Is this the first senseless shooting of the week?

Aggregated by Huffington Post:

"A gunman in College Station, Texas was killed by the police on Monday after he allegedly murdered a law-enforcement officer and a 65-year-old male civilian.
Constable Brian Bachmann, 41, a Brazos County sheriff's deputy since 1993, was allegedly shot and killed after he served an eviction notice to the rented house close to the Texas A&M campus. 4 others were wounded in the incident. The civilian victim has yet to be identified."

Hmm, Texas A&M, who do we know who came from that environment? Oh yes, our local gauleiter Owen Robinson. This gun maniac in our midst had this to say about this particular shooting at his Alma Mater. That's right, nothing of his own. Passionate as hell about his right to carry a gun into the library where so many of us take our little children and no one has yet to shoot up, but silent about someone using a gun to kill a cop.

From dictionary.com:

"so·ci·o·path
[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA

noun Psychiatry .
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."

Let's play what if for just a second... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" How many people would this particular person be able to kill in this instance without a gun? Don't conservatives have a fit when a cop is killed anymore? Or is it just when black people shoot cops?

"The blade itself incites to violence"

Misfire, part III

Much of owen's blog attacking the perfectly reasonable proposition that the West Bend Library be off-limits to concealed carry of deadly weapons hinges around a slippery-slope argument. It is tricky to understand, but seems to go like this: "I have a preconceived idea of what the 2nd Amendment means, that it guarantees my individual right to carry a deadly weapon anywhere I want and any objections by the community are trumped by my individual right." Therefore, anyone who asks for just a little space to be left alone, the way it was, after the radical expansion of deadly weapons pushed on all of us by [i'm with stupid] is a tyrant seeking to limit freedom.

This is what passes for conservatism in West Bend. My freedom is dependent on my right to carry a deadly weapon at all times and in all places. That is how they do things in texas apparently, where owen is from. So it follows to ask the question why so many Wisconsin natives take this foreigner with radical ideas seriously? It should also be noted that the freedom of speech these radicals scoff at for anyone protesting the radical inequality or other injustices in our society is taken very seriously when making anonymous ad hominem attacks on their enemies.

Taken this morning in front of the Slinger Piggly Wiggly

If owen saw this, I'm sure he'd just wave his hand if confronted and dismiss it as "not what he believes" but this is your side's doing buddy, own it. Given the rigid structure of gun-maniacs beliefs about deadly weapons, I imagine they would be hard-pressed to disagree with rep. Allen "80 card-carrying communists in congress" West's recent statement that government should force everyone to buy a deadly weapon or be "taxed."




Face it owen, your side and your beliefs about guns are ridiculous. If your logic says you should be able to carry a gun anywhere, especially when children are around, then get on board with this massive, "liberal" expansion of government.

I for one will contine to enjoy the ability to walk down the street unarmed. "When being unarmed is outlawed..." Owen and all the gun-maniacs always seem to forget that if they can carry and everything up to actually pulling the trigger is legal, it goes both ways. The "bad guys" they seem to fear almost as much as paying a cent more in taxes, will enjoy that right too. Show me an instance where more guns meant less crime. When your beloved ronald reagan was shot he was surrounded by some of the best-trained gunmen in the world, it didn't stop the guy.

"The blade itself incites to violence."

Misfire, notes

I had a feeling Al was stepping into a trap from the first lines of his column. Opening with a straw man when the radical impulse behind the decision to take down the "no guns allowed" sign in the library would be self-righteously asserted as common sense despite its ridiculous premise was an unfortunately poor start. Al's prose is in quotation marks, Owen's responses are in red.

"Are we really going to allow firearms in the library where our children go for Story Time, to study and do projects?"

Yes.

"Do guns in the library align with our conservative values?"

Yes.

"Hunting with friends or older children might be a family value,

Might? It is.

but morphing that into guns in the library doesn’t make any more sense than guns at work, guns in the hospital or guns in church."

Since the premise of gun rights being based in hunting is false, the conclusions aren’t valid.

Instead of demolishing the straw man, Al not only abandoned it but legitimized the absurd premise of his first statement. Owen, shameless fascist that he is, endorsed the absurd part and then was freed from what should have been a stigmatizing statement to dilute a shocking mix of guns and children. "Our conservative values?" Whose? By drawing the unacceptable into the acceptable, Al has already lost. The first rule when debating sociopaths must be "do not expect a rattlesnake to stop being a rattlesnake." I am sure Al was making his case to the large number of self-described conservatives in West Bend who actually respect tradition and are skeptical of change, but it only takes one fascist in conservative's clothing to blunt this case.

The problem here is one of definition. What does conservatism mean? Now I am not a conservative but I have studied the ideology going back to Edmund Burke. Fancy book learning, not fly by my gut and accept what those in authority spoon-feed me. It is probable that back when Al was on the rifle team "conservative" meant what he thinks it means, but today's conservative movement of which Owen is openly a part of really shares little of those assumptions. The audience he was trying to reach probably feels the same way, but buy into the redefinition of conservatism that was painstakingly engineered over many decades. Conservative today no longer means, respect for tradition and not wanting things to change, accepting authority of government and that society is made up of many groups, not simply a collection of separate individuals that owe nothing to each other. In other words, a conservative would question why this change to library policy is necessary and would be skeptical of simple assertions that guns around kids is something parents should desire. A real conservative would ask why, when there is no problem with violent crime in the library, do we all of a sudden need the right to carry concealed weapons in the library or anywhere else the individual who owes nothing to his fellow citizens desires.

Unfortunately, Al began with a rhetorical question real conservatives could follow, skepticism about consequences, but dropped it to focus on bigger social issues.

Owen's rejection of hunting as the base of gun "rights" speaks volumes about his conception of these rights. He can blather on about the constitutionality of the right to bear arms, but really it is about his right to feel secure at your expense. For years, the central argument of gun "rights" people was the reasonable proposition that they wanted to hunt, Owen just evicerated that reasonable idea. Let's get down to the lowest common denominator here, a gun is a tool of violence, it is nothing else. I will repeat Homer's aphorism that "the blade itself incites to violence," a truism of the ancient world that has not lost its validity today. The current "mania," that Al rightly identifies but Owen waves away with a snooty retort about the constitution while wishing away the first and more poignant part of the 2nd Amendment, is about power and domination, not defence or security.

Our local gauleiter: Defending your rights to shoot people in the library

My last posting was a column by a local citizen upset that the library board forced the staff there to take down the "No guns allowed" sign. I put it up without any alterations or editing in case anyone wanted to share it. Now I feel compelled for some reason to post gauleiter owen robinson's condescending and vicious response, along with those of his loyal brownshirted asshole followers. I cannot even begin to answer it, I need to throw up.

I admit that I was avoiding this for a few reasons, but Al’s column in the West Bend Daily News is in need of a good fisking. It’s not an easy task because it’s so full of false assumptions and inane rhetorical questions as to render it a monument to Mr. Fisk, but I’ll try… here we go.

Are we really going to allow firearms in the library where our children go for Story Time, to study and do projects?

Yes.

Do guns in the library align with our conservative values?

Yes.

Hunting with friends or older children might be a family value,

Might? It is.

but morphing that into guns in the library doesn’t make any more sense than guns at work, guns in the hospital or guns in church.

Since the premise of gun rights being based in hunting is false, the conclusions aren’t valid.

Where does this gun mania end?

Mania, eh? If supporting the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a “mania,” then count me as a maniac.

What is the danger we face in the library?

The same as anywhere else. Last time I checked, there weren’t armed guards in the library or security checkpoints. Any fool with a gun could walk in there. Why can’t an armed citizen?

Do we plan to draw down on teens talking above a whisper?

No.

Are we standing guard over the late fees?

No, but your idiotic questions are wearisome.

I don’t hate firearms.

Really?

Actually, I enjoy them.

Uh huh.

During my ROTC days, I was a member of the Rifle Club.

So your experience with firearms goes back to your ROTC days 40 years ago? And somehow that justifies your anti-gun attitude today? Whatever.

I find firearms interesting. Many are a beautiful display of visual and mechanical craftsmanship. They beg us to handle them and test our skill.

I agree.

Many of my friends are gun collectors and/or hunters. They are solid citizens with families and responsible jobs. Some are community leaders. They enjoy displaying and firing their collections, but they also understand the destructive power and safety issues associated with firearms. Almost all of them are sticklers for firearm safety. They know there are places for guns and there are places where weapons don’t belong.

I agree with all of that. Gun owners I know are also responsible citizens who respect their power. They also appreciate that guns in the hand of a responsible citizen are a good thing.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I’m good with that.

If you follow that with a “but,” then you really aren’t…

But

There it is…

don’t we teach our children that with rights come responsibilities?

Yes. And?

Is it responsible to brandish weapons in our library?

No. Not without cause. And the concealed weapons policy has nothing to do with that. The key word is “concealed.” By definition, a concealed weapon is not brandished.

Just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it.

Agree.

Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library?

Really, how much energy was spent? Were any other initatives put aside for this vote? Were any job initiatives curtailed? Or is this a desperate attempt by the writer to claim that supporting the 2nd Amendment is somehow a drag on jobs?

Is that our priority?

Supporting the Bill of Rights? Yes. Why isn’t it yours?

Is this what leadership in West Bend has come to?

Again… if the leadership of West Bend is supporting the Bill of Rights, then thank God it’s come to that.

We are attempting to attract industries to our city. We are competing with every other municipality in the country, and who knows how many venues outside of the U.S. Growth businesses have their pick of sites. Every community knows that these businesses will be investing millions of dollars. Consequently, cities are putting their best foot forward. They know that any black mark can drop them from consideration. So what kind of message does guns in our library send to these potential employers?

That’s interesting. Yes, West Bend is competing with cities around the country. And Wisconsin was the 49th of 50 states to pass a concealed carry law. In other words, the vast majority of cities in the nation already support citizens exercising their rights. Wisconsin is just catching up. Are you really saying that companies that have opened up new facilities in South Carolina, Indiana, Texas, etc - all of which have had concealed carry for years - will shun West Bend because we support our rights in public buildings? Really?

Does it say, “Great place to live and work?” Or does it say, “What the heck is going on there?”

It says “we support our citizens’ rights.” Don’t you?

I hope we haven’t removed solidly qualified people from the Library Board, and replaced them with less able members simply because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

That’s an interesting comment because it is based upon the assumption that the current Library Board members are “less able.” On what basis is that comment made? Is there any evidence that the current members are less qualified, or for that matter, that the previous members were more qualified, other than Al’s disagreement with the concealed carry vote? I doesn’t appear so.

Who would have thought it would come to this – Library Board members appointed because of their stand on guns?

Yeah, it really sucks that Library Board members support all 10 parts of the Bill fo Rights.

Do we choose our doctor, plumber or mechanic based on their Second Amendment ideology?

No, we choose them based on their ability. And to date, Al has not yet shown that the current Library Board members’ abilities are anything short of supurb - except that he disagrees with a single vote.

Why would we choose our Library Board based on it?

Because the Library is a public facility and the people who run it should be chosen by the community. It’s funny that he isn’t objecting to the fact that previous board members had a distinct ideology - one that wasn’t in sync with the majority of the community.

We need to decide if we want to make our library the best it can be or the best armed it can be.

These are not mutually exclusive objectives. It’s a false choice. My family’s personal library is better than most, but it’s librarians are also better armed than most.

How do we want to be viewed?

As a free people endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

Do we want to be known as Wild, Wild, West Bend?

That’s an old and tired meme. Again, Wisconsin is late to allowing concealed carry and in the previous 48 states - including the 4 that don’t require any permit whatsoever - the fiction of a “wild wild west” has never EVER happened. The fact that Al would trot out this old and tired fear tactic speaks to his old and tired argument.

Or do we want to be seen as we have been for decades, as a community with solid values and a promising future; a community, with enviable schools and beautiful parks; a great place to raise a family?

How does that change with the Library Board’s policy? As far as I see, we’ve improved that reputation as a community.

Do you think this is what Alyce and Elmore Kraemer had in mind when they made their $5 million dollar gift for the library expansion?

I don’t know. Unless you are prepared to answer the question, don’t answer it. I suspect that they wanted to provide a venue for reading. Nothing has changed.

What do you suppose the past leaders of our community would be saying?

The good ones? “Yea!” The crappy ones? “Darn.”

Would they be proud of us?

The good ones would.

Would they say that we are honoring their sacrifices by building on what they started?

Again, the good ones would.

Or would they say, “What are you thinking?”

The bad ones would.

I imagine I will be shouted down for my plea

Here comes the cheap pre-defense. He’s automatically trying to position any opposition to his opinion as “shouting down” and such drivel. If he were a man who could stand by and defend his position, then no such anticipatory statement would be necessary.

to keep guns in perspective and enjoy them in their proper place.

The key word there is “proper.” Who defines that word? Al? Me? You? If you support individual liberty, then the key word is “individual.”

And unless more good citizens come forward and object, I will probably lose this appeal for sanity.

By his definition, I am a bad citizen and apparently insane. By his definition, the only “good” citizens are those who support his view. But he is correct… he will lose this battle.

But isn’t it time for other reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, but this isn’t one of them … no guns in the library.

No. It’s time for reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, including supporting the 2nd Amendment in the Library.”

Instead, let’s use our energy to help people find jobs, keep their homes and afford insurance.

This again? So we can’t put energy into jobs and homes and insurance without supporting the Bill of Rights? These are not mutually exclusive efforts and Al is trying to create a false choice.

And let’s make sure that today’s students are getting the same solid education their older brothers and sisters got.

I agree. Complete with a full appreciation for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I can think of no better way than to demonstrate our support for our rights in our everday dealings.

Let’s move West Bend forward, and let’s start with no guns in the library. It’s the wrong priority. It’s a step in the wrong direction.

It’s only a move in the wrong direction for those who oppose the 2nd Amendment. And for now… the matter is settled. By Al’s own standards, we should not expend any more political capital on this issue. Let it lie

1. Logic must not get in the way of a decision based on emotion, and sadly, this is what we’re dealing with here. I’m assuming that his definition of a “proper place” for a gun would include the gun safe and the range, and not much else. He can get that now (for the time being), in Chicago.
   
   Posted by Jason on June 24, 2012 at 0555 hrs
   
   
2. To all the “Incurable Do-Gooders” that are hung up on the West Bend Library gun policy .... get a life.
   
   Posted by Mcbragg on June 24, 2012 at 0604 hrs
   
   
3. I’m amazed at the emotional reaction by a small handful to this decision. Meanwhile, in my district I’ve had exactly one constituent contact me, and it was someone who approved of our action.
   Life goes on, and we’re a little freer now. What’s the problem?
   Carry on.
   
   Posted by Tony Turner on June 24, 2012 at 0806 hrs
   
   

4. Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library?

   I actually laughed out loud when I read this part in the paper. The library board has zero ability to do anything about people losing their homes, or people struggling with jobs and health insurance, etc.
   
   Posted by Matt Stevens on June 24, 2012 at 0851 hrs
   
   

5. The library board has zero ability to do anything about people losing their homes, or people struggling with jobs and health insurance, etc.

   Maybe we can Matt…? With the power of reading!
   
   Posted by Chris Jenkins on June 24, 2012 at 0929 hrs
   
   
6. So, just to be clear here, if someone is in public “brandishing their weapon”, they could be arrested for that, as that has nothing to do with Concealed Carry?
   On Friday, an 85 year old man was killed by the police in a senior citizens apartment complex in Hurley WI. Earlier, he had been “brandishing his weapon” in the managers office. The manager successfully took the gun away & the man retreated to his apartment - probably not hard to take the weapon considering the guy is 85. A friend of the man advised police that there were more weapons in the apartment. Eventually the SWAT team had to shoot him to resolve the situation.
   
   Posted by NoName on June 24, 2012 at 1044 hrs
   
   
7. Correct, brandishing a weapon without cause could lead to you getting arrested. Brandishing your weapon means you have actually removed it from it’s holster and you are waving it around or gesturing with it in a threatening manner.
   So the man in your story had the gun in his hand, out of it’s holster, and was waving it around or pointing it in a threatening manner. There was obviously something “off” with the guy if they then had to later also shoot him as a last resort to resolving a situation.
   You see, one of the biggest misconceptions the anti-gun crowd has is that the presence of guns or the introduction of concealed carry somehow enables otherwise law-abiding citizens to breaking the law. That simply isn’t true, and there is no factual data or information to back up that emotionally charged claim. In direct conflict with their claim, look at the US. We have had huge jumps over the past decade in gun sales, and more states introducing concealed carry or getting less restrictive on gun control. Yet the US overall has had a decrease in violent crime rate over the same period. On the other hand, you have countries like the UK and Canada that have banned guns altogether, and since doing so have seen a jump in violent crime as high as 77% since doing so.
   Now why is that? It’s because people who would break the law and commit violent crimes will do so in spite of any gun control laws in place. In fact, it emboldens them to do so. The “hot” in-home burglary rate (hot meaning people are home at the time the burglary takes place) in the united states is 13%. In the UK and Canada it’s over 60%.
   
   Posted by Matt Stevens on June 24, 2012 at 1148 hrs

Gauleiter Robinson and his merry thugs

Owen Robinson at boots and sabers has already alerted the faithful to the enemy in their midst.

Let the character assassination begin!

As usual, the lazy gauleiter of Washington Co. has nothing to add by way of analysis but leaves the way open for trolls to let Tanya Lohr know that her kind is not wanted.

I am not even sure which one is him.

While it is still early, the comments are already rolling in.

1.
Well she has the politician speak down.
I guess my first question would be what she considers an adequate amount for public education.
What does respect for women look like to her and why not respect for people in general?
Affordable health care is not something that will be solved at the state level unless she means raising taxes on some to pay for health care for others.
I wonder if she would agree with us recalling her after a year if she wins?  No - that’s different - she’s a woman and that would be disrespectful.
Tad
Posted by Tad on April 27, 2012 at 1929 hrs

Victimization, it's not just for leaders of the African-American community.
2.
There’s a winner for ya! Egad.
Posted by bajaskier on April 27, 2012 at 2151 hrs

Glad you think so.

3.
For accountability sake there should always be a candidate to run against an incumbent.  Be it within their own party or another party. It helps keep the incumbent accountable for what they’ve done and what they say they will do.
There are many liberals that are not happy with how Obama has performed and it would have been nice to see a Democratic candidate to run against him.
Posted by Pat on April 28, 2012 at 0744 hrs

Isn't that why you all embraced Romney so wholeheartedly?

4.
I guess men don’t count in Lohr’s world.
This is the kind of teacher “educating” our children?
I hesitate to ask, what does “adequate” mean in her world?  50% of my time an effort?  75%? 100%?  110%?

Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 0909 hrs

I am pretty sure this is the Kewaskumite who half-heartedly stood up for murdering black kids on my post a while back, he has made similar comments in the past. Next time go ahead and call her a femi-nazi Kevin, you know you want to.

5.
I must admit that Grothman’s statements have not shown a lot of respect for women. He has attacked single mothers as child abusers, stated that women don’t need to earn as much as men because it isn’t as important to them and been very vocal about the right of a woman to make her own healthcare decisions (not talking about abortion).
I don’t want to state this as a fact but really want an answer so I do not misrepresent the facts. Does Grothman still live with his mother or is that an attack being thrown around by his opponents?
Posted by MoveForward on April 28, 2012 at 1029 hrs

6.Since when does wanting to restore respect for women mean disrespecting men or saying they don’t count as much? Kevin, how does that mean “men don’t count” in her world? Grothman said women don’t need to make as much money as men. How is that not disrespecting women? If he had said something similar about exclusively men and this woman only said let’s restore respect to women, that’d be one thing, but that’s not the case here.
Posted by VAPolitico on April 28, 2012 at 1136 hrs

Update:
For more lovelies.

1. Wow-
   two teachers…..I’d love to see their house on the chain in Minocqua!!
   
   Posted by lovetoride on April 28, 2012 at 1315 hrs
2. “I want to restore adequate funding for public education, respect for women, affordable family health care and strengthen our communities by empowering working people,” Lohr said.
   It is a shame that liberals cannot be honest
   
   Posted by Mcbragg on April 28, 2012 at 1318 hrs
3. Glad to see the Republicans bashing without knowing. Lovetoride, what an idiot. You have no knowledge of this young lady or her situation. Give it a rest.
   
   Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1435 hrs
4. VA Politico,
   What does restoring “respect to women” mean?
   That statement, by itself, is overtly exclusionary to men.
   Why does Lohr not talk about “restoring respect to men”? Progressives advocate huge government welfare largess that incentivizes single parenthood and destroys the institution of marriage. (Many times, if the couple gets married, they lose the government goodies and handouts.)
   As a result of this “progressive” mentality, men have become “disposable” to the family unit in our society.
   Just who’s “respect” is Lohr talking about here?
   
   
   
   Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1511 hrs
5. Kevin, it’s only “overtly exclusionary” to men if you want to get all outraged and upset about it. Your example about how men have become “disposable” to the family unit is ridiculous. As is your assertion that anyone is incentivizing single parenthood. Recognizing that there are single parents and making sure that those parents and their children have safety nets isn’t destroying the institution of marriage. It’s an effort o provide care for people who need it, instead of doing what you do, which is judge and shame them as a whole, regardless of whether there are factors beyond their control.
   Seriously Kevin, you’d probably be a much happier person if you didn’t spend so much time going out of your way to be offended.
   
   Posted by VAPolitico on April 28, 2012 at 1519 hrs
6. VA Politico
   “Kevin, it’s only “overtly exclusionary” to men if you want to get all outraged and upset about it.”
   ....and progressives don’t get worked into a lather, offended, and outraged over little things? I’m merely dealing from the progressive playbook here…is that now a bad thing?
   Did you read Glenn Grothman’s newsletter on all the goodies a single mom gets with 2 kids and how much she would lose if she married a dad, with a job?
   It’s a very compelling economic argument to throw Dad to the curb, or risk losing a ton of government goodies.
   Until government stops disrespecting men by making it more lucrative for mom to be without Dad, Democrats look very, very, foolish talking about restoring respect to anyone.
   The debate is about government disrespecting the sanctity of the family unit, not about disrespecting women.
   Lohr appears clueless on this, based on her comments, fresh off the anti-man, Emerge conference.
   
   Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1533 hrs
7. Kevin, do not believe what Glen puts in his newsletter. It is spin, all the way exaggerated to make a point. He listed every possible program to the max. That is not real life, but what Glen would like you to believe. And before you get into one of your little Kevin fits, please provide proof that all those numbers are real and that there is someone out there actually getting those benefits.
   
   Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1657 hrs
8. dodgecountydem,
   Are you saying the numbers in this newsletter are inaccurate?
   http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/grothman/Documents/Grothman-families.pdf
   Please point out which of the welfare “goodies” are inaccurate?
   If mom making $15K/year marries Dad making 30K per year, most to all of the free government goodies do go away under a 4 person family scenario.
   You accused this newsletter of being inaccurate, where?
   I understand why Democrats hate this newsletter, it shows how anti-family “progressive policies really are.
   
   
   Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1704 hrs
9. Kevin, I looked at Grothman’s numbers. They are what I said—max benefits. “He listed every possible program to the max. That is not real life, but what Glen would like you to believe.”
   If a women gets married and makes a family of 3 a family of four, she only looses many of the benefits if the income between her and her husband actually rises above $40,000. If both husband and wife are working full time at $10.00 per hour—which is far above what most unskilled jobs pay. (You pay your people less than $9.00 an hour I am sure.) At $10.00 an hour full-time, husband and wife make just over $40,000 a year. But wait, most places will not hire full time because then they have to provide benefits—which would take our family off of Badger Care. If they are less than full time, there are few benefits to getting married.
   
   Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1722 hrs
10. dodgecountydem,
    I did not see you point out an inaccuracy…you accused Grothman of inaccuracy…I guess you were inaccurate.
    Even if we go with your example, both parents will have to sweat and work all year…including paying taxes to lose just about as much in government freebies.
    It’s still far more attractive to not get married, not work, and collect the government goodies and have all your time available.
    The rest of us suckers are doing it wrong, being responsible and married.
    
    Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1731 hrs
11. I wonder if she’ll try and get her students to work on her campaign. They can probably get credit for the new bogus “volunteer class” the district just implemented. Let’s wait and see…..
    
    Posted by Mary on April 28, 2012 at 1735 hrs
12. The plain fact is Glen Grothman’s district probably would elect Al Capone if he was running on te Republican ticket.
    
    Posted by Dave on April 28, 2012 at 1746 hrs
13. Mary, your words are slander—making assumptions to try to demean someone. Where does Jesus make up stories and lie about those he disagrees with? I thought you were a Christian.
    
    Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1751 hrs

20.
dodgecountydem,
You accuse someone of slander when you could not point out the inaccuracy of Grothman’s newsletter after your wild allegation?
Dave,
Pretty funny.  I doubt it.  It’s Democrats seem to have the virtual monopoly on electing disreputable criminals like Blago, John Edwards, and Anthony Wiener.
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1814 hrs

21.
Good night Kevin,  your closed mind is just not worth it.  And you are a part of the problem—employing people at less than full time so you do not have to provide them with benefits.  Paying less than $15.00 an hour keeps people in the cycle.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1823 hrs

22.
dodgecountydem,
Well…yeah.  85% of my staff is teenagers.  Democrats passed restrictive child labor laws.  14 and 15 year olds cannot work more than 16 hours in a school week.  16-17 years olds can only work about 26 hours in a school week.
How can they be full time?  Democrats forbid them to work!
The rest of my staff does not want full time employment.  They want to work when it suits them, and I let them off when they need off…even at last minute sometimes.  They value flexibility, not rigidity of full time work.  Many just want to work 3-4 hours, while their kids are in school.
So can I have an apology when you demand I BREAK CHILD LABOR LAWS in pursuit of your demands?  (And also forcing the rest of my workers into a scenario they do not want….)
Personally, teenagers want to work more…to pay for college.  Instead, government forced them to have free time to run with the gang because our government forbids them to excel, and be responsible.
Your comment is beyond contempt in my view.
How many jobs have you created?
Posted by Kevin Scheunemann on April 28, 2012 at 1848 hrs

23.
Are you serious Dem??
Every job is supposed to be full-time?
Every job is supposed to pay at least $15/hr.
Every job should provide benefits?
No - you are part of the problem.  With that attitude you show that you are willing to give away others money regardless of their worth.
Also, part of the problem is that we expect employers to provide insurance.
Geesh - you want people beholden to the employer, to the government, to everyone else but themselves.
Posted by Tad on April 28, 2012 at 1850 hrs

24.
Kevin, are you impying that ‘men are getting slighted’ in society with a straight face? If a woman is staying with a man just to get his insurance benefits, I would gather that there is a problem in the relationship that has nothing to do with liberal government goodies. I think we can raise our boys/men in society to have more to offer a relationship or family so they do not feel so disposable. Your defensive almost gives the impression that you feel personally threatened by women who are able to raise a family without a man.
Posted by Shana Schloemer on April 28, 2012 at 1903 hrs

25.
Dodgecountydem is more than welcome to develop a product and a business plan, and consequently share his wealth with whomever he chooses.
Unfortunately, in this society, it is easier to take some else’s wealth.
Posted by Smeety on April 28, 2012 at 1907 hrs

26.
Tad, is employers aren’t supposed to provide insurance and the government isn’t supposed to provide insurance then how would you like the people who make minimum wage to afford insurance? You say that people should “make what they are worth?” What does that mean?
I have always worked in mental health/human services. In the recent past, I have done suicide assessments and gone out with the medical examiner to do trauma counseling while making $20 an hour. Fortunately, I snagged myself a fancy indisposable man. A “keeper” for more reasons than this. He has great insurance and will always make astronomically more money than I do. He works in a corporate setting so his “worth” has been set by society as far more important than my “worthless” work as a therapist with a master’s degree.
Posted by Shana Schloemer on April 28, 2012 at 1911 hrs

27.
Kevin, why is it every time you address a criticism you say “I’m just taking a page out of the progressive playbook”? At some point, what you’re doing becomes your own playbook, and you have to stop pretending like you’re just “doing what the Dems would do.”
Face it, you’re just as “bad” as those progressives you hate.
Posted by VAPolitico on April 28, 2012 at 1915 hrs

28.
Kevin,
#1—students should have limited work hours.  Getting a High School diploma should come first.
#2—If someone were to come to you—an adult—and ask to work 40 hours a week, full-time would you hire them?  I wonder.  You would probably say no citing the cost of insurance and worker’s comp.
I ask you again to show me a person who is living the scenario that Glenn suggests.  And he twists the numbers to feed his “they are all taking advantage of the government” mentality.  Do you truly believe that most people would rather live off of the government than work and support themselves?  If so, I have a wonderful piece of marshland not too far from here I can sell you.
Posted by dodgecountydem on April 28, 2012 at 1929 hrs

And out come the thugs

"Working towards the Fuhrer." Just wanted to post the thoughts of a so-called conservative and prepare anyone working on the recall for what you may be up against. It's not a game to these people, they hate democracy, they hate our freedom to dissent, and they hate the idea that some Americans don't want to live in a fascist society. If you encounter one of these "volunteers" don't engage them, just call the police in case they decide to start something.

All I have to say to you Owen is, get a hobby man. Do you really have nothing better to do that act as a self-appointed gestapo agent?

From boots and sabers, our local gauleiter.

"I will not physically threaten or curse anyone collecting signatures. I will make every personal effort to ensure that the entire process is lengthy, and unpleasant for all concerned."  -So, I have to ask, which is it? All these things you plan to do are designed to intimidate anyone who wants to participate in our free and democratic process.

1) Record and report.


A recall drive is a public activity and participants are generally working in a public setting. I will take pictures, record conversations, take videos, and publicize it all. I hope that the folks are on their best behavior, because a lot of us will be watching. In fact, the Republican Party has set up a website to collect all of these reports. Yup, Big Brother is watching.

2) Power of the purse.

Just like the recall employees/volunteers, everyone who signs a recall petition is signing a public document. I’ll be looking at those names and making them public - especially for people in my neck of the woods. If you sign the petition and happen to own or run a local business, you can expect me to publicize that fact and decline to spend any more of my hard earned dollars with your establishment. After all, if you get your way I will need those dollars to pay my taxes. Two packs a day huh? That's the only tax that has gone up, any other claim is delusional.

3) Explain yourself.

As a close follower of the issues, I am well-equipped to debate the recall effort, the motivations, and the consequences. If you come to my door or approach me in public, you can expect a lengthy debate. I don’t really care if I convince you the error of your ways, but the longer you are talking to me, the less time you are spending collecting signatures. If you get frustrated and storm off in a huff, I’ll enjoy posting the video/audio. Heck, even if you don’t, it will be fun to highlight your lame arguments. Of course, in order to prove you not simply a dogmatic true believer there would have to be some argument that you could admit wasn't "lame."

4) Show ID.

Every recall petition must be signed by the person circulating it. As such, anyone signing it has a responsibility to verify the identity of the circulator to make sure it’s on the up and up. If you ask me to sign it, I will ask for ID, record your information, and use that information as I see fit. If you are from out of state, you can expect to see your name in lights. If you refuse to show me an ID, I’ll be forced to take a picture and ask my readers if they know who you are. I will also ask if you are being compensated and, if so, by whom. Can't bear the fact that some people might work against fascism for free eh?

——-
I will not physically threaten or curse anyone collecting signatures. Nor will I do so to anyone who signs the petitions. I will be polite, friendly, and engaged. But I will make every personal effort to ensure that the entire process is lengthy, and unpleasant for all concerned.