The World According to Nick - Comments

Comment by Zeus Rodriguez on "Comparing the Candidates: Website Design Firms"

suppressed@unknown.org (Zeus Rodriguez) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:08:49 GMT

I could have made Tom's new website in one day, seriously. Not sure why he had to outsource for that. It would have taken two days to create Walker's but I don't see why he had to outsource his either. The real challenge is the branding and marketing of the sites which should be a full time job. I don't see either website doing a stellar job with that, I hope they didn't pay too much.

Posted by: Zeus Rodriguez

Comment by John Washburn on "How Do You Like Your Tea?"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Washburn) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:45:21 GMT

Does this mean 9/11 Truther, Sarah Palin, like Debra Medina, is also beyond the pale as a Republican candidate? Here is Palin's admission to We are Change Ohio that there should be a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

Posted by: John Washburn

Comment by John Foust on "How Do You Like Your Tea?"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Foust) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:59:45 GMT

It's one thing to want lower taxes. It's another to come up with a plan to do it. It's another to actually carry out the plan. It doesn't happen in one election cycle. If there's anyone the teabaggers could learn from, it's the Libertarians. They've struggled for decades and look how far they've come! They've managed to creep into the single digits in elections. Not once did I hear Ron Paul talk about selling the highways. I want to see the platform and the candidates. So far, it looks like the teabaggers are easily manipulated by the existing Republican lobbying forces.

Posted by: John Foust

Comment by Nick on "Government Sponsored Theft"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:33:13 GMT

You can't pass a state law that negates the clear words of the Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That's it. The government cannot simply take private property to sell to another private person. Only for public use and only with just compensation. Period.

Posted by: Nick

Comment on "Government Sponsored Theft"

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:10:50 GMT

This was/is a perfectly legal use of eminent domain. Don't like it? Change the state statute. Your argument is moot. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0032.pdf

Comment by Nick on "Has Milwaukee Been Officially Declared Catholic?"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:46:28 GMT

First John, not honoring the appointment of a new Arch Bishop is not disfavoring a religion, it is being neutral towards a religion especially if no other religion is honored as well. Secondly, church leaders are not civic leaders. They do not represent the people. They represent the faithful in their own religion. The Arch Bishop does not represent my views, period, full stop. Finally, the fact that Congregational Churches do not have this sort of leadership does not mean that the Catholic Church has the ability to step in and fill it for us. The choice to not have that leadership hierarchy is a conscious one, and is part of the history of the church. Elevating the Arch Bishop through non-Catholic ceremony to somehow representing other churches does disfavor to those other churches.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by Mr. Tastic on "Has Milwaukee Been Officially Declared Catholic?"

suppressed@unknown.org (Mr. Tastic) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:35:55 GMT

"Catholics love their pomp and circumstance. Catholic leadership enjoys being looked upon as royalty." Wow, try not to hide your incompetence and underlying arrogance.

Posted by: Mr. Tastic

Comment by John McAdams on "Has Milwaukee Been Officially Declared Catholic?"

suppressed@unknown.org (John McAdams) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:50:47 GMT

Look . . . Nick, Being a libertarian should not mean being hostile to religion. In fact, it's very unlibertarian to want government to disfavor religion. If city and county government honors civic leaders of all sorts (economic, political, cultural, athletic) they should be equally willing to honor religious civic leaders. As for congregation churches: they have opted out of having one single leader who is an important civic figure. They have every right to do that, but there are consequences. People have a right to be pacifists, and opt out of military service. They aren't going to get miltary decorations. Fair enough.

Posted by: John McAdams

Comment by Nick on "Government Sponsored Theft"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:32:48 GMT

None of that matters. It was land that was owned by one private party, and trying to be sold to another private party. Was it being used to your like? Doesn't matter. It was being used, or not used, by the owner as he wished. The fact that someone wanted that land for something else is no excuse for the government to come in, take the land at a price the owner didn't want to sell it for, and then give it to another private person. That is theft.

Posted by: Nick

Comment on "Government Sponsored Theft"

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:18:34 GMT

Where do you get STRONGARMING? IMI said if Bee did not take its offer = they would not use eminent domain. They would just walk away. All the sudden Bee was willing to sell

Comment by Truth is good. Even on a Blog on "Government Sponsored Theft"

suppressed@unknown.org (Truth is good. Even on a Blog) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:16:23 GMT

Horseshit Bee Bus purchased the following properties from Parks Pioneer: 3478 W. Hopkins Street 4260-4300 N 35th Street 4320 N 35th Street 4250 N 35th Street The purchase was made in 2004 for $350,000 on a Land Contract with $50,000 down at 6.5% Bee Bus is now selling: 3478 W. Hopkins Street 4250 N. 35th Street for $500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand) These facts were easily discernible at the Milwaukee Register of Deeds and are public information. At the time of Bee's Purchase all 4 properties were assessed by the City of Milwaukee at $312,800 The properties that IMI is buying were assessed in 2004 for $51,800 (Fifty One Thousand) These properties were never occupied by Bee Bus. Bee Bus made no improvements nor maintained the properties being sold. The previous owner used them as junk yards / recycling operations and the building that IMI sought to buy was abandoned for over 20 years. The highest use they were used for in 20 years was a temporary concrete crushing operation that blanketed the neighborhood with dust, noise and debris. Bee Bus refused to negotiate and never responded to multiple written purchase offers made by IMI. It is unfortunate that you never checked the facts before you shot off your mouth

Posted by: Truth is good. Even on a Blog

Comment by dad29 on "Government Sponsored Theft"

suppressed@unknown.org (dad29) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:19:24 GMT

Having friends in high places..... ABData is a major national player with (D) Party campaigns. (Lots besides Obama.)

Posted by: dad29

Comment by John Foust on "Government Sponsored Theft"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Foust) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:30:39 GMT

"It's hard to tell"? You're suggesting that Obama was involved in the decision? Have you been watching too much Glenn Beck?

Posted by: John Foust

Comment by David Casper on "Government Sponsored Theft"

suppressed@unknown.org (David Casper) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:26:59 GMT

Sounds like a case for Milwaukee County First!

Posted by: David Casper

Comment by john Washburn on "You Will Not Leave This Place Innocent"

suppressed@unknown.org (john Washburn) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:08:11 GMT

RE: I suppose we can take a bit of solace in the fact that we don't burn people at the stake any more. Sorry, Nick, no qunatum of solace there. The CIA outsources to Uzbekistan boiling suspects alive. Outsourcing. This makes it so much better. Thank you, Johnny Yoo, "Hammer of Witches".

Posted by: john Washburn

Comment by Bob Dohnal on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (Bob Dohnal) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:51:26 GMT

No Jack, I understand the problems with people being involved in campaigns and the money. if someone volunteers and works 50 hours per week on a campaign does he not have influence on the candidate? You just believe that the great God of government will solve our problems, heal our wounds and pay for everything. You are the most naive person I know. As Churchill said: "democracy is the worst possible form of government that anyone could devise, it's just better than the rest." Want to clean up crooks than help us expose the problems and messes and get off something that is never going to happen. People do not want their money spent on campaigns.

Posted by: Bob Dohnal

Comment by john Washburn on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (john Washburn) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:54:00 GMT

Oops. The quote from Timothy Sullivan of the famous Sulivan Act is found at: http://www.little-acorn.com/docs/nfa01.doc I forgot the http:// portion of the URL. There is great historical amnesia that the draconian NY gun ban was instituted by a man running criminal gangs and that armed visitor to NY and the new Italian and Serb immigrants taking up arms were creating a "hostle working environment" for his men operating in the Red Hook district.

Posted by: john Washburn

Comment by john Washburn on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (john Washburn) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:42:46 GMT

RE: Do you want to go back to the 1800’s where there were no laws or regulations, and we solved our problems with guns on the streets? Yes, I would not mind that reversion, provided Blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, Indians, Women, italians and other swarthy people also get to settle disputes with guns. I would not want to revert to the 1800's, Wounded Knee version of "solv[ing] our problems with guns". the 1800's were considerably safer than now (provided your were not Black, Indian, Chinese, Mexican, or swarthy) I also believe tyrannicide should be an affirmative defense available to an American citizen. If the person who shoots me is willing to reverse the burden of proof, he should be aquitted of murder if he can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that I is/was a tyrant. So yes, I was absolutely serious about reducing the power of elected officials and giving guns to any RO recipient

Posted by: john Washburn

Comment by john Washburn on "Has Milwaukee Been Officially Declared Catholic?"

suppressed@unknown.org (john Washburn) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:21:03 GMT

oops should have been a system which promptes those who are physically weak, mentally asleep, and morally crooked

Posted by: john Washburn

Comment by John Washburn on "Has Milwaukee Been Officially Declared Catholic?"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Washburn) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:16:16 GMT

I would argue the pedophiles running Texas Youth Commission exceeded the abuse committed by American Catholic priests. (but not by much) For a history of the Texas youth Commission using juvenile boys as playthings see: http://eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com/2009/01/texas-youth-commission-sex-scandal.html And for the TYC links to the Bush administration see: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861 And for the dogged persistence of the single Ranger, Brian Burzynski, who brought it all down "because he had a promise to keep." http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/008973.html http://www.oaoa.com/news/burzynski-2149-texas-job.html I am not keen on most police officers because the system is designed to promote the physically unfit, mentally crooked, and morally weak. But I hope someday to have the honor to shake Ranger Burzynski’s hand. I respect people who show by their actions that they believe in capital letter words and that capital letter words matter; words such as Truth, Justice, the Law. To Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Posted by: John Washburn

Comment by Janet Clark on "Has Milwaukee Been Officially Declared Catholic?"

suppressed@unknown.org (Janet Clark) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:10:27 GMT

You said it, Nick! It disturbs me to see all the kow-towing going on over this guy. As you said, America is a nation made up of people who practice many different religions- and none at all- so no religion should be heralded in this way. Plus, this particular religion has not begun to deal with the fact that it has acted as the nation's largest organized pedophile ring by aiding and abetting clergy members who raped, sodomized and sexually assaulted children and young people, including many in Milwaukee. I'm waiting for our government to hold them responsible.

Posted by: Janet Clark

Comment by Jack Lohman on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (Jack Lohman) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:39:10 GMT

No, John, I fully understand that taxes are a form of government theft, and under our current system they are used to steal from the taxpayers and give the briber contributor, all in the form of subsidies, no-bid contracts, and pork barrel projects. So we are left with the decision of “zero taxes or controlled taxes.” Oh, we could also “reduce the power of the elected!!!” I’ll let you handle that one; it seems to be very popular with the 5% who are libertarians, so I’ll let you fight that battle. First, understand the system you support: politicians can take money from special interests who want in the taxpayers pocket. Oh, but let’s not give him the power! Then why have politicians at all? Do you want to go back to the 1800’s where there were no laws or regulations, and we solved our problems with guns on the streets? Yea, I mean Thomas Jefferson’s time! Would your employer condone your taking money on the side and giving corporate assets in return? I doubt it, but that's exactly our political system. But the system I support is like Arizona’s, where candidates who participate in the system must get a predetermined number of signatures from the district, and no more than $100 can be given to his “seed money.” If he achieves his signatures he gets $75,000 to run his campaign, and that money can only be spent on the campaign. But two critical points: The public funding does not come from taxpayers; it comes from a surcharge on criminal fines. If you don’t want to contribute, don’t speed. As well, it is voluntary on the candidate’s part. If he doesn’t like the system he can opt out and take private cash instead. (But 70% of AZ’s legislature has opted in, including Libertarian candidates). And in case you don't already get it, the public already is funding the campaigns through this back door. To tune of $1300 per taxpayer per year. AZ's system costs the equivalent of $5 per taxpayer. See WiCleanElections.org for more info.

Posted by: Jack Lohman

Comment by John Washburn on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (John Washburn) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:17:30 GMT

Apparently Mr. Lohman does not understand the concept fo theft. "Public Financing" of anything means guys with state-issued costumes and guns come and confiscate property and wealth from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens (or non-citizens as the case may be). I as a candidate believe the state public defenders office should provide hand guns and handgun training to any person who has been issued a TRO or permanent restraining order. Think of a restraining order as a judge-issued carry permit. That is the statistically best way to insure the person "protected" by the restraining order actully survives violations of the RO. How much of your money do you find acceptable to be stolen from your wallet in order to "publically finance" my candidacy? If you contend that my plank is too radical for public financing, then you are admitting that public financing of elections is nothing more than incumbancy protection in another guise. This is becauae ultimately the incumbants get to decide who is "tame" enough to be granted a publically finance candidacy. Public financing of election is incumbancy protection. As Thomas Jefferson said public financing of elections (or churches) is both sinful and tyrannical. If you want to reduce the money flowing into campaigns, then you must reduce the power of the elected. The more power an elected representative has to: 1) have people killed 2) have people incarcerated 3) confiscate the property of people 4) distribute the confiscated properties to others 5) interfere with your business and your private contracts (e.g labor or insurance contracts) 6) interfere with the business and private contracts of your rivals Then money will flow to campaigns out of rational self-interest to either use the power of the State to loot, jail and kill on your behalf or to prevent the the State from looting, jailing or killing you and yours. Why is no serious money flows into the campaigns for national president of the Elk's club or the Shriners Temple? Simple, the president of the Elk's club cannot send out antler-wearing thugs to loot and pillage in the same way an Assemblyman, Senator, or Governor can send out thugs in blue-themed costumes and jack boots. In a free society those elected to postions within the State would be as harmful to a citizen and an Elk president. Unfortunately, this is not a free society. So money will flow to the candidacies of those seeking office because those giving the money have an interest in the outcome of the election. That interest is based on their personal desires for service from the State on their behalf for either protection or predation. What we need in America and Wisconsin is less political society and more civil society. I just wish the current trend was in that direction.

Posted by: John Washburn

Comment by Jack Lohman on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (Jack Lohman) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:12:14 GMT

Apparently Donal doesn't understand the effects of money. Campaign money is absolutely needed, and the best way to get a lot of it is to give away taxpayer assets in return. Until you get the private money out of the system it will work the same way every time. Money keeps challengers out of the race, so the more money the fewer the challengers. Zero based budgeting? Oh, you want promises instead.

Posted by: Jack Lohman

Comment by Bob Dohnal on "Comparing the Candidates - Government Reform"

suppressed@unknown.org (Bob Dohnal) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:40:34 GMT

Zero based budgeting was the slogan Jack Olson used in his run for governor in 1970. big Deal, everyone talks about it but doesn't happen. The only thing that would work is to figure out accurately how much money is going to come in the next biennium, then list spending by priorities as Washington state did. Cut off everything else after the funds run out. Works perfectly every time.

Posted by: Bob Dohnal