@Bob McBride....I don't care if it is understandable, it is completely unacceptable. Whenever the extremes take over, even if it is emotively based, we as a society and individuals cannot tolerate such behavior. This is not only a problem on the left, but on the right as well.

As a member of the left, I feel a responsibility to do what I can to bring some reason to the situation. The left is always being accused of calling out the thuggish behavior of extremists on the right, but ignoring it on our side. I am of the mind to rein in such behavior on the left before it gets to far out of hand. If we are ever going to heal the societal rift with honor, then we must de-fang the extremists on both the left and the right and promote zero tolerance..

Of course its unacceptable, Lyle, but unless you acknowledge its source you can't address it properly. This is not about a moral high ground. it's about one side hyping up the emotions of its base via false claims and scare tactics to a degree that produced such a sense of panic that when it failed, it produced a reaction of this nature. And it continues on, today, with this whole 99% and Occupy nonsense. It's the methodology employed and the mentality behind it that results in an absolute inability to accept defeat on the part of some. You toy with people's emotions, this is what you get.

@Bob McBride...Are you claiming this is only a tactic of the Left?

@Lyle.... As, i am blinded by the recent Wisconsin events, please cite some comparable examples over a similar time frame.

@Lyle
Yes, I think that Bob is hinting to the Left being the problem in Wisconsin and that you liberals lost the high ground when you sided with the people harassing Walker's family in Tosa.

As further proof, after Barrett's concession, you liberals were slapping each other. So yes, the unbridled emotion and irrational actions belong to the Democrats.

Lyle, I'm claiming its a tactic and its use results in the kinds of things you're seeing now. The time to call it out for what it is, is now. It's got nothing to do with a moral high ground.

@Lyle -

I believe that what Bob is trying to say is that the left ran a campaign that preyed upon the emotions of its members. A doom and gloom campaign, convincing its members with propaganda and rhetoric that if Walker were to win the recall, it would be the end of everything that your side believes in for all eternity - an apocalypses of biblical proportions if you will. And many on your side drank the koolaid - the guy who was interviewed on CNN claiming "tonight, democracy died," the supporter who slapped Barrett for conceding, and the non-stop denial of the leftist media on election night are all a perfect exemplification of the mindset that this year and a half long indoctrination had produced.

In other words, you guys mixed-up a particularly strong brand of poison and now your members/supporters are hooked like junkies. What we're seeing right now are withdrawal symptoms, which would naturally be expected once you get someone hooked / DEPENDENT / addicted.

Before these leftists start making death threats against ANYONE, they should stop and ponder that Wisconsin issued 600,000 deer permits to hunters last year. That's 600,000 people "under arms" and I SERIOUSLY doubt many of them were "liberals." That's more armed men and women than in the whole Iranian Army and in only ONE State. By the way, not one was accidentally killed, even with all that shooting going on. Add in the other States and you're looking at around 50 MILLION people with arms...most of them with extensive shooting experience. Take notice, you on the left and your thugs in the unions.

@pappadave...What in the hell is wrong with you? We are attempting to tone down the rhetoric and threats. You pop up about gun ownership and an implied threat to armed conflict; thanks for helping the situation. If conservatives are in full control of the state are you proposing a hunt for liberals? As ridiculous as it sounds, if you carried out your train of thought, then something like that is not out of the realm of reason. Please tone it down and remain respectful.

@Pappadave -

I agree with Lyle. That kind of talk is stupid, immature, unnecessary, and counter-productive. It is in complete contrast with what Lyle is advocating for in this blog.

It also is a poor representation of the conservative side of the argument. Please, think a little more before your next post.

@conservachick...The first question that has to be asked is what do these groups have in common. Clearly, they all feel that they have been disenfranchised in some manner. Now, whether they have or not, is an issue for debate. But, what means do they have to address their grievances? Even though they are organized into identifiable organizations; what official standing do they have? Other than being organized, they have no real power to affect change.

Going to the streets, to protest, is the only way to exercise limited power and manifest it beyond personal dissatisfaction. Street protests are designed to raise awareness of the uninvolved,. uncommitted and the unaware members of society. It is all about creating conditions to force change.

Social institutions, whether governmental, financial, educational, religious, or business are all designed to be resistant to change and to maintain the status que. Change occurs when the uncommitted majority are convinced that change needs to occur. Individuals, by nature, are also resistant to change and will resist making such changes until they have been sufficiently motivated that change is required. The whole purpose of demonstrations is to motivate such change. It is well documented in the disciplines of social science that the more politically conservative one is, the more resistant to social change one is.

@conservachick...There is a fine line separating awareness raising and rabble rousing and traditionally the young have difficulty separating the two. The trick in public protesting is to walk the fine line to get your message heard without inciting too strong a reaction or physical violence. It should also be noted, that if you believe that "such and such group" have not been disenfranchised or harmed, that you will discount their message and the reasons for demonstrating their discontent. It is curious to watch those who condemn the current protest movements who are actively engaged in the Tea Party movement and their demonstrations. People on the right see the reasons for Tea Party demonstrations as legitimate and demonstrations on the left for social justice as illegitimate. It is all a case of perspective and belief. Now who is really legitimate? It all depends on your personal beliefs.

I am a socialist, actually a social democrat, and see that the problems of society can best be rectified through collective or communal actions. This translates that people's basic needs should be guaranteed by the government since no one private entity is large enough to adequately address such. I know, that in this society that I represent a small minority, but I continue to express my beliefs, even in the light of continued criticism. This is one of the privileges of living in this democracy.

@Lyle -

"People on the right see the reasons for Tea Party demonstrations as legitimate and demonstrations on the left for social justice as illegitimate."

This statement could not be further from the truth. The problem that those on the right have with the leftist demonstrations is not that they view them as illegitimate, but rather take issue with the way in which the leftists conduct their demonstrations.

The Tea Party obtains permits, hires private security, does not inconvenience others, and ALWAYS cleans up after themselves. Contrast this with leftist demonstration that usual invaded public property en mass without the appropriate permits (the cornerstone of the Occupy movement), inconveniences others for their own selfish purposes (like closing down bridges during prime time rush hour traffic), relies upon government for security and crowd control, engages in uncivil behaviors such as defecating/urinating on public property, use of illegal narcotics, destruction of public and private property, etc., and almost ALWAYS leaves behind a big mess for others to clean up.

That is the problem that the right has with the leftist demonstration - not that it finds them illegitimate, but rather finds their means disrespectful to others, the public infrastructure/resources, and rule of law in general - because in reality, THEY ARE!!!

@JRH...I get what Bob is referring to. But it impacts both sides. Leaders of the Tea Party movement have fanned the flames of discord in their own manner. Sarah Palin never condemned the rhetoric and things going out over the internet that resulted in death threats to public officials. Now, you want to hold Democratic leaders responsible for the escalation, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but you don't want to hold Republican and conservative leaders responsible, since you claim they haven't engaged in throwing gasoline on the fire. Republican leadership calling union members thugs, people working for government as feeding from the public trough, etc is OK in your book. What about all the threats I've personally received with reference to exercise of someone's second amendment rights?

You seem to want things to change on the left when you won't even admit that the right has been doing the same thing. I am attempting to clean up on the left, but you on the right are claiming it's the left's problem and the right is lily white. I'm not buying it for a "New York minute". Our koolaid may be grape flavored, but your koolaid is cherry flavored. Whether or not you attempt to clean up the right or not is your decision, but I will continue to work to clean up my side.

@Lyle
Having been at a Tea Party rally in Madison, I saw first hand the thug behavior of the unions. When our group tried to leave, the Iron Workers cut off and choked off our exist to a point where we were almost marching single file through the union members. As I walked away, with my then 7yr old son in toe, I had profanity yelled at the back of head.

Maybe the 'leaders' of the tea party used the coarse languages to identify actions that deserved the coarse language. My story is one of many. While your side has few if any stories like that. It is hard for me to experience that and then listen you and other liberals beg for unity and to tone down the rhetoric. The number of mainstream liberals that have called us tea baggers is almost 100%. Such actions do not have an equal on the conservative/republican side.

What's your point, J.B.? Since someone used coarse language at you and because the term 'tea-bagger' has been generally used that makes all of us vulgar and negates our political views?

Union thugs, sucking at the public teat, public trough, get a job, stop living in filth and squalor -- that's all been directed at me and Lyle, and it's a constant strain not to descend to that level in return.

The bad behavior of a very vocal few does not tarnish the whole side. At least I hope not for your sake.

@Lyle -- One isn't "disenfranchised" when one is permitted one's constitutional right to vote. However, one should also understand that a right to vote is a right you may exercise only ONCE per election. If any of these "protestors" were "disenfranchised" of anything, it was the "right" to commit voter fraud...which, oddly enough, REALLY disenfranchises honest voters...and voter fraud was rampant in Racine, apparently, and took many forms. How the left an be "pleased" to eke out a win by cheating is a mystery to me. If I won a golf match by cheating, I'd never be able to look at myself in the mirror again...let alone cheat to inflict destructive policies on the body politic.

Plus, demonstrations like the OWS craziness aren't designed to "raise awareness" of the uncommitted, uninvolved and uncaring. They are designed to INTIMIDATE--much like the union thugs hanging around polling places and listening to pollsters forced voters to lie about how they voted, lest they be attacked in one way or another by these thugs if they told the truth. THAT'S why the exit polls didn't agree with the actual votes counted.

@pappadave....It sounds like you have a lot of open wounds that you want to use as justification for further inflammatory rhetoric. I would think that you are of the opinion that we are still fighting over public union collective bargaining and the recall. That's done. Now it's time to reconcile and get ready for the next round of policy disagreements.

Lyle? Just what on this great earth are you saying? You are so knotted up in your own unresolved violence guilt you can't type straight.

"Sarah Palin never condemned the rhetoric and things going out over the internet that resulted in death threats to public officials."

Great Scott Lyle! Talk about an attack on women. Ms. Palin has literally been in the "crosshair" of your side since her introduction on the national political scene. You knew nothing about her and her face was in the crosshairs.

Stop with your sanctimonious pacifist drivel.

@J.B. Schmidt...Why would you ever take a seven year old to a political demonstration?

@Lyle
I took my child to a Tea Party rally because I knew it would be a good experience for my child. I was right. Everyone was respectful, the tone was upbeat and it was great to show my child that adults can gather peacefully. It was upon our exit where we were shown the contrast in sensibilities.

What you fail to accept is the different approaches taken by the opposing sides. We will you remove your plutocrat oligarchy B.S. (since those words can be applied to almost any authority figure and produce a false positive). The tea party rallies were filled with people exhibiting a strong love for country and a determination to leave it better then they inherited it (something that cannot be said for the majority of the boomer generation). They were supporting the democratic process and political figures willing to stick their necks out to return power to the people.

In contrast, the unions, teachers and public employees were marching around the capital (many with kids and strollers) mad that they had lost some of their privileges they had been falsely been told were rights. Unions had pumped them full of anger from propaganda and lies. Hence, they interacted in mass with the tea party with hate (a reaction not displayed in reverse). Emotion fueled their rage and not logic.

This is why I think your article is grossly disingenuous. The divide was not equally produced. You can't now take the high ground, when your side excavated the low ground.

@J.B. Schmidt...You never cease to amaze me. Subjecting your son to a situation like that would hardly be something that I would call a "good experience". A reasonable person would understand that there would be a high probability of confrontation given the mood of participants, especially with union activists there. Why is it so difficult for you to see and admit that you probably didn't exercise the best judgement.

When all else fails, blame it on the "boomers".

@Lyle
Oh Great One, what is the proper age for a political rally? Were the kids the teachers were walking over to union protests in Madison old enough? In fact, why were teachers walking kids there anyway, at least my son was under the supervision of his parent.

You are completely missing the problem here. It is not my poor parenting, as I will restate there were many children walking around the capital that day holding 'Support the Teachers' signs and I personally know of teacher families that made the trip to protest the governor over the course of the past year; this is about the liberal demonstrators lacking all self control because they were emotional charged by union/democrat propaganda.

Had I known that your ilk lacked all decency and was willing to attack a man and his child with vile verbal insults; my son would not have come. Hindsight being what it is, I know understand that liberals have no bottom floor when it comes to civility. If my open mindedness and tolerance allowed me to accept that liberals were still virtuous people, that rally and your present attack on parenting only supports my complete lack of respect for the liberal mindset.

Let me be clear, the Tea Party was good and the speakers respectable. It was the union thugs as we tried to leave that instigated the situation. Even then, the Tea Party participants left peacefully not lowering ourselves to the behavior of the liberals.

@J.B. Schmidt...Anyone who take their kids into a situation like those demonstration, no matter their political leanings, is not using the best judgement.

@Lyle
Of course your right. I take full responsibility for the childish actions of the liberal left.

Just curious though, is your attack on my parenting the proper way to "dial down passion and rhetoric"? I thought maybe that meant getting back to the issues within politics, not the same old personal attacks liberals have made famous.

There I go again keeping an open mind to the idea of liberal virtue.

@J.B. Schmidt.... Some things aren't right including what occurred in Madison. However, when you used your experience as anecdotal evidence to make the point defining your point, it is my contention that both sides need to clean it up and dial it down.

Precisely - the membership/supporters won't begin to tone things down until their leaders do.

In the face of death threats to himself and his family, constantly being shouted down and interrupted at public speeches, etc - Walker has maintained his cool throughout and has been nothing but an exemplary statesman in his reaction to all of the antics. He has proven himself to be of very high class, character, and integrity and deserves the respect of Wisconsin residents whether they agree with his policies or not.

@Randy
Many of us on the Right have called out people for insults and name calling. However, I don't believe I read a post calling out Jason when he wrote a blog associating Walker supports to sex acts or his dog pooping on a Walker sign. Your entire statement is full of hypocrisy.

@J.B. -- As long as you tolerate the AWDs and the Alfreds of this site you may not call me a hypocrite.

@Randy
Over time I and others have called out both. I refuse to address every comment they make. There comes a point where it is better to ignore, then give them the pleasure of being recognized.

Yet, I have never seen a lib call out Jason. Why? In fact most defend him and congratulate him for blogging as he does.

AWD - really??? Who doesn't love that guy!?!?

I've called out bad behavior on both the right and left, including Alfred (again most recently in fact). And everyone knows how I feel about AWD/AudiFan/SaxonRealm, but I've even called them out when they either cross the line or go over-the-top.

In addition to calling out the bad apples, I've also defended the good apples from unnecessary and undue personal attacks against their character, such as HRG, Lyle, Randy1949, etc all know.

Being a good and decent person has nothing do with being right or left. It's just a part of our core as humans. And there are many good and decent people in our Patch community on both sides of political aisle, and a few bad apples as well. But how we judge the integrity of a person should have nothing to do with their political affiliation/ideology, but rather by their character and virtuosity as human beings.

True, JRH. You are one of the few who will do that. I just hope the rest of you understand how difficult it is to remain civil in the face of what amounts to schoolyard taunts.

Eugene Kane did a piece on the day of the election about gloating and how anyone who did it the morning after, no matter who won, would make things worse. Just saying.

This was a close election. Neither side got ground into the dust, and neither side should be encouraged to eat crow here on the Patch.

I'm grieved that there were death threats. I'm shocked and embarrassed that someone slapped Mayor Barrett the night he conceded. That's how high emotions were running, and it needs to stop.

Eugene Kane? Really? You're going to site Eugene Kane and expect to be taken seriously? The only reason he wrote that article is because he knew his guy was going to lose. Eugene Kane... PLEASE!

@Sam Vedder -- so you disagree that it's a good idea to just let the 'hurrah for our side' rhetoric drop?

Randy: Kane is perhaps the worst writer for the Milwaukee Unrinal.
You have not commented about my picture here on the left. Is this taunting?
I left the sign up for less than 24 hours- I had people standing on my lawn taking pictures, some posing next to it. I never thought I would have to worry about taunting people into violent acts. Maybe it is good I removed it when I did, but I did so out of respect to the houses for sale across the street. I didn't want the prospective new neighbors to think I am a Republican Redneck. At least not until they meet me, then they are free to form an opinion.

@Craig -- I can't read your sign. It's probably just as well. I might take your opinion of Eugene Kane a little more seriously if you could spell 'urinal'.

Gloating, mocking, insisting your defeated opponent eat crow are all divisive, and I can see it won't be ending soon.

Give us through the weekend. This was an historic win. Unions will no longer be able to take money by force from members, hire hundreds of political operatives and give them salaries to work on campaigns, then call them “volunteers” so their work isn’t reported as a campaign contribution. We the taxpayers have taken back our state, and soon our country. We have fixed a 50 year old mistake when public unions were given collective bargaining privileges. I think it's appropriate we celebrate for a few more days.

Randy: Ohhhh, a typo. I am so ashamed. Guess I don't have piano fingers.
Maybe I will put my sign back up and add a plug for voter ID to it.
FYI: I am not sure if you know how to work 'puters, but if you click on the picture you can expand it. They even make big pc screens for the legally blind ;)

Yes, Lyle is most definitely a good man of sound character and has earned the respect of the Patch community. I look forward to meeting him one day in persona as someone that I've come to consider as a friend.

@Bren - What have YOU lost? Stabilization will only come when the left finally concedes that individual liberty and self-determination makes us ALL more secure than any government-provided, collectivist "security." Collectivism will inevitably devolve into tyranny...as any true student of history knows--largely because of human nature. Collectivism ALWAYS degenerates into a government where a group, considering themselves to be smarter than everyone else, and possessing the power to do so, will start exercising that power by dictating what we eat and drink, what sort of light bulbs we can buy for our homes or how much water we are permitted to use in our flush toilets. (Sound familiar.)

Pappadave, since you (apparently) believe that allowing yourself to be fooled by Big Money is a strike for freedom, we really have no point of reference for discussion.

What makes you think your prediction skills have improved since your prediction that the latest Marquette poll would be wrong because of it's bias? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Your problem is, your time hasn't arrived.

@Bren -

I honestly expected better from you - especially on such a topic as this!

This is exactly the kind of over the top propaganda and rhetoric that has created the current environment which has led to en mass death threats being made against our Governor.

Scott Walker has not been emotionally violent towards anyone and you know it! That's more than I can say for the people that have followed his every move and do nothing but emanate and espouse hate for the man.

If stabilization doesn't occur, it will not be the fault of the Governor, but rather individuals with such mindsets as the one you're now advocating.

Again, I honestly expected better from you on this topic.

@Lyle -

I believe this to be a perfect example of what McBride was trying to say above, and I tried to clarify.

Guess what? Walker and ALEC won ... time to move on.

Marquette poll was spot on correct, 7% bought and paid for by ALEC i'm sure.

Well, we will see what happens. Based on what I know, is Scott Walker the one to throw off the ALEC agenda, meet with the groups that he has hurt with his policies, develop humility and an honest desire to serve his state? Sorry, can't write the answer to that one without laughing out loud.

Bren looks like it is time to pack up your bongos and head out of state

Figuratively I die, slashed to ribbons, my final narrative breath gasped in grudging admiration of Ben Hogan's rapier wit.

@Bren -

Don't despair - Hoffa still loves ya :-)

Well Mr. Hoffa, I think you love ALEC more. We'll find out how much ALEC loves you.

No matter how much Hoffa and ALEC love each other, their love can never be. Not in this state. :P

Come on Bren, don't be like that!

As Randy1949 and Lt. Governor Kleefisch have made clear, I could never be with ALEC in this state no matter how much I love it, just as I could never be with a table.

Now, Ms. Hendricks, well, that's another story and she's almost like ALEC, right? ;-)

Cheer up Bren, it's not the end of the world. You still have November to look forward to! And despite what you may think, I do like you and always have. We both want the same thing - we just disagree as to how to accomplish those objectives.

Great job at dialing it down. Just be honest, you don't want it dialed down.

Greendale Dad- What planet are you on? What will allow civility is when you simply accept defeat. Your side lost. The recall was a joke to begin with. It's funny that most of the violence came from the lefties. Intimidation tactics, burning signs, death threats, boycotts, assault, vandalism, destruction of property. The list is a long one and the bottomline is that none of it worked.

That Walker won by a bigger margin, despite the national effort to oust him speaks volumes. Your side put only yourselves first, not the good of all, including our children and the good people of Wisconsin sent a clear message. Crystal.

I live in Shorewood and am one of the very few conservatives that live here. I put up an I stand by Walker signed and was continually harrassed, flipped off, cursed at (in front of my elderly dad that served in WW2). Literally fearing that my tires may be slashed or lawn ornaments stolen I took it down in less than 3 days. Greendale Dad - don't call the kettle black please.

@pappadave....Everyone can come up with a laundry list of discontents. It has been a constant conflict between those who feel that the sovereignty of the individual is primary and those that feel that the sovereignty of the community is primary. Both groups agree in the goal to provide a stable, prosperous and nurturing society. What people disagree upon is the best means to achieve the goal.

Those supporting individual sovereignty are focused on the exercise of individual freedoms even at the expense of others. Supporters of communal sovereignty are focused on the benefits to the whole even at the expense to some individual freedoms. Individual sovereignty was a good approach whereas you have a relatively small population. However, in larger populations it requires social contracts to support the benefit to the whole.

You seem to want to hold the left responsible for everything negative that has occurred, while exempting the right from any responsibility. I think, you will find that if you dig enough you'd find that what is behind all of this mess is the plutocratic oligarchy. Their goal is to maintain their wealth, position and power; the rest of us are nothing more than simple pawns. As long as we are fighting between ourselves, nothing will ever challenge them and their manipulations.

Wow Lyle, right out of the Karl Marx Mainfesto.

@Brian Dey...You must not be very familiar with Marx or the Communist Manifesto.

Very familiar. Maximizing power under the guise of the common good. Government can not make blanket decisions that benefits all society. This country was founded on individual freedom, not collective. That is not selfish; quite contrare. Government can provide a temporary safety net, but we have too many that have turned that satety net into a way of life.

Sorry, I have seen people milk the system. The democratic/progreesive/socialist agenda plays on peoples fears, perpetuates reliance on Government to gain power. Much like the communist Manifesto. We all saw how that played out and the collapse of that belief. The only ones that remain are ones where government forceably controls its populous. And if they don't, the are on the verge of financial collapse.

Take your beloved unions for example. Why are unions afraid of giving workers the freedom to choose whether to be in a union or not. Its about control, and the fear that if given the choice, many have opted out of their union. And organization that will throw others under the bus to protect themselves is not for the common good.

I think, you will find that if you dig enough you'd find that what is behind all of this mess is the plutocratic oligarchy. Their goal is to maintain their wealth, position and power; the rest of us are nothing more than simple pawns.

**************

Lyle, I wonder if you include within your group of plutocratic oligarchs those within the DNC who utilized the situation here in WI in their very successful May fundraising effort and then who elected to shortchange the DPW when it came to supporting the effort in the same fashion as did its opponents? Certainly their goals are the same and their usage of those in the recall effort here as their pawns are no different.

While I think you're a lot more open minded than many on your side of the political fence, in order for any of what you're saying to be taken to heart (to the degree to which that's possible), it needs to be acknowledged that, regardless of what you want to call it, the politicians on both sides use the little guy to attain wealth, position and power. And, while the methodology might be a bit different, I'm not convinced this is anything new.

I've called out the tea party in the past for some of their rhetoric, but never has anything they've done risen to the levels we've seen here in this state from the left. It's not good when either side does it, but to deny the left has embraced it rather wholeheartedly in this state is to deny reality.

@Bob McBride...Of course the DNC is part of and controlled by the plutocratic oligarchy. I lobbied in Washington long enough to learn the rules of the political game.

If you remember correctly I stated that it was a mistake for the Occupy Movement and the 99% to align themselves with the Democrats. The Democrats attempted to subvert the movement for their own purposes just as the Republicans subverted the Tea Party Movement.

The longer the power brokers can keep us divided, the easier it is to control us for the purpose of their agenda and maintain their power. The money dumped into this recall election by both sides is absolutely grotesque, let alone the $16 million the government has spent to hold the election. Until enough citizens become aware of the situation, we will continue to give up our constitutional power to the plutocrats. The enemy is not the left or right, the enemy is the plutocratic oligarchy.

I agree . WEAC is THE problem. The demonstrations of 2011 at the Capitol showed us the true face of compassionate liberalism--Gov. Walker in crosshairs and likened to Hitler, etc. etc. I never saw the political right respond in kind. Au contraire, our Governor was the model of decorum and decency.

@oak creek resident...How is it possible to hate someone you have never met or don't know? Although you and I differ in our political orientation, I don't see that as necessary or sufficient to evoke hate for you. I think it is perfectly logical for reasonable people to disagree. None of us are always correct nor always wrong. Only through open and honest dialogue can we find the best solution. I reject the notion that everything has to be a win/lose or a lose/lose; what is wrong with a win/win?

Oak creek, you accuse liberals of illogical behavior, blind hate, ignorance, and violent poster art. Then you tell Mr. Ruble, "I hate you." Think about this. Is this logic? Is this peace?

You are ramped up, "us vs. them," "divide and conquer." What was your own story, not "as seen on TV" that led you to believe these things about liberals? Liberals, who in the past were called treehuggers, moonbats, etc. You do not have to respond to my post.

@oak creek resident....Whose banner am I carrying? I reject the plutocrats and oligarchs for what they are. It is only logical on my part to reject the policy and direction of an agent of the plutocrats. Why should I support someone who is clearly working on the behalf of those who want to take from the middle and working classes for the benefit of increasing their own wealth, power and position. That's not logical or wise. Again, show me the plutocratic banner that I am supporting.

So then Lyle, are you saying you reject unions as well. I mean really, considering that the only reason they exist is to exert political power for personal gain. And they are not exclusive to which class they take from; be it poor, middle or upper.

@Brian Dey...Are you suggesting that unions are plutocrats or agents of plutocrats? If that is what you're purposing, then I suggest that you look up the definition of plutocrat and oligarch. Labor is the counterbalance to the plutocracy representing the many over the few.

Now, whether labor is represented by unions or someone else, is another matter altogether. Your opinion is that since some unions are corrupt, then all unions are corrupt, clearly a logical fallacy.

All unions being grouped is a logical fallacy, but all plutocrats and oligarchs being grouped is not?

The division isn't right v. left. It's apolitical, money vs. not so much money, some money, and no money. If the Big Money strategists can get us fighting amongst ourselves, we'll be too engaged to realize the level of maneuvering that is going on. What Scott Walker described as "our Divide and Conquer strategy." And except for a small population of news junkies, it's working. Exhibit A: Wisconsin Governor recall election.

The Occupy movement, also apolitical (protesting against Republicans and Democrats), protest against Big Money. That's why Big Money organized a multi-state strategy to squash Occupy like bugs. They quickly found that every time they squashed, more "bugs" showed up. Now they are in "Ignore" mode, no mainstream media coverage.

These "1%'rs" take their money very seriously.

It is a heck of a lot more than "Big Money" that hates the occupy movement. Most people want nothing to do with them and really do not want to be included in their 99%.

Contrate Lyle; oh contrare. I'm not at all referring to corruption as my basis. Unionism is in its purist form, an oligarchy. The union society, run by a few, espouse to influence the government. The heirarchy of the union, rules its members by granting it favorable rules to remain in power. While claiming they represent the masses for the betterment of their union society, their representation is a forced membership collecting dues to wield power of the political process, for which their members usually have no individual voice.

You see Lyle, and for that matter Bren, the very instituition you despise in the corporate world, are in essence the same ideals the union leadership's have evolved to.

To claim that labor is the counter-balance is contradictory when in fact, the same structures exist in the unions.

Greg, the people who don't support Occupy are the ones who listened to the corporate-owned media and didn't spend many hours studying live feeds of protests, General Assembly meetings, etc., as I did. Once I encounter something I cannot rest until I have learned as much about it as I can. Obnoxious, isn't it. I and others blame my well-rounded education (which included music, fine art, and literature) for my implacably curious mind. ; )

Brian Dey, my father (a private union retiree) tells me that they could earmark a portion of salary to the union to make donations. He was proud to join his union when he completed his studies because contract employers knew that he and his colleagues were the most qualified and skilled available in the area. He could take classes and advance in his field through the union. Part of his union dues also went toward health insurance benefits and pension, which helps greatly in his retirement.

When one regards medieval examples of stained glass in some of the great cathedrals of Europe, the guilds (predecessors of unions) are represented in some of the panels. Even then, a union/guild meant quality of craftsmanship and brotherhood. Perhaps this is an outmoded idea, but I believe in quality.

I'm not sure what you are referring to ("institution you despise in the corporate world") but I'm all for capitalism--as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

Bren- Yes, those are outdated ideas because that is not what public sector unions do now. Most public sector union members have no idea where their dues are going in regards to political activity, and all don't have a choice of opting out. Further, union dues in the public sector do not fund their pensions or health care. We, the taxpayers do.

The unions have evolved into something my father, a former national leader of the Steelworkers union in 50's thru 70's, finds disgusting. Unions have been a means to protect poor employees, not advance better employees. They have become the number one political arm of the Democrat Party. And the Democratis Party numbers far more millionaire and billionaire donors than the Republicans.

Your father's memories of his days in the union and the benefits received were of better days of the labor movement. Sadly, today 's unions are not the unions of your father's time.

@Brian Dey...Who are the unions ruling? To be an oligarch you have to have the wealth and power to rule. That certainly doesn't describe the unions. At there strongest in the mid 1950s they only represented 50% of labor and by today they private unions only represent somewhere around 7% of the private work force. When you include public employee unions, it jumps to a whopping 13.6%. So where's the power and the oligarchy? Remember union leadership is elected and not appointed.

Unions lost most of their in 1947 with the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act. They were prohibited from most job actions including, wildcat strikes, solidarity strikes, etc. The only action possible was strikes after contract termination and the support of political candidates.

For your information, it is illegal for union dues to be used to support candidates. My wife has been with AFSCME for nearly 16 years and for all of that time, if she wanted to contribute politically through the union, she had to contribute to the union PAC.

You just don't have a clue and most of your opinions are based on suppositions and inaccurate beliefs.

Lyle- Tell that to the National Education Association:

"93 percent of donations made by National Education Association political action committees and individual officers went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. According to the NEA's own “Status of the American Public School Teacher 2005-2006,” (latest available data produced March 2010) only 41 percent of public school teachers are Democrats. A Wall Street Journal editorial revealed that the National Education Association — the nation's largest teachers union — “is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on 'political activities and lobbying' and another $65.5 million on 'contributions, gifts and grants' that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.”

It is not illegal so you should check your facts. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_67.htm. So before you ponificate to me, please read a little further than the Daily Kos.

@Brian Dey...I can't justify the NEA using union dues to support political campaigns. It is just wrong. Thanks for the information.

A conspiracy is clandestine, is it not? There's nothing clandestine about it. Special interest groups backed by big money have been working toward business-friendly legislation for decades. It has reached a global stage and the opportunities to make even bigger money have increased exponentially. It's all out there for people who take time to read newspapers, newsmagazines and programs, etc.

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It simply means you are underinformed. Study up! ; )

Are unions not special interest groups? Have they not been lobbying for more friendly legislation, pouring millions into politicians and ideas that favor their cause? Hasn't their cause gone global? It's all out there for you to read Bren.

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it hasn't existed. It simply means you are uniformed. Study up ;p

Here is some studying for you, Bren:
"Andy Stern's (one of Obama's favorite White House visitors) Service Employees Union has established a worldwide network of security-guard unions as the first of what the union hopes will be a series of organizing campaigns for workers in a variety of occupations here and abroad.
Former labor leader and U.S. Under Secretary of Labor Jack Henning eloquently explained why such steps are urgent and essential:
"We were never meant to be beggars at the table of wealth. We were never meant to be the lieutenants of capitalism. We were never meant to be the pall bearers of the workers of the world. Global unionism is the answer to global capitalism. There is no other answer."
http://www.dickmeister.com/id253.html

@Brain Dey...I don't believe you know to play nice. You're position and attitude is only going to make things worse.

I understand your position and support of those who pay your bills and are critical to your livelihood. You are dependent on wealthy people, companies and the government contracts for your business. You know what side your bread is buttered on.

Really Lyle? We've played nice with the lefties as they led us down a path to socialism. I believe if you win two elections in one term, it would be considered a mandate. It is time to finish the job started. I hope the Dems get a clue that at least in Wisconsin, the Socialist Agenda is dead.

And really Lyle, talk about suppostion when you presume to know my client base.

@Brian Dey...Liberals won't go away no matter how hard you try. As you are aware, these things are cyclic in nature and swing back and forth like a pendulum. The dichotomy is necessary to keep each side honest.

Public opinion is swaying right of center. Even former President Bill Clinton have moved right of center on fiscal policies. More and more are figuring out that all these social programs and benefits cost us dearly and have created fiscal nightmares.

Yes, I do think the ultra-liberal movement is dying and a lot of it is self-inflicted. Demonstrations such as the ones in Madison and the Occupy movement have exposed an idealogoy that the general masses don't agree with. Extremism by either side does not play well to the middle. But the right is in a center-right movement, not an extreme as some have suggested. The policies put forth by Walker and others is common sense and that is why since 2010, conservatives are winning elections.

I agree with Brian and Lyle. Liberalism will never die (because there are lots of lazy people that would rather stick their hands out than work for a living), nor will conservatives (because many will want to work hard, get ahead, and live better). Conservatives need to be continually vigilant, because there will always be lazy people who try to appropriate what the wealthy have earned.

Perfect example of how to dial down the passion and rhetoric. You must be chunky style.

Not just Wisconsin Skippy! You are seeing a national move to austerity measures.

Billionaires didn't convince me of anything.

Meanwhile, on the national front (Nick still around here? I'd enjoy hearing him explain this one away....)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D169383

I guess it all depends on whose billionaires are doing the convincing. Make sure you get out the vote for this guy in November in order to defeat the evil billionaires, Skippy.

@Greg
Billionaires convince me that I am not rich enough and that if I try hard enough I to can have their money and power. MUWHAHAHA

Only in Wisconsin!
Did we take care of our budget deficit
and save public workers jobs

A fun Recall video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4&feature=related

Only in America
Can Obama donors convince voters, including the middle class, that they need to pay more for their energy
...while they get rich AND land high ranking positions
"Several of Barack Obama's top campaign supporters went from soliciting political contributions to working from within the Energy Department as it showered billions in taxpayer-backed stimulus money on alternative energy firms, ABC News and iWatch News have learned"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraisers-ties-green-firms-federal-cash/story?id=14592626

The difference is this: Taxpayers pay the salaries and benefits of the government sector employees, whereas (most) billionaires made their money on their own.