Sue Ellingson resigns

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:31 am

green union terrace chair wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:Huh? I didn't say that, D-man.

Again, do you feel it's wrong that the 2nd amendment says that the militia, as defined by the Constitution as the organized and unorganized militia, should be well-regulated as the 2nd amendment states? I trust you're aware of this amendment.


Oh I most definitely do believe that the militia should be in good working order. But with all of the infringements of the People's right to keep and bear arms, that goal of the 2nd Amendment is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.

Which amendment includes the right to derail topics?


What is the First Amendment? I'll take Quotable Quotes for a 1000.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby lukpac » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:52 am

Dangerousman wrote:But with all of the infringements of the People's right to keep and bear arms, that goal of the 2nd Amendment is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.


Uh, what?

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Detritus » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:54 am

lukpac wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:But with all of the infringements of the People's right to keep and bear arms, that goal of the 2nd Amendment is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.


Uh, what?

He mistyped. He meant to say "But with all of the infringements of the Guns' right to shoot and kill people, that goal of the 2nd Amendment is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve."

Bwis53
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7362
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:39 pm
Location: Bay Creek
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Bwis53 » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:55 am

Looks like this thread would have died if it wasn't for Ellingson's view on guns...


She helped us improve a dangerous intersection.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby wack wack » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:09 am

green union terrace chair wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:But with all of the infringements of the People's right to keep and bear arms, that goal of the 2nd Amendment is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.

Which amendment includes the right to derail topics?


The only thing Dman is derailing here is his own credibility.

Wanna know why most people here think you're more wack than I am, Dman? This is it. The suggestion that the Second Amendment has "suffered" anything more than the most reasonably minimal (and woefully inadequate) "infringement" is absurd.
Last edited by wack wack on Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23828
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:31 am

Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum. Tell that to Meade.

green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby green union terrace chair » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:09 am

Dangerousman wrote:
green union terrace chair wrote:Which amendment includes the right to derail topics?


What is the First Amendment? I'll take Quotable Quotes for a 1000.

Henry beat me to it.
Henry Vilas wrote:Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum. Tell that to Meade.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:02 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum. Tell that to Meade.


The First Amendment applies only to state-owned media? That's news to me, and probably everyone else in the world.

Gee, Henry. All of the newspapers, radio and TV stations around here a privately-owned too. I guess anything somebody puts there isn't covered by the First Amendment either, right?

If you don't think the First Amendment applies here, then you must believe that it would be perfectly OK for the government to say that neither you nor I can write about these political topics and they could legally enforce it.

Your understanding of the Bill of Rights goes beyond just wrong. It's bizarre.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby lukpac » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:05 pm

Dangerousman wrote:If you don't think the First Amendment applies here, then you must believe that it would be perfectly OK for the government to say that neither you nor I can write about these political topics and they could legally enforce it.

Your understanding of the Bill of Rights goes beyond just wrong. It's bizarre.


The First Amendment only stops the government from saying you can't post here. It does *not* stop Isthmus from saying you can't post here. That is, it doesn't "[include] the right to derail topics".

So, try again.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23828
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:11 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum. Tell that to Meade.

The First Amendment applies only to state-owned media? That's news to me, and probably everyone else in the world.

Then you must make up your entire world. You couldn't be more wrong. It only applies to government restrictions on speech.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:25 pm

wack wack wrote:Wanna know why most people here think you're more wack than I am, Dman? This is it. The suggestion that the Second Amendment has "suffered" anything more than the most reasonably minimal (and woefully inadequate) "infringement" is absurd.


Plenty of people here have scoffed at the idea that "the people" would be capable of putting up a credible resistance if a tyrannical government ever got put into place. Do you think anyone scoffed at the idea in 1789? I doubt it.

So if you are among the scoffers, than I think you must accept that the infringements have accumulated to the point where they are now fairly significant.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby lukpac » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:26 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Plenty of people here have scoffed at the idea that "the people" would be capable of putting up a credible resistance if a tyrannical government ever got put into place. Do you think anyone scoffed at the idea in 1789? I doubt it.

So if you are among the scoffers, than I think you must accept that the infringements have accumulated to the point where they are now fairly significant.


Now there's a complete lack of logic if I've ever seen one.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:29 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum. Tell that to Meade.

The First Amendment applies only to state-owned media? That's news to me, and probably everyone else in the world.

Then you must make up your entire world. You couldn't be more wrong. It only applies to government restrictions on speech.


Have I stated otherwise? So it includes speech here too. Right?
Therefore the First Amendment applies to the privately-owned Internet forum. Something you just denied a short time ago:

Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum


Thanks for playing Hank, thanks for proving me correct, and thanks for agreeing.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:30 pm

lukpac wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Plenty of people here have scoffed at the idea that "the people" would be capable of putting up a credible resistance if a tyrannical government ever got put into place. Do you think anyone scoffed at the idea in 1789? I doubt it.

So if you are among the scoffers, than I think you must accept that the infringements have accumulated to the point where they are now fairly significant.


Now there's a complete lack of logic if I've ever seen one.


Good, if it's illogical, then it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate the logical error. Have at it.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Sue Ellingson resigns

Postby lukpac » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:36 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Have I stated otherwise? So it includes speech here too. Right?
Therefore the First Amendment applies to the privately-owned Internet forum. Something you just denied a short time ago:

Johnny One Note thinks the First Amendment applies to a privately owned Internet forum


Thanks for playing Hank, thanks for proving me correct, and thanks for agreeing.


Sorry, no.

The question was not whether the First Amendment prevented the government from censoring posts on a private forum. It was whether it "includes the right to derail topics". It doesn't.

Dangerousman wrote:Good, if it's illogical, then it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate the logical error. Have at it.


Will do.

The United States has the largest military force in the world, as well as weapons that are not available to the public. The rights laid out in the Second Amendment (which are pretty vague anyway) don't need to be infringed to think that a revolution to overthrow the government is pretty unlikely.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests