2014.

The majority of voters in Wisconsin, did exactly that.

Governor Walker....recall win. Republican majority in Wisconsin, the people voted. Now quit trying for another redo.
It is NOW time, after two years of childish shenanigans, for the democrats to realize THEY must offer some constructive ideas, instead of trying to pretend that they have the majority.

It is no different than the 48% (Romney voters) who must watch as Obama wrecks havoc on the United States of America, and the Constitution.

Remember this? Watch the video.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-to-gop-...

Stereotypes are never accurate. To say all liberals do or act one way is unfair, the say that all conservatives act another is also unfair. My point is that the citizens all want what is best for the country. What we have to do is look at your neighbor who has a sign in their yard for the person you don't want to get elected. Everyone has to realize that they have a different opinion than yours, but their goal isn't to harm you or anyone else. We need to become empathetic and try to see things from their point of view. We need to demand bi-partisanship from the political party that you belong to. Calling out the other side for not working together isn't going to solve anything. They aren't going to listen to people that will never vote for them. It's up to the republicans to change the republicans and it's up to the democrats to change the democrats. Demand the best from your party, demand fairness and equality and demand compromise.

Donna, when I am referring to the party, I am talking about the people. I understand that all politicians are self serving first. But we make up the parties and those representatives are supposed to be accountable to us. If people demanded that their party work together and voted out those that did not, you would see more compromises. Instead, what you see now are politicians that pander to their base with commercials about how they stood up to the other side without compromises. By voting for a candidate that takes that stance, the people are saying that is what they want.

donnaw - If you don't like what the president is doing, I support your right to protest, which you are doing. I don't want to suppress it.

concerned wi....if you think both either party in DC is interested in doing what's best for the people you are naive. They are only interested in doing what will get them re elected so they can continue feeding at the trough.

Wislady, could you get any more condescending? So you feel that you and your party is so much more mature and smart than any democrats? This is the problem with politics and why our state and country is divided. If you think the other side is made up of "children", you won't be willing to work with them or try to see things from their point of view. Neither party is better than the other. Neither party is trying to ruin the country. Neither party is interested in world domination. Both parties want to do what is best for the people, but they just have different ideas on what is best. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can heal and start working together.

The comments from the left on this article, shows why the "children" in the gallery have not learned to respect the decorum of the legislative process.

Wislady, actually I did have a major problem with Obama signing the extension. And I do have a problem with innocent people being killed, be it by a gun or by a drone. As I've said many many times, I am an independent and expect the same standards from both parties.

Why did Obama extend the Patriot Act? (He probably used the auto pen so he can claim that he didn't really sign it).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27...

You have an issue with that, so you must really have an issue with obama's use of drones and the killing of innocent people.

The minority party wants the majority party to listen to their concerns and input. To allow some of their amendments to change bills they are voting on. Last session, when the Dems would suggest a amendment every single one was voted down. That isn't bipartisanship. The parties worked together great the other day on the new Assembly rules for the amount of time they can debate an issue and everyone benefited from it. Hopefully they can keep that up.

Midnight, thats right the Republicans would never do something that would take away peoples rights. You know like the Patriot Act that gave the government wide sweeping powers to violate the 4th amendment. Good thing that George W. Bush was a democrat so it can prove your theory right. Lets not forget that GW Bush also used executive orders, and he has used more than Obama has so far.

Ok, what MORE does the minority party want?

Those are just words Wislady, the have to have their actions meet their words. When debates start they have to be willing to compromise on issues, not just bully and push a bill through because they can.

The "olive branch" was extended, that is why Vos and Barca meet privately BEFORE the start of session. That was not something that was required of Vos.

wasp.. Your comment is pretty hilarious since we are hearing about your buddy Obama not wanting to take the raising of the debt ceiling to congress but rather do it by himself with an executive order. Why have a constitution? On second thought, let him do it so when everything comes tumbling down he can't blame anyone but himself. Dictator sound familiar? And I know I know ALL PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE USED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER! But the debt ceiling? It's his way or the highway!

Raf- You once again have a very feeble interpretation of the constitution. Your foolishness never ceases to amaze. The real tea party folks in Boston and the real Patriots at Concord would find you to be pretty lily livered, I am afraid. RAF idea of protest, ( now be nice, quietly). Very humorous.

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin state Senate

That is a beautiful opening line considering all the crap the Democrats have put us through these last two years. Get rid of "bike lock" girl and the screamers. All respectful citizens welcome.

It's very funny watching the left complain about rights as Dems trying to take them away..aka 2nd amendment

Where were you when Benghazi Barry didn't keep his promises of open to public/C-span all bill debates. Don't be hyprocrites.

The Democrats have to be willing to work together too, but any effort they make is pointless if the Republicans don't extend the olive branch first. By it's very nature, both parties have to work together for it to be bi-partisan. As for the copyright, the link you provided does not address any other recordings, just those that they air and put on the web. They very well may own the sole rights to any media of the senate/assembly, but that document/webpage doesn't express that. If that is the case, it's wrong. Any citizen should be allowed to record their own government in action, no single group should be allowed to control what is recorded and shown.

"I think that anyone who goes to view the senate or assembly in session should be allowed to record because everything should be open record."

It is, on the Wisconsin Eye website and TV.

"the Republicans hold the majority so working in a bipartisan fashion is completely up to them."

And what part of working together are the democrats (minority) responsible for?

concernedwi

There was a reference to that very issue in the Madison news during all this ruckus over the past two years. It stated that they had all rights for recording.

Why not contact them and ask?

The left fringe clearly can't read.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Screaming, banging drums, and chanting from the gallery is hardly peaceably...

Also Wislady, the Republicans hold the majority so working in a bipartisan fashion is completely up to them. The Democrats hold no power to stop them, even going to IL wouldn't be enough to stop a vote now.

Also Wislady, the Republicans hold the majority so working in a bipartisan fashion is completely up to them. The Democrats hold no power to stop them, even going to IL wouldn't be enough to stop a vote now.

Wislady, the link that you provided only says that Wiseye owns what is on their site and broadcast, not that they have the sole right to media. It's similar to the warning during a baseball game that you can't reproduce or replay any of the game without the express written consent...yada yada yada. It doesn't mean that they own any pictures or audio or video recording you take on your own or that the contract prohibits someone from taking their own. That being said, I think that anyone who goes to view the senate or assembly in session should be allowed to record because everything should be open record.

If the democrats are sincere about working in a bi partisan manner, then a few of them should step up and request that the people who are protesting, respect the process. Until that happens, the democrats are actually endorsing this type of behavior, and are not really showing a good faith effort.

I believe that most of the rules were in effect previously, just that former Capitol Police Chief Tubbs let things get out of control. People are allowed in the OBSERVE, it is not a public forum. The past actions of the people who have been in the galley area for the sole purpose of distracting and protesting, are the reason that rules need to be enforced.

As far as recording, it was mentioned previously that the Wis Eye contract prevents others from recording the events.

http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Copyri...

For two years, the people of Wisconsin have been subjected to the bullying and disrespectful actions of the anti Walker people. It is time to get back to work.

The forceful misbehavior of the people at our Wisconsin State Capitol building this last year has been outside the realm of respectful, civilized observers of our elected legislators. Therefore the need for rules & enforced consequences must be put in place.

Nothing in the new rules say that you can't go to the senate and observe the proceedings. Just keep your mouth shut and act like adults.

They should cut their own pay
They are not needed full time waste of money
Thats right they do not work full time

Pesky dems.....blind folds, tape across the mouths and hands behind backs with cable ties (and then there are those in the gallery watching also)

When are they going to realize that the People have the right to know the truth of their secracies and just because they are becoming the bottom feeders in America, does not give them the rights to DICTATORSHIP, as we pay them. Typical GOP hogwash

How about some rules on the despicable behavior of Republican senators?

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/re...

The rules the Assembly passed. I don't really agree with the reading part as I don't see it causing a problem, but I do have a problem with prohibiting recording of any kind. We should have open government and our representatives should be accountable for their actions. That being said, they already air most of the committees and sessions on Wiseye, not sure why someone in the gallery, that isn't causing any disturbance can't take a picture without a flash or record while sitting down.

Get a clue ! Remember all the outburst during the Act 10 debate. It was embarassing for all that live in this state, but most of those outburst were from out of state people protesting on behalf of the Unions. I hope we do not have to live that again. Oh wait ! We have A Supreme Court election this spring and this is their last resort to over turn Act 10.
Peace.

Protecting Senators from what? The fact that we think that they are as despicable as their boss, the "Governator"? Or that we are so disgusted by the whole political system?