# Bring your video camera to your town hall



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative. 

This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 7, 2009)

Its time to face facts.  There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us.  One that will take decades to undo.

By all Means everyone.  Please do bring a video camera and be sure to record the ENTIRE town hall meeting.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Its time to face facts.  There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us.  One that will take decades to undo.


Great: they can ask questions at the town halls like civilized people.


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Its time to face facts. There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us. One that will take decades to undo.
> 
> By all Means everyone. Please do bring a video camera and be sure to record the ENTIRE town hall meeting.


 
I would like to see the whole event, too.

Everything I've seen so far amounts to people chanting so that the Representatives never gt a chance to answer the questions hurled at them.

I doubt that's the whole story, but that seems to be all that we're being shown.


----------



## Vel (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Its time to face facts.  There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us.  One that will take decades to undo.
> ...




 Most the video's I've seen of town halls have been quite civilized up to the point the politician opens their mouth to lie, spin or deflect. People have had enough of some asshole standing there lying to their faces and expecting them to stand there politely and listen.


----------



## MalibuMan (Aug 7, 2009)

Has The Left Suddenly Lost Its Appetite For Rowdy Protests?

Seems a little hypocritical for the left to bitch about it now.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

Unfortunitly the representatives are using stalling tactics  like Obama, long non answer answers and laborious talking points , to eat up all of the alloted time.
Then when and if they take a question they lie , all bets are off.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 7, 2009)

> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



Hate to offend you but in a free democratic society, there is something called Freedom of Speech.  The people there protesting have every right in the world to be there and doing just that - voicing their extreme displeasure to a government that has lost all track of what the people in America really want.  That is the truth and not spin when questions are asked.  No bait and switch tactics that seem to be quite popular with the way this health care bill is being presented.  Mostly people want a representative that actually cares about what they want as a voter that put them in office.  What you don't seem to remember is the liberals shouting down people who were around to give a speech that didn't seem to fit their agenda.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Sorry you have a difficult time understanding Freedom of Speech as defined in the Constitution.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Its time to face facts.  There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us.  One that will take decades to undo.
> ...


You mean civilized like code pink or the dozens of other disruptive liberal groups out there?

They did ask questions like civilized people.  When they were lied to, they became very irate.  Just like civilized people do when they are faced with a government that they own lying to them.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 7, 2009)

editec said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Its time to face facts. There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us. One that will take decades to undo.
> ...


Well, I've seen at least two videos that showed people very emotionally, but quetly, asking questions and then listening to answers.  It is only AFTER the answer is given that it starts to get out of control.  But that is not all that unreasonable when people are being lied to.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street...

Richard Nixon


I so love it when Democrats agree with republicans and abandon their  principles top suit their  ambitions.  Let's be honest here Centerist, your a democrat,  you don't have to be afraid to admit it , heck I'm not afriad to admit I'm a republican. Anyway back to your posting, for years your party has basically been the champion of the 1st Amendment and now when you see people exercising theirs, simply because you happen to disagree with them you advocate  for the FBI, or  camera's to turn them in. I would have never thought democrats were so firmly on the side of Nixon. I will remind you of a little quote for Al Gore. when it comes to this,

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration." Al Gore

So then what you basically saying is this, as long as it's something your agree with thats fine, but if it's something you disagree with it bring your camera's and turn them in to the FBI?  Will given that, perhaps  I will begin to apply this standard next time I see a SEIU,EDF, UAW, CAP, ACRON, et al.  protest at any event and make a call for people to bring their cameras.  No offense  centerist but seriously, this is a matter of people exercsing their constitutional rights  and the very first one I might add.  If the people that host these events  see the crowds as  acting in a disruptive manner then it is up to them to eject those that are acting that way as has been the standard practice for all the so called "mobs" that have attended the house hearings in favor of Govt. mandated healthcare.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 7, 2009)

I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.

They want to be able to silence those who oppose them in any manner they deem fit and then hide behind the Constitution, but when the tables are turned, they are little kids stomping their feet yelling, "Quit it, quit it right now!"


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 7, 2009)

It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.

Welcome to the protest rally!  The last bastion of people being run over by the government.  Sucks,  doesn't it?

You're going to want to find a bail bondsman and keep the ACLUs number handy.  Cops are ruthless with protesters.  We're going to be calling you in to the cops every chance we get.  Not because we think protesting is wrong,  but because we think it's fair that the right also gets it's fair share of abuse.  Finally.  Enjoy the protest and the free ride in the police car.  Remember to keep firm pressure where ever the blood is spurting from.  

Don't bend over to pick up the soap.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Unfortunitly the representatives are using stalling tactics  like Obama, long non answer answers and laborious talking points , to eat up all of the alloted time.
> Then when and if they take a question they lie , all bets are off.


When you think your representative is lying, even if you're correct, it still doesn't entitle you to rob your neighbors of the right to ask their own questions. 

Take the conversation transcript to your local newspaper or TV station and point out where the lies are. They'll cover it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunitly the representatives are using stalling tactics  like Obama, long non answer answers and laborious talking points , to eat up all of the alloted time.
> ...



Fox might.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 7, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.
> 
> They want to be able to silence those who oppose them in any manner they deem fit and then hide behind the Constitution, but when the tables are turned, they are little kids stomping their feet yelling, "Quit it, quit it right now!"


...as in the "Fairness Doctrine", Nancy's attempt to close off debate by turning out the lights.  One of the problems we have with government today is the liberals running with their lights off.  They don't want to play by the rules.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.
> 
> Welcome to the protest rally!  The last bastion of people being run over by the government.  Sucks,  doesn't it?
> 
> ...



How many times have you been arrested @ protests?
Date and location please.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I so love it when Democrats agree with republicans and abandon their  principles top suit their  ambitions.  Let's be honest here Centerist, your a democrat,  you don't have to be afraid to admit it , heck I'm not afriad to admit I'm a republican.


Nope. You got it wrong.  (Well, sort of.)

FTR, I *was *a Democrat for most of my adult life until a few years ago, when I became completely disgusted with the party for a variety of reasons. And, as I've said elsewhere on this forum, I'm currently a registered Republican, although I still nearly always vote for the Democratic candidate. Only because their positions are closer to my own. 



> Anyway back to your posting, for years your party has basically been the champion of the 1st Amendment and now when you see people exercising theirs, simply because you happen to disagree with them you advocate  for the FBI, or  camera's to turn them in.


Willfully preventing your neighbors from speaking with their representative in Congress is not a First Amendment issue, any more than yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I'm very sure you know this, Navy, so you can drop that particular pretense. 



> Will given that, perhaps  I will begin to apply this standard next time I see a SEIU,EDF, UAW, CAP, ACRON, et al.  protest at any event and make a call for people to bring their cameras.


Knock yourself out. Groups that don't respect the fact that free speech doesn't mean you can gather anywhere to yell should face the consequences.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.
> ...




Twice.  They held me in Charlotte for 3 hours in a cruiser and finally charged me with JAYWALKING.  In Atlanta I was arrested for disorderly/disturbing with three others.  We went to get gatorade for everyone and one of the girls had her little sign with her.  That was a no, no outside of the desiganted protest area.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...


Well good for you causing quite a ruckus.


----------



## Vel (Aug 7, 2009)

Ok. I have to ask. Why would you register as a republican if you almost always vote for the Democrat? Do you feel you just have to belong to a group? Independence a little scary for you?


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I so love it when Democrats agree with republicans and abandon their  principles top suit their  ambitions.  Let's be honest here Centerist, your a democrat,  you don't have to be afraid to admit it , heck I'm not afriad to admit I'm a republican.
> ...





*The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent* Holmes


It would seem that many have taken this  yelling fire  quote a little  to far. These people  don't represent a clear and present danger in any way shape or form other than what people who disagree with their position  may think it does.  So , what that leaves is the townhalls themselves. and my original statement and that is if  the people that run these events see the crowds as being out of control then it is up to them to control those that they deem to be out of control and not to supress free speech because they don't happen to agree with it.  The 1st Amendment is a very very broad right and Holmes if quite correct , in that if a person were at these meetings advocating physical harm or their actions were to cause physical harm then that is not covered under the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Newby (Aug 7, 2009)

They must have all gotten the same lefite talking points memo, they're all stating the exact same things using the exact same phrases.  Hilarious.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...




Yeah,  crossing the street and walking to the C store is a real crime.  

I encourage each of you righties to head on out to the demonstrations.  It's an experience everyone should have.  And if you don't get arrested,  just keep up your attendance.  It'll happen for you.


----------



## Newby (Aug 7, 2009)

I think the lefties are jealous, they thought they owned the all the rights to protesting.  I think it's great that the silent majority is finally waking up.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 7, 2009)

editec said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Its time to face facts. There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us. One that will take decades to undo.
> ...


I haven't seen any footage that didn't include people screaming down the person hosting the town hall. The one from last night in Tampa was the worst yet, I'm surprised the woman didn't just leave immediately.

Those that weren't screeching were filming, I'm sure there are versions all over the internet.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Vel6377 said:


> Ok. I have to ask. Why would you register as a republican if you almost always vote for the Democrat?


So that I can vote in the primaries. That's pretty much it.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> It would seem that many have taken this  yelling fire  quote a little  to far. These people  don't represent a clear and present danger in any way shape or form...


It doesn't matter. They can still be arrested for disturbing the peace. 



> The use of the human voice to disturb others by the mere volume of the sound when there is no substantial effort to communicate or when the seeming communication is used as a guise to accomplish the disruption may be prohibited consistent with First Amendment guarantees.


Source


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...


Oh I got to protests and local political meetings .I just don't get arrested for some reason.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > It would seem that many have taken this  yelling fire  quote a little  to far. These people  don't represent a clear and present danger in any way shape or form...
> ...



*We are satisfied that loud shouting and cheering constitute the loud 'noise' prohibited by section 415 only in two situations: 1) where there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence and 2) where the purported communication is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors."  9 Cal. 3d 612, 621 (1973) (quoting Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949).*


Again citation of the Holmes opinion of clear and present danger, and that last is  subjective and is a very high burden of proof.  So in this case in Calfornia if there is a clear and present danger presented by this shouting and cheering then it would not be premitted  i.e. harm to persons and secondly if there was a mass conspiracy to on the part of those engaged in such behavior to do so.  If you applied this Ca. statue as you wished then even football games and sporting events would be subject to it's limitations.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 7, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.
> 
> Welcome to the protest rally!  The last bastion of people being run over by the government.  Sucks,  doesn't it?
> 
> ...



The place I used to work was across the street from the Federal Building.  I used to see  protests all the time. The cops are usually pretty easy on most kinds of street theater, but folks who throw things, break things, climb onto public structures etc usually get their exasperated attention.   Yelling and whatever won't get you much trouble, but felonious assault will.    It is worth noting that the 0bama people were the ones arrested for assault in St. Louis.


----------



## Vel (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Vel6377 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. I have to ask. Why would you register as a republican if you almost always vote for the Democrat?
> ...




So in actuality you are a Democrat.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Vel6377 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Vel6377 said:
> ...



Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## eagleseven (Aug 7, 2009)

Vel6377 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Vel6377 said:
> ...



He's the most left-leaning "centrist" you will find on this board.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Vel6377 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


Leaning? Im pretty sure he has fallen over and cant get up.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Now even conservative newspapers are running editorials about how disgusted they are with the town hall thugs. No wonder all you can do is make a pathetic effort to point fingers at me.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Vel6377 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. I have to ask. Why would you register as a republican if you almost always vote for the Democrat?
> ...


And so that you can do as much harm as possible with your single vote?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Vel6377 said:
> ...


If you want to consider supporting the most centrist candidate as "doing harm," then sure.


----------



## Vel (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Now even conservative newspapers are running editorials about how disgusted they are with the town hall thugs. No wonder all you can do is make a pathetic effort to point fingers at me.





So far the only "thugs" showing up at events seem to be Obama supporting union thugs and the MSM. At least those are the ones that were arrest worthy.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Vel6377 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Now even conservative newspapers are running editorials about how disgusted they are with the town hall thugs. No wonder all you can do is make a pathetic effort to point fingers at me.
> ...


In your perception, perhaps, but in the last few posts on this thread you've made it obvious how warped _*that *_is. 

Here's a snippet from an editorial out of Napa, where their opinion writers are easily as far to the right as those on the Wall Street Journal: 



> Monday nights health care forum in Napa grew unruly and wild, with some critics of the current health care proposals seeking to derail the event, harming their cause and nearly destroying a meaningful forum on a critical topic for Napa and the nation.
> 
> The display was unwelcome  and unsuccessful if it was meant to move health care reform supporters toward considering the concerns of the critics. Several callers to the Register on Tuesday reported they were repulsed by the aggressive tactics of some members of the crowd.
> To the degree the catcalls, chants and shouts were organized  and it appears from events around the country that they were  we strongly suggest that the organizers find more constructive ways to get their message out.
> ...


Source


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 7, 2009)

There was no violence until the Obamathugs showed up.  Lots of angry people, but beating up people who dared question the authorities is what is new here.

The left goes on forever about the 'jackboot' policies of the the right.  But this kind of thing is a return to the bad old days of Bull Conner and the Klan.    It is bad enough that the bill is stupid, but it is worse that the citizens are being terrorized into this.

This is one very important place where dissent is patriotic.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> There was no violence until the Obamathugs showed up.  Lots of angry people, but beating up people who dared question the authorities is what is new here.
> 
> The left goes on forever about the 'jackboot' policies of the the right.  But this kind of thing is a return to the bad old days of Bull Conner and the Klan.    It is bad enough that the bill is stupid, but it is worse that the citizens are being terrorized into this.


They're being terrorized BECAUSE of what the right is doing, not in spite of it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2009)

editec said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Its time to face facts. There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us. One that will take decades to undo.
> ...



From all that I have seen, that is the story. A bunch of people preventing Representatives from speaking to their constituants. I think that not only do we need to videotape and identify these people, but also check to see if they live in the district that they are protesting in. I would be willing to bet that we see the same old faces coming up in many districts, which, of course, indicates organized interferance with the citizens of that districts right to communicate with their representative.


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...




We might also see party operatives claiming themselves to be unaffiliated concerned citizens, too.


----------



## Soaring (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Bullshit.  These protesters aren't going to travel around from city to city to protest at these townhall meetings.  Wake up and smell the roses.  Our nation is under seige right now with the Obama administration causing a tremendous tax to be placed on America's population for left wing socialistic programs that will and have cost the tax payers a ton of money that will not be paid off in the next 10 years, but will never be paid off.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Bullshit.  These protesters aren't going to travel around from city to city to protest at these townhall meetings.  Wake up and smell the roses.  Our nation is under seige right now with the Obama administration causing a tremendous tax to be placed on America's population for left wing socialistic programs that will and have cost the tax payers a ton of money that will not be paid off in the next 10 years, but will never be paid off.



Is that what the chain emails are saying these days?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2009)

Who said it:

"...take it to both the local authorities.... We can't tolerate this kind of activity (speaking in public at a town hall) in a free, democratic society."

A. KKK Grand Kleagle
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Fidel Castro
D. Napoleon from "Animal Farm"
E. A NeoMarxist


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 7, 2009)

Vel6377 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Vel6377 said:
> ...



Maybe if he asks the mods nicely they'll change his handle to Liberalism'sVoice...


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 7, 2009)

You can watch the videos and say that?

The fundamental problem of politics is to face the truth, even if it is something you don't like.   The whole point of democracy is not that the answers are wise, or best or whatever, but that the people make the deciosns for themselves.    If you can watch those videos and not be appalled at the attitude of the AARP and the SEIU goons, at the attitude of imperial entitlement of the concrescritters then you defeat your own cause.  

Lots of people have lots of reasons for not liking this plan.  It is expensive and buercratic and seems to bottom pick all the worse features of the Canadian and French systems, with Kafkayeske soviet extravagances plus a great deal of ego driven stupidity that is uniquely american.  There are dozens of better models of government health care, but this plan seems to look for the worse possible.

The first and foremost rule in any kind of health care is do no harm.   You don't rush into wrong.  it is fatal even if you are lucky.

I just tell you right now, that be careful for what you wish for, you may get it.  And from the experience of Canada and France, you will regret it.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


so, you are one that crossed over to vote for McCain then voted for Obama


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > There was no violence until the Obamathugs showed up.  Lots of angry people, but beating up people who dared question the authorities is what is new here.
> ...


bullshit


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


ah, so the conservatives have learned from the liberals


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.  These protesters aren't going to travel around from city to city to protest at these townhall meetings.  Wake up and smell the roses.  Our nation is under seige right now with the Obama administration causing a tremendous tax to be placed on America's population for left wing socialistic programs that will and have cost the tax payers a ton of money that will not be paid off in the next 10 years, but will never be paid off.
> ...


yet another lying meme from the left


----------



## Ravi (Aug 7, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> There was no violence until the Obamathugs showed up.  Lots of angry people, but beating up people who dared question the authorities is what is new here.
> 
> The left goes on forever about the 'jackboot' policies of the the right.  But this kind of thing is a return to the bad old days of Bull Conner and the Klan.    It is bad enough that the bill is stupid, but it is worse that the citizens are being terrorized into this.
> 
> This is one very important place where dissent is patriotic.


uh huh... the Dems are terrorizing people, are they? They are the ones that are lying about killing old people and claiming the health care bill will kill babies?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 7, 2009)

The health care bill was going to pay for abortion.   That has been dropped.

The experience of Canada and France and england is such that euthanizing oldsters by neglect is a legitimate worry.   French authorities seem to work for rock bottom morals and dig deeper every year, so we can assume that if it happened in France, we will get the same from 0bamacare.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 7, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> The health care bill was going to pay for abortion.   That has been dropped.
> 
> The experience of Canada and France and england is such that euthanizing oldsters by neglect is a legitimate worry.   French authorities seem to work for rock bottom morals and dig deeper every year, so we can assume that if it happened in France, we will get the same from 0bamacare.


No it wasn't. There is a law that's been around for years that forbids the feds paying for abortion. I think it is a stupid law...but it exists.

The rest of your post is idiotic bullshit designed to frighten people.


----------



## jillian (Aug 7, 2009)

Newby said:


> I think the lefties are jealous, they thought they owned the all the rights to protesting.  I think it's great that the silent majority is finally waking up.



silent majority?

lol...

yah...they just didn't go out to vote and let the democratic candidate get 365 electoral votes.


----------



## jillian (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Is that what the chain emails are saying these days?



basically....


----------



## Missourian (Aug 7, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > The health care bill was going to pay for abortion. That has been dropped.
> ...


 
Uhh...that's technically true but not entirely accurate, Ravi.

What you are referring to is the Hyde Amendment, which has been the law since 1976, *but must be voted on and passed annually* as part of the yearly appropriations bill for medicaid to remain in force. 

Therefore it could easily not be the law at any time.

EDIT -  Plus the Hyde Amendment only applies to medicare.

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 7, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > The health care bill was going to pay for abortion.   That has been dropped.
> ...



As I noted, the abortion provision has been pulled.  It was in the bill.

As for the other, we do have the history of how Canada, France, and England operate.  The problem is systemic.   Further we have the example of France and Russia, where most of the  AIDS cases were spread by government ineptitude, corruption and cheeseparing.

We can look to what has happened, and does happen.  Just putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la la" does not change the reality of how the plan would function.   

You get what you want, you will regret it.  That is cool, stupid has consequences.   But you  will make me have regrets too.  And that is evil


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



More "we had to destroy the village to save it" bullshit.

Here's a clue, if the policies won't stand up to some scrutiny and protests about it, it's probably not a policy worth having. If it's a policy where you have to report protestors to the FBI in order to silence the opposition to the policy, it DEFINITELY is not a policy worth having.

I know I'm not the first to observe this, but you are in no way centrist. So since your very name is a lie, its kinda hard to believe anything that comes out of your keyboard.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 7, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...


I see, so *you *want to deprive *me *of the right to speak in person with my own congressman (even if you don't live in the same district), just because some Karl Rove wannabe lit a match inside your anal cavity and you fell for it. Talk about wanting to destroy the village to save it: you've just become the new poster child for the concept.

And FYI, the centrist label comes not only from me, but from others who have known me for years, pal. It comes from the fact that I unapologetically side with the left on some issues, and with the right on some others. If that's not "centrist enough" for you, or for the partisan idiots who assume I'm against them if I'm not 100% with them, I honestly don't give a shit. 

What's worse, however, is that I can tell from your earlier posts that you know much better than to have posted the tripe above. So either you're as much of a liar as you think I am, or (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one), you're just too tired/too drunk/too "whatever" to be thinking straight. So get to bed, or take your meds, or have some coffee, or do some fucking thing. Whatever you do, for God's sake clear your fucked-up head before you hurt yourself or someone else.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Do we need a "who drew first ad homenim blood" poll, to prove yet again  what a faux "centrist" and uncivil debator Centrism'sVoice is??


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


prove any of these people dont live there


----------



## Vel (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...




Hmm. And you were saying about "organized interference"? It's just pissing the left off that the right is adopting their playbook.

****************************************************
For one month, the fight for health insurance reform leaves the backrooms of Washington, D.C., and returns to communities across America. Throughout August, members of Congress are back home, where the hands they shake and the voices they hear will not belong to lobbyists, but to people like you.
August is a crucial time to show Congress where the people stand. That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.
Can you commit to attend at least one event in your community
this month?

Organizing for America | Commit to Attend An Event in August


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:
			
		

> So either you're as much of a liar as you think I am, or (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one), you're just too tired/too drunk/too "whatever" to be thinking straight. So get to bed, or take your meds, or have some coffee, or do some fucking thing. Whatever you do, for God's sake clear your fucked-up head before you hurt yourself or someone else.



More "reasoned" and "factual" argumentation from USMB's most disingenuous fraud. 

Dontcha wonder when he's gonna put himself on iggy??


----------



## Barb (Aug 7, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.
> 
> They want to be able to silence those who oppose them in any manner they deem fit and then hide behind the Constitution, but when the tables are turned, they are little kids stomping their feet yelling, "Quit it, quit it right now!"



 Yeah, cause comparatively, your first amendment rights are so violated. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBAYTpTJXrQ]YouTube - PROTEST: BYU Shuts Down "Free Speech Zone"[/ame]


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 7, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



The faith some of you place in our "elected leaders" and in big government as a whole truly astounds me.  It's like a religion to you.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...



It's frightening and disheartening. I fear for our country more now than ever before.


----------



## Xenophon (Aug 8, 2009)

The opening post reminds me on 1968, Chicago Mayor Daily wanting the FBI to film protestors to teach them a lesson.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> The opening post reminds me on 1968, Chicago Mayor Daily wanting the FBI to film protestors to teach them a lesson.


wow, that really backfired on him, didnt it


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I see, so *you *want to deprive *me *of the right to speak in person with my own congressman (even if you don't live in the same district),



Nope. And that wasn't even a good attempt at lying there partner. If yer going to lie about what someone says, you need to wait a few posts and then tell the lie about a post they made a few pages back. Yer pretty stupid to tell a lie about a post that's immediately above the one you make. I guess no one's ever accused you of having any brains though, so I guess thats OK.



Centrism'sVoice said:


> And FYI, the centrist label comes not only from me, but from others who have known me for years, pal.



Hey sparky, just cuz you're not as far left as the people you hang out with does not mean that you are centrist. Just so ya know. Michael Moore isn't as far to the left as Mao and Stalin, but Centrist he ain't. So you're either too dumb to realize this, or you're too much of a chicken-shit to declare what you really are. 



Centrism'sVoice said:


> What's worse, however, is that I can tell from your earlier posts that you know much better than to have posted the tripe above.



So now it's "tripe" to oppose the FBI being called to silence public opposition to elected representatives positions? You may not be as far to the left as Mao and Stalin, but you ain't far off there pal. And too damn bad if you get your panties in a wad over what I post. You better get used to the feeling of them in a wad if you're going to advocate police-state tactics in order to silence opposition.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...


And what's the alternative, genius?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > And FYI, the centrist label comes not only from me, but from others who have known me for years, pal.
> ...


Talk about dumb: I just finished telling you that I don't give a shit about your opinion of my ideology. And yet here you are obsessing about it.



			
				RadioRetard said:
			
		

> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > What's worse, however, is that I can tell from your earlier posts that you know much better than to have posted the tripe above.
> ...


God you're dense. Disturbing the peace is illegal and you know it. That's what's behind calling in the local law or the feds, not "silencing public opposition." I don't condone protestors breaking laws, and it doesn't matter to me which side they're on. 

Now please stay away from electrical sockets and heavy machinery until you've detoxed.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Talk about dumb: I just finished telling you that I don't give a shit about your opinion of my ideology. And yet here you are obsessing about it.



Obsessing? No, not really. I just enjoy pointing out your dishonesty for the world to see. It has zero to do with your ideology. If it had to do with liberalism, I'd be taking umbrage with roughly half the board. So a swing and a miss from you there. Strike 1.



Centrism'sVoice said:


> God you're dense. Disturbing the peace is illegal and you know it. That's what's behind calling in the local law or the feds, not "silencing public opposition." I don't condone protestors breaking laws, and it doesn't matter to me which side they're on.



Disturbing the peace is illegal...and yet they're not being hauled off to jail. Therefore the police present at these events do not see any evidence of illegal activity. So swing and a miss, strike 2.

And calling the feds? Disturbing the peace is not a federal crime. So you wanting people to turn protestors in to the FBI has zero to do with whatever dishonest concern you have for people "disturbing the peace". No, you wish to silence the opposition using tried and true tactics of dictators worldwide and throughout history. So, you lied again, and you know it. Swing and miss, strike 3.

You're out.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

Don't quit your "day" job: you'd be fired as an umpire after your first game.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Don't quit your "day" job: you'd be fired as an umpire after your first game.


you just keep proving what a fucking moron you are
please do continue


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



That is a very good idea.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Don't quit your "day" job: you'd be fired as an umpire after your first game.



No rebuttal.

You lose without even getting a runner on base.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


go for it
if its outsiders then i'll be with ya that they should be removed and only locals allowed in

maybe they should have a voter registration card with them and photo id 
oh wait, you guys were all against that


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Don't quit your "day" job: you'd be fired as an umpire after your first game.
> ...


You lost pages ago. The fact that you're in denial is not my problem.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nya nya nya I don't hear yoooouuu" and then declaring victory does not, in fact, make you victorious.

Just thought you would like to know that little factoid.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


he doing a lot of projection lately


----------



## Soaring (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


Hey, Centrism.  Who is that spoiled brat idiot you have posted in your avatar?  If that person represents you and your thoughts, then you ought to be taken out and shot.  What a ridiculous looking spoiled brad left wing idiot that picture represents.  No wonder you are shunned on this board.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


you want people shot based only on how they look???


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

Soaring said:


> No wonder you are shunned on this board.


"Shunned?" What are you, Amish? 

The fact that hard core partisans on this thread are spending so much time attacking the messenger and zero time attacking the message speaks for itself. Keep it up, Foxbots.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

More like you ran out of ways to defend your indefensible position.

But, whatever. Like I said, we've become used to you sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and going "nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa I don't hear yooooouuu" and then declaring victory.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> More like you ran out of ways to defend your indefensible position.
> 
> But, whatever. Like I said, we've become used to you sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and going "nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa I don't hear yooooouuu" and then declaring victory.


he likely has the longest ignore list of anyone on the forum
LOL


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > More like you ran out of ways to defend your indefensible position.
> ...



He actually puts people on ignore?

Are they trolls?


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder you are shunned on this board.
> ...


And we've all seen how far above such behavior you are, haven't we??


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


last i knew, i was on his ignore, on the first exchange we had
same for dude
now i will admit, i'm an asshole and dont mix my words
but damn, dude is about as easy going as they come


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



*Shrug*

I'll let him explain his reasoning for using the ignore feature and who he puts on ignore.  I try to let people speak for themselves in areas where I do not have a first-hand exchange with the poster. Its a courtesy I would expect to be extended to myself, so I have to do the same.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.
> 
> Welcome to the protest rally!  The last bastion of people being run over by the government.  Sucks,  doesn't it?
> 
> ...



yea right....lots of cops dont care for the plan either...


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> last i knew, i was on his ignore, on the first exchange we had
> same for dude
> now i will admit, i'm an asshole and dont mix my words
> but damn, dude is about as easy going as they come


I got put on iggy for having the temerity of having a different opinion of the vastness and wastefullness of Fornicalia's welfare/nanny state.

His is the thinnest skin I've ever encountered.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 8, 2009)

Cowards put you on ignore.

These are the cowards that have me on ignore: xsited1, Cesspool, PP, and Pubic. See the trend?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder you are shunned on this board.
> ...


No surprise you hate fox, Balanced views aren't your cup of tea.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



he just may be the only one not jamed into the club house...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

Those who put actual discussion oriented posters on ignore are nothing but cowards.

Now, I have to say that I have put people on ignore on other boards. Those who simply post things like "N****r" or "Jews must die" over and over and over again in different ways and do not have any meaningful discussion, heated or not. It's one of the reasons I came to this board. I used to post on AWE, and that place was just rife with topics being posted like "N*****s did (fill in the blank)" or "Jews control (fill in the blank)". They had zero moderation, and my ignore list had grown super large there. And soon it became pointless to post at all on AWE. It resembled a stormfront or Al Jazeera site. I bailed from there when someone came over there and was complaining how they had gotten banned from here. I figured that I would give this place a try since it obviously has some sort of moderation, and here I am.

Short version, I only ignore spammers and neo-nazi's.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Those who put actual discussion oriented posters on ignore are nothing but cowards.
> 
> Now, I have to say that I have put people on ignore on other boards. Those who simply post things like "N****r" or "Jews must die" over and over and over again in different ways and do not have any meaningful discussion, heated or not. It's one of the reasons I came to this board. I used to post on AWE, and that place was just rife with topics being posted like "N*****s did (fill in the blank)" or "Jews control (fill in the blank)". They had zero moderation, and my ignore list had grown super large there. And soon it became pointless to post at all on AWE. It resembled a stormfront or Al Jazeera site. I bailed from there when someone came over there and was complaining how they had gotten banned from here. I figured that I would give this place a try since it obviously has some sort of moderation, and here I am.
> 
> Short version, I only ignore spammers and neo-nazi's.


spammers dont last long here
but we do have more than our share of racists
they tend to let themselves be known quite easily


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Those who put actual discussion oriented posters on ignore are nothing but cowards.
> ...



I know spammers get gone, which is nice. But the racists on here such as Bass don't hold a candle to those who are AWE. Those guys are truly committed neo-nazi's.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



your opinion Sqigmont....anyone who wants to get the FBI involved in someone getting loud at a town hall meeting AINT NO CENTRIST....pussy is a better word....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



hey the guy might be a fraud but shooting him is way out of line Dude.....


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


well, we have a few of those too
and bass isnt as bad as they are
like willian joyce and pete
and a few others i forget "off the top"

then we have the nutters like the troofers that think everything is a conspiracy
then there are those otherwise rathional people that are obsessed with Obama's birth cert(birfers)

its quite a mixxed bag here
but thats part of what makes this place great


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder you are shunned on this board.
> ...



were attacking you because your no Centrist....and anyone who puts someone on IGNORE for calling them an ass or another expletive deserves to be ridiculed...and you did this on your 6th post....


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



They may be bad, but they still can't hold a candle to the neonazi's on AWE.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > last i knew, i was on his ignore, on the first exchange we had
> ...



post no 6....


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


never been to "AWE" so i cant tell
but then i dont tend to enjoy a place that would be like stormfront either


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I didn't enjoy it either, which is why I left. Previously had posted on Yahoo's Coultervakia until Yahoo took down their message boards associated with news stories.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> I'll let him explain his reasoning for using the ignore feature and who he puts on ignore.  I try to let people speak for themselves in areas where I do not have a first-hand exchange with the poster.


Most of the people I have on ignore (and the total is less than 10, I'm sure) are more interested in slinging turds than in actually defending a position on an issue. I have a couple of other criteria; if you actually care, PM me and I'll tell you what they are.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let him explain his reasoning for using the ignore feature and who he puts on ignore. I try to let people speak for themselves in areas where I do not have a first-hand exchange with the poster.
> ...


 *cough*BULLSHIT*cough*


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let him explain his reasoning for using the ignore feature and who he puts on ignore.  I try to let people speak for themselves in areas where I do not have a first-hand exchange with the poster.
> ...



No, it's OK. I really don't care that much.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 8, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



i counted 10 before he had 30 posts....the guys full of shit....


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let him explain his reasoning for using the ignore feature and who he puts on ignore.  I try to let people speak for themselves in areas where I do not have a first-hand exchange with the poster.
> ...


Really? your defense of positions are just idiotic shift sands 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 This is a gold platted turd I'm throwing here. 
What do I have to do to join the club?


----------



## Coyote (Aug 8, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.
> 
> They want to be able to silence those who oppose them in any manner they deem fit and then hide behind the Constitution, but when the tables are turned, they are little kids stomping their feet yelling, "Quit it, quit it right now!"



I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let him explain his reasoning for using the ignore feature and who he puts on ignore.  I try to let people speak for themselves in areas where I do not have a first-hand exchange with the poster.
> ...



...pants on fire.....


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 8, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.
> ...



I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


thats because it doesnt exist


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
> Haven't read that anywhere.


You are demonstrably a big fan of "free speech zones," Dilly. By your logic, that's exactly where the people disrupting these meetings belong.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 8, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Really? your defense of positions are just idiotic shift sands
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just ask me to add you to the list.  
That's what the Meister baiter did...


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
> ...


thats not what he said, dipshit


----------



## Coyote (Aug 8, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



That's because it's in the same category as "your right to free speech stops when it effects someone else's rights".  Like my right to free speech which can't be exercised when you are yelling loud enough to drown it out.

I guess some folks believe that only they (the loudest) have the right to free speech.

Keep making excuses.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
> ...



You're a phony douchebagge.

The bad news is that you're not the only one here.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Really? your defense of positions are just idiotic shift sands
> ...


btw, dipshit, your sig is a lie
you havent taught anyone
you're too fucking stupid


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Coyote said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


thats not what i saw happening


----------



## Coyote (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



That is certainly what was happening in many of those videos posted.

It's rude and frankly selfish for those who wanted to hear their representatives answers to the questions.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Oh I understand the problem--I think the Constitution neglected to address our right to hear. Sorta like politicians neglect promises to be transparent.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


no, what it was was congress people NOT listening
they tried to use their double talking bullshit, only NO ONE was buying it


----------



## Ravi (Aug 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


We fought a war over the right to be represented...so yes, we have a right to be heard by our reps and to hear our reps.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


wrong again, moron


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 9, 2009)

The right to hear?

I don't remember seeing that one in the constitution anywhere. While I sympathize with the position, claiming that it is a part of the freedom is speech is downright wrong. Unless SCOTUS has ruled on such? The freedom to hear as part of a free speech case, not disturbing the peace or such.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



NeoMarxists Constitution 2.0

Article 1. Congress shall make atheism the official religion of the State; the right of Representatives to be heard shall not be infringed, so when you meet with a Representative you shall shutteth the fuck up


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

Quote of the day, off Twitter:



> If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, right now he'd be more famous than Rodney King. Al Sharpton would have a whole rack of new suits.
> about 19 hours ago from web
> 
> JTlol
> Jim Treacher


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunitly the representatives are using stalling tactics  like Obama, long non answer answers and laborious talking points , to eat up all of the alloted time.
> ...


Two things.

My neighbor can wait his turn and;

if the local tv or newprint is liberal, they simply wont' cover it.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

> As long as protestors recognize that the criticism they receive for what they say is free speech too. Too often protestors feel as if they have the right to speak freely WITHOUT RESPONSE. If you try to respond to the CONTENT of what they say, they invariably fall back on the pitiful " you're trying to restrict my free speech" mantra. It's pretty lame to not listen to responses when you "protest".




This is what *DilloDuck* had to say about protesters in 2005.  Seems he has changed his stance,  according to who is protesting.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-and-dissent-be-considered-anti-american.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

-CP said:
			
		

> Because you're a moron too, you fail to realize that Conservatives don't go out and "protest" -we have JOBS and no time to do such nonsense...
> 
> And yes, those idiots should be cleansed - put em' out of their own misery...



Nice quote here from 2004 in a conversation about killing war protesters.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-are-the-suicide-bombers-when-ya-need-em.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'



Annie has been running from this quote,  back in 2004.

Annie,  shouldn't you be asking for these health care protesters to be kept in managable areas?  In the interest of the "whole"?


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

-CP said:
			
		

> Because you're a moron too, you fail to realize that Conservatives don't go out and "protest" -we have JOBS and no time to do such nonsense...
> 
> And yes, those idiots should be cleansed - put em' out of their own misery...






			
				Annie said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'





Very interesting, though not surprising.


How times have changed, huh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2009)

Hey, thats's no Fair! Conservatives are protesting without the help of Community Organizers!


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hey, thats's no Fair! Conservatives are protesting without the help of Community Organizers!



No, they just have healthcare industry lobby groups and wingnut orgs like Freedom's Watch helping them out.


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, thats's no Fair! Conservatives are protesting without the help of Community Organizers!
> ...


You've got proof of such? Already have both the administration and SEIU leadership calling for their blue shirts, you know, those that beat up a man?


----------



## Coyote (Aug 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



No, you don't understand it.

I'm not talking about "liberal this" or "conservative that".  I'm not talking about our "right to hear". I'm talking about our right to speak and that implies a subesequent right to be heard that doesn't have to explicitely stated and has nothing to do with partisan politics despite your attempt to make it so with your comment about "transparent" that has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Is free speech a limited right?  Yes.  Your right to "free speech" does not mean you can assault some one in order to "express" yourself does it?

But it is not a right limited to just some people:  those angry or annoyed with the health plan have a right to express their views; the elected representative has a right to express his views or answer questions (sorry to disappoint you but simply because he's a politician does not mean his rights to free speech are nullified) and those who want to hear him and ask their own questions have a right to do so as well.

What is happening in these townhalls is that one group has taken upon themselves the role of "free speech police" by deciding that only their view has the right to be expressed and shouting over anyone else's attempts to speak or get information.

It just amazes me the excuses these "free speech apologists" are making in an attemt to excuse what in any other situation would be rude, intolerable and downright childish tactics of disruption disquised as legitimate "free speech".  No one is telling them they can't express themselves - no matter how you try to spin it - they are just saying that there are proper ways of doing that and if you are going act rude and childish you will be called on it.

It's not about free speech at all - it's about respect for everyone's "right" of free speech in a public meeting.  Not just yours.


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





> *Conservatives for Patients Rights*, the operation thats running a national campaign against a public health care option, is now publicly taking credit for helping gin up the sometimes-rowdy outbursts targeting House Dems at town hall meetings around the country, raising questions about their spontaneity.
> 
> CPR is the group headed by controversial former hospitals exec Rick Scott thats spending millions on ads attacking reform in all sorts of lurid ways, a campaign thats being handled by the same P.R. mavens behind the Swift Boat Vets.
> 
> ...




Anti-Reform Group Takes Credit For Helping Gin Up Town Hall Rallies | The Plum Line


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Can you think of a legal way to enforce anyone's right to be heard ?


----------



## Coyote (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That's purely a matter of personal opinion.  So, what you are saying then is that this group of people is somehow so "special" that their rights of "free speech" supercede everyone elses simply because they are louder and of the correct ideological leaning?  Ideology trumps all else for you when it comes to free speech?  Maybe these rude people should be limited to free speech zones - isn't that what you prefer to do with the angry liberals?  Some angry people have more rights then other angry people?

Bullshit is right.  If I were at one of those meetings I would be hard pressed not to turn around and say - "were you raised in a barn or something?"....or, more likely - a firm, loud "SIT - STAY" and "THAT'LL DO".  Works on dogs....maybe it would work on people.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 9, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



The right to be heard is implicit - otherwise, a person could just be locked in room to have his "free speech" instead of allowed to stand on a public corner or a person's writings can be censured - he's still allowed to write...but the public can't view them.

Legal way to enforce it?  None really.  Public dialogue and open critique of childish and disruptive behavior.  Public ridicule. Worst thing is - it will put a stop to town meetings becuase it's impossible to conduct them when one group decides that they will do anything they can to disrupt them and preventing opposing sides from being heard or the speaker from speaking.  Quit apologizing for rude behavior and condemn it because it's not "genuine" - it's not "spontaneous" - it's using explicitely stated tactics of disruption from organized special interest groups that sponsoring these things.

It amazes me that the same people who condemn the likes of Code  Pink turn completely around and support the same tactics when used by their own.

Does "free speech" have limits?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 9, 2009)

Coyote said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I've never apologized for rude behavior--but when it's intepreted as free speech we're screwed. Catch -22 ya know ?


----------



## Barb (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



 How many times does the answer to that question have to be posted before you stop pretending you haven't seen it? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th



> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> Published: August 6, 2009
> 
> The Town Hall Mob
> ...


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


Following the link to the basis of this story:

Inside The Tea Partiers Anti-Health Care Organizing Campaign | TPMDC

We find that an email was sent listing town hall meetings throughout the country. Ok, that's the norm for the past 12 years or so, regarding meetings, rallies, etc. How many do you go to from the mailing lists you get notifications from? 

Now if I found one that was within a 15 miles distance, that included my representative or one of the senators and I was free, perhaps I'd go. Then again, if Law & Order repeats were on? 

Sorry, this doesn't qualify as an incitement to overthrowing the democracy. That so many are showing up says more about the bills than about the protesters. Now the flip side is why are union workers showing up and out shouting the so called 'mobs.' Several times now I've said that since the Congress people are so upset about 'the mobs' it would be a good idea to check id's and only allow constituents into the meetings, not just registered voters, but any resident.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, thats's no Fair! Conservatives are protesting without the help of Community Organizers!
> ...



Have you actually read the Final Solution Health Care Bill?

When the elderly in this country realize what you have planned for them so that you can insure Illegals and fund abortions you're really going to see protests


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Following the link to the basis of this story:
> 
> Inside The Tea Partiers Anti-Health Care Organizing Campaign | TPMDC
> 
> ...



There was never any mention of this qualifying as "an incitement to overthrowing the democracy". The point was - and still is - that this is not as grassroots as people want to make it out to be. Because bigger orgs like the one run by that crook Rick Scott are helping out.


What about the example Barb just posted, btw?


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You need help.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



I need more ammo


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You need help.
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2009)

"Page 425:

"(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));"; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"Advance Care Planning Consultation

"(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term &#8216;advance care planning consultation&#8217; means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

"(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

"(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

"(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

"(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline"


HealthCare Hotline Operator: How may I help you end your life?


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Following the link to the basis of this story:
> ...



What is your definition of 'grass roots?' As I implied above, for the most part it would be pretty tough to get me to show up at a town hall meeting. However, if I was very concerned about an issue and got a notification that there was a meeting that would be convenient for me, I might go. Are you saying that being informed by some internet site or the Country Demcratic/Republican organization, (yes, I get emails from both), would make my appearance less than 'grass roots'? 

If I sign up for emails from an online organization, that sends the same info to me and I go, is that not 'grass roots?' 

To my way of thinking, if I and 200 of my fellow friends show up at a town hall for a representative of another district, that would be astroturfing.


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



I see your point, but then that means that those of us who wish to counter-protest in favor of HCR aren't less grassroots, either, just because SEIU or other liberal is also supporting these efforts.


Did you ever answer Sweet Willy, btw?


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> But, what I was getting at DK, was that "liberals" are ALWAYS the first to hit the streets and punish everyone within their shouting and rioting range. Conservatives on the other hand DON'T act like that. For the most part, conservatives are much better mannered than any liberal. And THAT should tell you something about liberals.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/11186-the-protests-have-begun-in-n-y.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> But, what I was getting at DK, was that "liberals" are ALWAYS the first to hit the streets and punish everyone within their shouting and rioting range. Conservatives on the other hand DON'T act like that. For the most part, conservatives are much better mannered than any liberal. And THAT should tell you something about liberals.





			
				Annie said:
			
		

> PaleRider, I think it also tells us something about Conservatives, we wish to be perceived as 'more adult.' At the same time, I think we are more 'nuanced' which seems to have taken the place of 'gravitas' for this election cycle.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/11186-the-protests-have-begun-in-n-y.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Gunny said:
			
		

> The right to protest has not been taken away. The desire to protest in a manner that disrupts and infringes on the rights of others not to be bothered by such crap is regulated.
> 
> The reason for protests in the form of physical demonstration is to get attention to some extremist cause by whatever means necessary. As previously stated, those means almost always include infringing on the Rights of others and disrupting the general good order of society.
> 
> You rights end where mine begin.


.http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...the-military-was-protecting-our-freedoms.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Gunny said:
			
		

> You need to re-read what I wrote. I did not say I felt people should not be allowed to protest/physcially demonstrate. *I said I think it's stupid, IMO*. People should be allowed to demonstrate in accordance with the law. That means in a proper forum.
> 
> Blocking a sidewalk/and or the means of entry to a public building or *inconveniencing anyone in any way from having free and unfettered access to said building is creating a disturbance.*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...the-military-was-protecting-our-freedoms.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Gunny said:
			
		

> Where did I state law and order was above freedom? My overall argument is that you consider your freedom and the freedoms of those whose agendas you support are paramount to the freedoms of others; which, is onse-sides, extremist and infirnges on the rights of those who do not agree with your agenda.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...e-military-was-protecting-our-freedoms-2.html


----------



## Ravi (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's pretty funny. No, strike that, it's hysterically funny.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Navy1960 said:
			
		

> It is interesting with the impending election, the number of people that
> have caught the protest fever. I often wonder, where does this come from?
> Does it come from young people wanting to express themsleves? Is it a
> protest culture, taught in the college's from burned out professors yearning
> to relive their by gone day's of the 60's? I have watched many of these protest groups, Code Pink, The RNC Welcoming Committee, just to name a few of the many and it has come to me that many of these people are protesting just for the sake of having something to do? Now while I would never say that they do not have a right to do so. *Tell me why is it that more often than not, these groups shouting for their rights do so at the expense of other's rights?*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Navy1960 said:
			
		

> It's why I said I make a distinction between most democrats and a lot of these groups, I just don't understand this compulsion to protest just for the sake of doing so? It seems to me it's like the new Line Dance Craze or something?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

DilloDuck said:
			
		

> Why is it always liberals ? (PROTESTING)


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election.html


----------



## Ravi (Aug 9, 2009)

Willy, you should start a separate thread and list all these things the wingers have stated... Funniest thread evah!


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



I choose not to answer Silly Willy, because he wants to tie me up to explain how the conservatives got from what I said several years ago to today. Things have changed, more rapidly than even this Chicago girl could imagine. 

As for my response to you, who actually seems able to discuss issues; I think anyone should be able to attend and speak in public forums to their representative, assuming the forum was set up for that purpose. Neither side should be bussing in outsiders, like I said now numerous times, some sort of proof of residing in the district should be required. Not for just some, but all.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Navy1960 said:
			
		

> My point is the mainstreaming though of this protest fever and how its become the thing to do when some don't even know why they are doing it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

DilloDuck said:
			
		

> I agree--it's quite the phenomenon. I guess they are moved and feel like it makes a difference but as you say--some don't even have a clue why they are there. That's a bit scarey--We're they told it was a cool thing to do ?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election.html


----------



## Ravi (Aug 9, 2009)

If Nixon were president he'd instruct the NG to shoot the protesters...isn't that what happened at Kent State?


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

It's going to be tough to pick a winner but this one is top shelf material:





			
				Navy1960 said:
			
		

> While I agree that the right to voice one's dissent peacefully is a given. What about changing it from within? *Do you really think that a congressmen listens to the group of protesters that cause mayhem in a hearing, or the Senator perhaps that is blocked from entering a buliding? Do you think perhaps they look upon them as more of an annoying presence? *While we may disagree on that point I honestly believe that if the same energy and passion that was directed in these protests was directed at , let's say a local candidate for office or perhaps even joining the military think how much we could accomplish?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election-3.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...





What a flake you are Annie.

it is a simple question.  Do you still support sending protesters to managable areas?


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Willy, you should start a separate thread and list all these things the wingers have stated... Funniest thread evah!



I already did.  They all ran and hid and the thread was moved.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

DilloDuck said:
			
		

> Protested? that would have stopped the war ? I don't think so because people have been protesting--I don't think protesting is all that it's cracked up to be. I think you actually have some power or leverage for protests to work.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57710-a-protest-nation-and-an-election-4.html


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

. 





			
				EDITEC said:
			
		

> I used to attend protests to pick up chicks.
> 
> And if I happened to smash the state at the same time, so much the better



This one isn't hypocritical but Ed cracks me up.


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


Willy I'm not going to chase my tail for you, however I will answer this regarding today. I think any group should be able to peacefully assemble in legal areas. I think in light of the pressing matters confronting our country, with many citizens wanting to have their say, town hall meetings or 'announced' public forum meetings with elected representatives should be restricted to their constituents, regardless of their being registered voters or point of view. They should be heard. However, keep out anyone brought in to cause trouble, meaning anyone that doesn't live in the district.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

KMAN said:
			
		

> Funny how you hardly ever hear about Republicans doing this sort of thing... probably because they are working.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/57338-protesters-attack-gop-buses.html


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...


silly willy is too fucking stupid to know the difference between a political party's convention and a town hall meeting


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...




Annie,  in light of the pressing matters that confronted our country in going to WAR,  many citizens wanted to have their say.  You advocated putting them into desiganted protest areas.

Do you now,  as you did then,  advocate protesters being sent to designated protest areas?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 9, 2009)

I love to see "conservatives" abandon their own doctrine of taking responsibility for their actions - and their words.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I love to see "conservatives" abandon their own doctrine of taking responsibility for their actions - and their words.




It is priceless.  

The silence is golden.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I love to see "conservatives" abandon their own doctrine of taking responsibility for their actions - and their words.


Of course they never will. Imagine the horror and anger they'll feel if anyone is arrested for disturbing the peace or interfering with the right of peaceful assembly.

They'll pee their pants and yell fascism.

I sincerely hope none of these idiots are former hippies, how embarrassing.


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...



As I said, not going to be tied down defending years worth of posts from way before you were here. Now perhaps if we can go to the boards' archives that you were associated with at the time...

I've said that times have changed, call me a hypocrite if you like, but thems the cards I'm playing.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...




Ok.  You're a hypocrite.


The times have changed people.  Now that the protest shoe is on the other foot,  Annie wants the rules changed.  

That sound fair enough to everyone?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > I love to see "conservatives" abandon their own doctrine of taking responsibility for their actions - and their words.
> ...


IF someone is actually "disturbing the peace"(a legal term that may not mean what you seem to think it does) then they SHOULD be arrested


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...


nope, you took it out of context
as your usual


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> [. Now perhaps if we can go to the boards' archives that you were associated with at the time...



Straight Dope Message Board - Powered by vBulletin

Have at it.
I don't hide from my values or run scared from my words.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Uh.....do you even know what context is?

No context has been left out.  All quotes have been reproduced exactly and linked to the entire context of the conversation.

You're still a pathetic liar divecon.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> it is a simple question.  Do you still support sending protesters to managable areas?


I doubt she'll ever answer you.

IMO, sending protesters to manageable areas is wrong. As long as the protesters aren't violating someone else's civil rights they shouldn't be corralled.

If they are violating someone else's civil rights, or breaking the law, they should be escorted out.

Pretty simple, really.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...


yes, i know what context means
you are talking her words out of context because she wasnt talking about town hall meetings back then, and you are trying to apply those words TO town hall meetings
THAT is out of context

asshole
and its YOU that is the pathetic fucking LIAR


----------



## Terry (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm waiting for the first person who will put forth a national referendum to allow voters every 4 years to vote if congress deserves a raise, jets, health-care plans, new furniture and so forth.  After all they are SERVANTS, not to themselves but for the people.

Sorry for off topic...I just had to offload that.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Divecon,  Annie has been a vocal critic of protesters on numerous topics,  in different places.  A public sidewalk is a public sidewalk. No one was ever discussing anyone's right to attend a private event uninvited,  at all.  Much less protest.  But the sidealks and streets are public and they have been closed to protest and protesters sent to specific "speech zones".  When Bush and Co. came to town public buildings and grounds were off limits for protesters.  Sent to the zones.

There is no argument,  was no argument for allowing protesters into private events.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> > As long as protestors recognize that the criticism they receive for what they say is free speech too. Too often protestors feel as if they have the right to speak freely WITHOUT RESPONSE. If you try to respond to the CONTENT of what they say, they invariably fall back on the pitiful " you're trying to restrict my free speech" mantra. It's pretty lame to not listen to responses when you "protest".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems to be whats happening now. I mean, the reps seem to think that they have a right to speak without the people responding, and proponents of the reps seem to be falling back the whine "they're restricting our free speech by protesting...wahhhh".

So it looks like dildoduck was correct then, and correct now.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...


btw, i was against the "protest zones" back when the dems were the first to do em
its stupid to limit the protest to a place thats not even close to whats being protested

but you are comparing protesting a private event to a public one


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > > As long as protestors recognize that the criticism they receive for what they say is free speech too. Too often protestors feel as if they have the right to speak freely WITHOUT RESPONSE. If you try to respond to the CONTENT of what they say, they invariably fall back on the pitiful " you're trying to restrict my free speech" mantra. It's pretty lame to not listen to responses when you "protest".
> ...


exactly


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > > As long as protestors recognize that the criticism they receive for what they say is free speech too. Too often protestors feel as if they have the right to speak freely WITHOUT RESPONSE. If you try to respond to the CONTENT of what they say, they invariably fall back on the pitiful " you're trying to restrict my free speech" mantra. It's pretty lame to not listen to responses when you "protest".
> ...





Now that is a beautiful piece of verbal gymnastics!  

But it's bullshit.  Any concerned citizen can show up and participate in the meetings.  

They can not stage an organized,  unpermitted protest at the meeting.  

They can't intentionally disrupt the meetings individually or in groups,  lawfully.  

They can do both of those things but they are subject to arrest for the those actions under almost any disturbing/obstructing ordinance and more specific laws where larger protest are more common.  If any violence were to erupt as a result,  there may be inciting charges.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Now that is a beautiful piece of verbal gymnastics!



Not really. Same principles applied across the board. Didn't require any gymnastics. FWIW, it actually takes some gymnastics to NOT see how the same principles apply.



Sweet Willy said:


> But it's bullshit.  Any concerned citizen can show up and participate in the meetings.



Well, except for the ones that are becoming invite only due to the reps being afraid of standing up for their positions.



Sweet Willy said:


> They can not stage an organized,  unpermitted protest at the meeting.
> 
> They can't intentionally disrupt the meetings individually or in groups,  lawfully.
> 
> They can do both of those things but they are subject to arrest for the those actions under almost any disturbing/obstructing ordinance and more specific laws where larger protest are more common.  If any violence were to erupt as a result,  there may be inciting charges.



Well, since police have not arrested the protestors en masse, that doesn't seem to be an issue. Unless your contention is that the police are witnessing illegal behavior and doing nothing to stop it? You have yet to prove that anything that they are doing is illegal. Simply claiming it as such does not make it so.


----------



## Intense (Aug 9, 2009)

Right Willy, Speak at the meetings if they allow you, if your time is limited pool it or elect a spokes person. Plan ahead ans better secure time to speak. If the powers that be break the faith, take the protest outside.  

Be creative.

Tim MacCormick of New Jersey and fourteen other members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, on the afternoon of December 26, 1971, arrived on Liberty Island by the Circle Line boat along with other tourists. But, when the last return ship to Manhattan sailed that evening, the veterans were not aboard. Instead, just before closing time, they hid among the exhibit partitions, building materials, and storage closets which were lying about the monument's base while work was being finished on the American Museum of Immigration. When NPS personnel made their 7:30 evening check-up of the statue, they found that the veterans had seized control of the landmark and barricaded the three ground floor entrances. The men inside refused to speak to or admit any Park Service people, but on the door they posted a typewritten statement addressed to President Richard M. Nixon:

Each Vietnam veteran who has barricaded himself within this international symbol of liberty has for many years rationalized his attitude to war. . . .We can no longer tolerate the war in Southeast Asia. . . .Mr. Nixon, you set the date [for leaving Vietnam], we'll evacuate. [13] 

On December 27, twenty-one National Park police flew to Liberty Island from Washington where they were joined by New York City police and Coast Guardsmen. These security forces stood by while the government attempted to reach a peaceful compromise with the occupiers. They were told that they would be permitted to picket and protest on the island if they would simply vacate the statue, allowing it to reopen to visitors. The veterans rejected the offer, flew the United States flag upside down from the statue's crown, and waited. Law enforcement officers also waited. During that day thousands of disappointed tourists were told at the Battery that they could not go out to the statue. Congresswoman Bella Abzug (Democrat-New York) sent a telephone message of support to the demonstrators.

Statue of Liberty NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)


----------



## Gunny (Aug 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



Because only YOU and those who agree with you are entitled to free speech?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> > As long as protestors recognize that the criticism they receive for what they say is free speech too. Too often protestors feel as if they have the right to speak freely WITHOUT RESPONSE. If you try to respond to the CONTENT of what they say, they invariably fall back on the pitiful " you're trying to restrict my free speech" mantra. It's pretty lame to not listen to responses when you "protest".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I'd sure like to know how you think that sourced comment is relevant?

I seriously doubt that DD gives a red rats ass what the Left feels about his protests...  and no American could possibly care less what you idiots feel about their right to hold their reps accountable.  You can cry about it all damn day and we'll still be there making our points with little regard for how you feel about it.

Given that the issue is your means to usurp our rights... my position is that you can kiss my ass.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Now that is a beautiful piece of verbal gymnastics!
> ...




Nice side step.  But we're not dancing.

Like I said before ther first head got cracked last week,  protesting is a dangerous business.  Have a little patience.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > > As long as protestors recognize that the criticism they receive for what they say is free speech too. Too often protestors feel as if they have the right to speak freely WITHOUT RESPONSE. If you try to respond to the CONTENT of what they say, they invariably fall back on the pitiful " you're trying to restrict my free speech" mantra. It's pretty lame to not listen to responses when you "protest".
> ...





I salute your honesty.

And screw you too,  my fellow American!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...



No response, huh?


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...





It made next to no sense.  But I'll give it a go.  If you insist.


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



You are correct. Those SEIU folks, along with AFL/CIO folks should be checked to make sure they are really constituents. In any case, they should not be allowed to bully and physically attack real constituents.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...



Still no response.


----------



## Intense (Aug 9, 2009)

City Council Meetings, School Board Meetings, Town Hall Meetings, all have their hang ups, limitations and Rules. They can be extremely bias and restrictive. Those in power tend to see it that way. Try not to loose it, what you do effects those around you. Take the protest out of their jurisdiction. Outside. Thats all. If they refuse to let anyone speak Intensify the effort where they at best have no Jurisdictional advantage. Relate to it like the threat of being held in Contempt Of Court. Willy is actually saving you stitches. Keeping the cost of health care down.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > Now that is a beautiful piece of verbal gymnastics!
> ...


.


----------



## Intense (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...



The Unions are not above being boycotted, should they bring it to that.


----------



## Annie (Aug 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> City Council Meetings, School Board Meetings, Town Hall Meetings, all have their hang ups, limitations and Rules. They can be extremely bias and restrictive. Those in power tend to see it that way. Try not to loose it, what you do effects those around you. Take the protest out of their jurisdiction. Outside. Thats all. If they refuse to let anyone speak Intensify the effort where they at best have no Jurisdictional advantage. Relate to it like the threat of being held in Contempt Of Court. Willy is actually saving you stitches. Keeping the cost of health care down.



All those examples are right on regarding the norm and no response. However, every once in awhile something is afoot that makes folks turn out. Sometimes to those that always are involved, it seems unfair that the 'loud mouths' get the podium, but that is how our system works.


----------



## Soaring (Aug 9, 2009)

If you don't want the populace angry and shouting at public meetings, then don't propose stupid shit like this healthcare program that Obama and his dumbass liberal democrats are pushing.  It's quite obvious that the American people  as a whole don't want it.  Why keep pushing it?  Dumb politics on the part of Comrade Obama.  This healthcare package will be his Waterloo.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...



Again a leftist comes to define holding one's representative accountable for their actions with regard to policy before them that greatly affects their lives as an UNPERMITTED PROTEST...  which DISRUPTS the laying down of nonsensical bullshit designed to decieve the public.

Of course the only violence which has come from ANY of the recent town hall-hall meetings was organized and perpetrated BY THE LEFT!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...



Willy, point of order sir;... there are no Leftist Americans.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet Willy said:
> ...



Your response is a non-sequitor. I'll repeat:


> Seems to be whats happening now. I mean, the reps seem to think that they have a right to speak without the people responding, and proponents of the reps seem to be falling back the whine "they're restricting our free speech by protesting...wahhhh".
> 
> So it looks like dildoduck was correct then, and correct now.






Sweet Willy said:


> Well, except for the ones that are becoming invite only due to the reps being afraid of standing up for their positions.
> 
> *"The ones that are becoming invite"*......I don't understand this at all.  You'll have to clarifyn this thought.



You said that anyone can show up and participate. I responded except for the ones that are becoming invite only. No clarification necessary.



> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > They can not stage an organized,  unpermitted protest at the meeting.
> ...



Fine, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Sweet Willy said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Fine, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.[/QUOTE]

What's the option?

But here's what's going to happen...

Some one end up dead at one of these meetings... and this will of course be a result of 'extreme rightwing Nazis...' which will require *quick action!* and LOTS *MO' POWUH!*  And naturally... the old Town Hall meetings thing... well, dey'done... can't risk it!  OR!  Better yet... COPS! at everyone single one...  Bullet proof glass... LOTS of rules... and rules which basically set aside the means of anyone being able to hold ANY rep or senator accountable to anyone, for anything.

Now that's based upon how the local schoolboard reacting to the public outrage which came as a result of their pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars on all manner of nonsense.  

Now my position is that when you have to put a bullet proof glass between you and those who you're sworn to serve... you're probably doin' it wrong.

What those who are getting high on their own power believe is that their power gives them a RIGHT to screw you anyway they want; when in reality, all power does is give one the MEANS to screw you...  but it does NOTHING to solve the 'what goes around, comes around principle.  And THAT is where the bullet proof glass and the COPS come into play...  

But in the final analysis, the WGACA Principle wins out... Ask King George, Adolf, Horohito, Bubba and Saddam...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 9, 2009)

Annie said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...


There's nothing in those 3 sentences I disagree with. Sorry if I disappointed you.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 9, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...


You obviously have me confused with Publius. Or maybe -Cp.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


??

How do you boycott an union?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.



ROFLMNAO... OH GOD!  Now that's precious!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Im not an advocate of Boycotts, primarily because I think it's a shotgun approach that hurts a lot of people that aren't in play.

But the answer to the question is to identify what function the Union serves and overtly avoid doing business with those companies... and the companies that do business with those companies.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO... Yeah... because PI is so prone to silencing the Left... and how does PI silence the left?  Why he lets them speak and debates their position; points out the fatal flaw in their reasoning and merely notes that those who demonstrate such a feeble means to reason, should never be allowed to vote.  

Essentially, the same thing as letting someone drive and noting that the massive amount of proerty damage demonstrates that they have no business being allowed to drive.

Some would argue that one can't put a price on politcal errors... thus the reasonable judgement of the analogy isn't fair;  I submit the US national debt and the failing feminized culture, as fair evidence of the cost of 50 years of Leftist political errors.

LOL....
.
.
.
.
.
Leftists...


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Except that does not hurt the union.  It hurts businesses.

Unions transcend any single business.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 9, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> ROFLMNAO... Yeah... because PI is so prone to silencing the Left... and how does PI silence the left?  Why he lets them speak and debates their position; points out the fatal flaw in their reasoning and merely notes that those who demonstrate such a feeble means to reason, should never be allowed to vote.
> 
> Essentially, the same thing as letting someone drive and noting that the massive amount of proerty damage demonstrates that they have no business being allowed to drive.
> 
> ...



at least you dont put them on ignore if they call you an ass or another slightly worse expletive...i hope anyway....


----------



## Maple (Aug 9, 2009)

I think what has happened here, is that the people don't feel like they are being represented. The bailouts that most were against and then the stimulus bill that no one read before they signed it. Many Americans were incensed by that fact and so their anger over health care is an accumulation of the frustration that they have felt for the past several months. Plus they flat do not want a national health care system.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 9, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Some would argue that one can't put a price on politcal errors... thus the reasonable judgement of the analogy isn't fair;  *I submit the US national debt* and the failing feminized culture, as fair evidence of the cost of 50 years of Leftist political errors.


Yeah. God Damn that Leftist Reagan and Pinko George Dubya.


----------



## Intense (Aug 9, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Don't buy theit stuff or services. Were teamsters involved? No? if so, good. If yes and it escalates, stop using UPS, go Fed-Ex, or USPS. 

Supermarket AFLCIO? Same applies. Go Wallmart. Use it as a tool, don't abuse it and it will remain effective. 

There is no area of commerce that would be immune.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Doesn't work, they just get bailouts.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Not very realistic.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Or auto companies.


----------



## Intense (Aug 9, 2009)

The Left jumps on this stuff. You guys give it up before you even try. How many advertisers get manipulated by their threats. Look what Jessie Jackson did to Texaco with the threat of fucking with them.  Glen Becks advertisers are taking hits right now. That thing on your backside, it's called a spine. Use It.  Try something, if it fails try something. Keep them off balance. You are so lucky the Left cannot support themselves without the Right, They can't afford to lock You up, for long. They need you on the clock. UAW gonna run two car companies. That will be interesting to watch. Bet their tune changes quick. They know how to complain and tear apart, not construct, not operate, not maintain. They are plagued by incompetence and corruption, stand up to it and say Boo. We have had enough. 

I'm just trying to get you thinking. I will say this though, the defeatist attitude of even Newt, McCain, Specter, Graham are why we are here today. You want to do nothing, fine, get out of the way. If this was a basketball game, with that attitude, if I was the coach, you would sit on the bench the whole game watching the second string play for you. Sissies, Pansies, Girly boys....   What you do does matter. It does have effect. Don't give up so easy.


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> I'm just trying to get you thinking. I will say this though, *the defeatist attitude of even Newt, McCain, Specter, Graham *are why we are here today. You want to do nothing, fine, get out of the way. If this was a basketball game, with that attitude, if I was the coach, you would sit on the bench the whole game watching the second string play for you. Sissies, Pansies, Girly boys....   What you do does matter. It does have effect. Don't give up so easy.



What  are you getting on Newt for? He was out there defending Sarah's words of wisdom today, wasn't he??


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



The SEIU represents _janitors_. You gonna boycott places that are kept clean by them?


----------



## mskafka (Aug 9, 2009)

Hey...I know what to do to stop it.  When people begin screaming and won't allow the Representative to speak, all dems need to put their arms around each other and begin singing the chorus to "Get together", over and over.  We're ALL "hippie, tree huggers".  We need to live up to our reputation!


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 9, 2009)

mskafka said:


> Hey...I know what to do to stop it.  When people begin screaming and won't allow the Representative to speak, all dems need to put their arms around each other and begin singing the chorus to "Get together", over and over.  We're ALL "hippie, tree huggers".  We need to live up to our reputation!



Hey hon, I'll bring the incense if you bring the love beads.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.


This is nothing less than attempted intimidation of citizens to prevent them from protesting, just like the "snitch" solicitation on the Whitehouse Blog.  It's ridiculous to believe that honest citizens, particularly Republicans, could be organized in any way to perform like this.  To make that charge is just projection on the part of those who regularly do what they accuse others of.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



So you voted for McCain, right?

I'd say the actual truth here is you wouldn't know "center" if someone gave you a protractor and taught you to use it.  If you think Obama is center, you need to turn in your voter's registration card now.  Better yet, why take any chances?  Just burn it now.  Eitherway, you're too stupid to be allowed to vote.


----------



## sparky (Aug 10, 2009)

2 choices for 1/3 billion populace seems fairly stupid to me, especially when they both bow down to the very same factions anyways

patisan punch aside,  what these pockets of discontent really boil down to is being powerless.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



He's a "Centrist" so he was in the booth for 15 minutes trying to find a button half way between Obama and McCain


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Why Gunny, I thought you stated that you never said that you would like to take away other Americans right to vote?


----------



## Intense (Aug 10, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just trying to get you thinking. I will say this though, *the defeatist attitude of even Newt, McCain, Specter, Graham *are why we are here today. You want to do nothing, fine, get out of the way. If this was a basketball game, with that attitude, if I was the coach, you would sit on the bench the whole game watching the second string play for you. Sissies, Pansies, Girly boys....   What you do does matter. It does have effect. Don't give up so easy.
> ...



Newt is likable, and charming, and arbitrarily on the wrong end of some major issues over the years, deflating momentum. Global Warming, One World Government, Hillary Clinton coddling. He will divert to the Left given the chance. Populist. That said, I like him, I just do not trust him.


----------



## Intense (Aug 10, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Switch the signs. Use up all the soap. Complain in writing about the bathroom conditions. Your momma was never big on reading you "The Little Engine That Could", huh.  Coulda, Woulda, shoulda, Be creative. You are too easy to beat.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> 
> This is a crime. Get that crime on video, and take it to both the local authorities and to the FBI field office. We can't tolerate this kind of activity in a free, democratic society.



They're obstructionists.  These so called protestors need to be put in cages the same way Republicans put Democratic protesters in cages or some distance away from the town halls so that people can get real questions answered.

Either that or begin using technology to get to the people.  Use the internet, one person gets one question.  Anyone yelling in the background doesn't get heard while they're being booted out.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 10, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> It's fair play.  The left isn't crying foul.  The left is crying because we're laughing so hard.
> 
> Welcome to the protest rally!  The last bastion of people being run over by the government.  Sucks,  doesn't it?
> 
> ...




Yea I see the mass arrest happening daily.


----------



## ba1614 (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...



Why is it that all these videos we see, everyone in the crowd is pissed off. Are we to believe that everyone there is part of this conspiracy?
 Where are these people that are claiming they "can't get their real questions answered"?


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 10, 2009)

Intense said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



So basically sabotage people by making it appear they did a bad job when they didn't.

How classy....


----------



## Intense (Aug 10, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Then don't. How much attack from the opposition is from the "what if" perspective? How much is real in contrast to leading the right around in defending pointless supposition, solely to divert and obstruct? 

I'm just thinking out loud here, do not do what does not suit your nature. You have a legitimate point, and under most circumstances I do agree with it and support it. 
How do you suggest countering the actions of Union Members that do physical Harm and Incite, putting more at risk? Other than causing them administrative paperwork, which obviously, in large numbers, would be recognized for what it was, and put no one at risk? 

I'm not anti Union. I'm neutral on Unions, where they are politically neutral. 

How do address them doing physical harm? Do you think them untouchable? What is one thing you would do? Other than surrender.


----------



## Barb (Aug 10, 2009)

sparky said:


> 2 choices for 1/3 billion populace seems fairly stupid to me, especially when they both bow down to the very same factions anyways
> 
> patisan punch aside,  what these pockets of discontent really boil down to is being powerless.....



What they really boil down to is this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0]YouTube - I'm against it!.wmv[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to face facts. The town hall hecklers aren't "protestors" at all. Their only aim is to disrupt the meetings and rob you, the constituent, of the right to speak to your representative.
> ...



Yeah!  FUCK THE FIRST AMENDMENT!  Obama's is President and he can say "we won!"


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



These extreme right wing obstructionists don't want freedom of speech.  They want the opposite.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

After January 20th 2009, dissent is suddenly taboo...


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> After January 20th 2009, dissent is suddenly taboo...



Dissent is having an objection to an issue.  What they are doing is stopping a question/answer town hall meeting from happening.

I don't believe that ever happened in McCain/Palin townhalls.  There are a few who might come in and yell out their pov at any speech or townhall but this is organized obstruction preventing opposition from speaking.  Period.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 10, 2009)

Your freedom of speech ends when it violates someone else's civil rights.


----------



## Intense (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > After January 20th 2009, dissent is suddenly taboo...
> ...



Are the Town Halls open or stacked with puppets? Is this real or a production that folks are fed up with?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Your freedom of speech ends when it violates someone else's civil rights.



What imaginary "civil right" is violated?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 10, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Your freedom of speech ends when it violates someone else's civil rights.
> ...


_or the right of the people peaceably to assemble_


----------



## Barb (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> After January 20th 2009, dissent is suddenly taboo...



 Before January 20th 2009, it was treason, a terrorist act, and punishable by quarantine behind fenced areas at best, and arrest, official harassment, placement on no fly lists, or disappearance and extreme rendition at worst. Now its punished by dirty looks, possible removal, and a slap on the wrist for acts of violence. Nothing for disruption, the derailment of the political process, or disturbance of the peace. Ah, progress. You were whining about what, exactly?


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > After January 20th 2009, dissent is suddenly taboo...
> ...



Let's set the way-back machine to Evil Booosh days.

What was the level of your opposition to the pro-democrat protestors?


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Barb said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > After January 20th 2009, dissent is suddenly taboo...
> ...



And yet we have a poster here who supports this action:



Sarah G said:


> They're obstructionists.  *These so called protestors need to be put in cages the same way Republicans put Democratic protesters in cages or some distance away from the town halls so that people can get real questions answered.*
> Either that or begin using technology to get to the people.  Use the internet, one person gets one question.  Anyone yelling in the background doesn't get heard while they're being booted out.



Well, at least after January 20th supports this action....


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



If you can tell me which one rises to the level of these shout downs, I can tell you what my opposition would be.  

Democrats normally choose peace.  It's these loud, nasty, extremists who are attempting to stop lawful and peaceful, democratic, townhalls.


----------



## Barb (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



 From what I've read, if we are speaking of the same poster, I believe she's pointing and laughing at those who...um...pointed, laughed, and wholeheartedly supported the same not so long ago, and relatively long ago. WTF? Turnabout is suddenly foul play? The same rules supported by the ones breaking them are NOW, because they are broken, and by THEM, are tyranny? Sorry, you'll have to bark up a different tree for tea or sympathy. I wouldn't support such under any circumstances, and were I the hated ACLU lawyers, I would take the case on principle, but you must admit that they're all going to look pretty damned foolish running in that direction with hats in hand for protection considering the reality of past acts and verbiage. I'm just sayin.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It's peaceful...it's people trying to be heard.

Is speaking out unconstitutional in your view?


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Barb said:


> From what I've read, if we are speaking of the same poster, I believe she's pointing and laughing at those who...um...pointed, laughed, and wholeheartedly supported the same not so long ago, and relatively long ago. WTF? Turnabout is suddenly foul play? The same rules supported by the ones breaking them are NOW, because they are broken, and by THEM, are tyranny? Sorry, you'll have to bark up a different tree for tea or sympathy. I wouldn't support such under any circumstances, and were I the hated ACLU lawyers, I would take the case on principle, but you must admit that they're all going to look pretty damned foolish running in that direction with hats in hand for protection considering the reality of past acts and verbiage. I'm just sayin.



I've always supported public dissent, boisterous or otherwise...  Seems some on the left have a newfound opposition to it...

Jus sayin'..


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 10, 2009)

I am not totally up to speed on this, but so far as I know the only arrests so far have been of 0bamabots.  Several of them got arrested for assault on a protester in St. Louis.

The right has been involved in protests for years over one thing and another.  They know the rules.  

The only reason the cops can arrest someone is if they break something tresspass or hit someone.  Something the left does a lot, but is rare, but does happen on the right.  of course, there are righties who go off the deep end and commit crimes too, but there is very little defense of those who do.  Violence is wrong.  free expression is a fundamental right.


----------



## Barb (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read, if we are speaking of the same poster, I believe she's pointing and laughing at those who...um...pointed, laughed, and wholeheartedly supported the same not so long ago, and relatively long ago. WTF? Turnabout is suddenly foul play? The same rules supported by the ones breaking them are NOW, because they are broken, and by THEM, are tyranny? Sorry, you'll have to bark up a different tree for tea or sympathy. I wouldn't support such under any circumstances, and were I the hated ACLU lawyers, I would take the case on principle, but you must admit that they're all going to look pretty damned foolish running in that direction with hats in hand for protection considering the reality of past acts and verbiage. I'm just sayin.
> ...



 Seems to me more that some on the left are laughing their asses off. And when it comes to it, the left is more practiced at conducting their protests in a way that does not disturb the peace. They seem to know where to get permits, and how to abide the law. Maybe they should hold classes for the new protesters, so they will have a clue to lawful and peaceable assembly on the side of the law the left has been shot at from regardless. That way these new protesters would have a leg to stand on in their court cases. Hey, go ahead and act like we're assholes. We have thick skin born of decades of abuse though, and we're here to help.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Intense said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


So now it's okay to shout down everyone at a Town Hall because they're just puppets?


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Barb said:


> Seems to me more that some on the left are laughing their asses off.
> 
> <snip>



Seems to me that more are into whining about people who want their opinions heard...


----------



## Ravi (Aug 10, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> I am not totally up to speed on this, but so far as I know the only arrests so far have been of 0bamabots.


How do you know this exactly? It sounds like a combination of people were arrested...how do you conclude that they were obamabots?

Two sides blame each other in fracas at forum - STLtoday.com


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Do these rise to that level?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scXXs4_2Ako]YouTube - Code Pink Blocks Recruiting Center Entrance[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzTrPVSni14]YouTube - CODEPINK STOPS Larry Summers "WE WANT OUR $$$ BACK,"You're Part of the Problem YOU SHOULD RESIGN!"[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aAU76bqL4Y]YouTube - Code Pink removed from Petraeus hearing[/ame]


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



They aren't just puppets, they are coming to townhall to get their questions and concerns answered.  The protestors are taking matters into their own hands assuming they know what is right for America.

They don't.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I believe I saw them during the Petraeus hearing.  They were removed as well, yes?  

Why do you think the townhall obstructionists should just be allowed to stay there and yell?


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 10, 2009)

I noticed the STLToday.com article talks about this guy:



> *GLADNEY THE UNINSURED ACTIVIST​*
> 
> Over the last few days, a conservative activist in St. Louis named Kenneth Gladney seems to have become something of a cause celebre in far-right circles. Depending on which version of events you choose to believe, Gladney either initiated or was involved in a scuffle at a town-hall event late last week.
> 
> ...



The Washington Monthly


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Only Pelosi knows what right for America...that's why she's our Queen


----------



## Intense (Aug 10, 2009)

Conservative Speakers at College Campuses have disrupted regularly. That said, Be Polite.
Disruption should be avoided, it puts everyone at risk. Control vanishes very quickly.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


My point exactly.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> I noticed the STLToday.com article talks about this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This could be the right's new method of getting their medical expenses covered. "Protesting."


----------



## Barb (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me more that some on the left are laughing their asses off.
> ...



 In some cases of tone deafness that difference might be confusing, but I do believe you're being disingenuous. I can see why you'd want to snip though. Its got to be embarrassing at this point, and it will only become more so. The "law and order...there's nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything WRONG" people suddenly on the other end of their own dearly held policy has to bite, and deeply. When one considers that we TRIED to warn you what would happen if you all were at the losing end...well, that has to be hell. Like I said, don't look in this direction for sympathy.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Do you think the senate plans are carbon copies of Nancy Pelosi's?  Also, do you believe we should continue with healthcare under the same inefficient, expensive (to patients) and mismanaged by HMO policies we have in place now?

Frank, Repubs are not helping in this effort, they are simply the party of no.  We need more workable solutions on several fronts.  Healthcare is only one.


----------



## Intense (Aug 10, 2009)

We are Nationalizing our National Economy, the cover up is being executed very poorly.  That is the issue.       Overcharging or denial of services, now and in our future, only part of the equation. Law Suits are not even Addressed in the Legislation.  Why are the Law Suits not considered? Surely they contribute greatly to unnecessary procedures, under threat of Litigation. 

You are arguing over how we make the $100 aspirin or band-aid available to the masses.  I argue why support a system that rewards this behavior at all. They should all learn from the clinics, for a start. Our HMO's which currently are shit, is going to come out smelling real good, compared to whats coming.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



The clips I've seen of the townhalls were citizens demanding answers only to be met with democratic rhetoric and no specific answers. That's when the shoutinging really begins and rightly so.

Do you believe our lawmakers should sign a bill that they haven't read?

Do you believe Americans should be forced to retain health insurance?

Do you feel that health care is a constitutional right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I've know you a long time and this is the closest you've come to sounding like a complete fucking idiot.


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



The Dems do NOT need the republicans to vote this health care bill thru, period.  So, vote it thru, what's the problem?  It's only a 'minority' that is against it, right?  They have nothing to fear, vote it through.  Your excuses are done, the 'party of no' is meaningless, quit the crying and vote it through.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I am sure they will.  Wouldn't it be nice for serious Americans to be able to get answers to their questions?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> The Dems do NOT need the republicans to vote this health care bill thru, period.  So, vote it thru, what's the problem?  It's only a 'minority' that is against it, right?  They have nothing to fear, vote it through.  Your excuses are done, the 'party of no' is meaningless, quit the crying and vote it through.


This thread isn't about the vote, it's about the so-called protests at Town Hall meetings. 

Try to keep up.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 10, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> I noticed the STLToday.com article talks about this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know the extent of Gladneys alleged injuries. But I can tell you that as a former pro bullrider, sometimes you don't realize how bad you're injured until hours after the fact and sometimes not until the next day when you wake up to find your knee, ankle, wrist.. etc.. has swelled to the size of a basketball.

I say this because Gladney is now appearing in a wheelchair. But he could have been ordered to stay off his feet for a few days, weeks or months depending on the injury. Now I'm sure when he goes to court to sue those that assaulted him, medical records will be introduced and they will either confirm an injury or disprove it.

I'm withholding my judgement until all the facts are in.


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...




Why do they need answers?   The Dems have the power to pass the bill regardless of how the American population feels about it.  And they know what's best for everyone, right?  They don't need to explain it, it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not anyway.  Just pass it, and shut the hell up about it.  Why don't they just pass it whenever that's what they want?  They don't have to make conservatives or republicans look bad, all they have to do is vote it in.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Barb said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...


I don't - i see it as pointing out the hypocrisy of the left...  Clamoring to be heard during the Evil Booosh years while clamoring for silence during the Barry term...




> I can see why you'd want to snip though. Its got to be embarrassing at this point, and it will only become more so.


Why would I be embarassed?  I've said already that I support all forms of protest, be they boisterous or silent in nature....  I'm quite consistent in my beliefs and have been both before and after January 20, 2009, unlike what I'm seeing from some on the left...




> The "law and order...there's nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything WRONG" people suddenly on the other end of their own dearly held policy has to bite, and deeply. When one considers that we TRIED to warn you what would happen if you all were at the losing end...well, that has to be hell. Like I said, don't look in this direction for sympathy.


Nobody want's your sympathy...  Your consistency would be a welcome *change*, but we really don't expect that from many on the left anyway...


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > The Dems do NOT need the republicans to vote this health care bill thru, period.  So, vote it thru, what's the problem?  It's only a 'minority' that is against it, right?  They have nothing to fear, vote it through.  Your excuses are done, the 'party of no' is meaningless, quit the crying and vote it through.
> ...




And why isn't it about the vote??   Because you know damn well that if they wanted too, they could pass the bill and end all of this.   But, then they have to take 100% responsibility for it.  Why are they wary of doing this whenever those against it are in the minority?


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Conservative Rs are making themselves look bad.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> And why isn't it about the vote??   Because you know damn well that if they wanted too, they could pass the bill and end all of this.   But, then they have to take 100% responsibility for it.  Why are they wary of doing this whenever those against it are in the minority?


Nobody is wary of taking responsibility for their vote on the hill. Standing up in front of the voters in your district and taking their questions is just good politics.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


you dont want them to
so stop lying


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Why don't the Dems vote the bill into law, Sarah???  It's a simple question.  Why can't you answer it?


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > And why isn't it about the vote??   Because you know damn well that if they wanted too, they could pass the bill and end all of this.   But, then they have to take 100% responsibility for it.  Why are they wary of doing this whenever those against it are in the minority?
> ...



Why are they worried then?  Why don't they just vote it into law and end all of the disruption taking place?  Why can't any of you leftist dems answer this question?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


yeah, if its just a small minority of organized resistance, just vote the damn thing in and let the cards fall as they may


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


They're worried that some of their constituents are dumb enough to believe the lies being fed to them - and in fact some of them ARE. The meetings are just to clear the air. Your questions have all been answered now.


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I did answer it, I told you they would vote the bill in.  We will get a healthcare bill, your obstructionists are what we are complaining about.  

Why won't your conservative obstructionists allow people to speak at our townhalls?  I know why, it's because conservative obstructionists don't want the American people to know how they allowed healthcare to spiral out of control for so many years and did nothing about it.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


then you are looking at a massive defeat in 2010
keep thinking this is a small organized minority
you just keep proving me right in calling you a fucking moron


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Oh, so they're more worried about their jobs than what is good for the common American?


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Why the wait?  Why the controversy?  Why the townhalls?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Aug 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > I am not totally up to speed on this, but so far as I know the only arrests so far have been of 0bamabots.
> ...



I saw the video of that one 0bamabot getting arrested for assault.  I also saw what happened to the guy he was hitting.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


What makes you think the congresspeople _don't believe_ that this plan is good for the common American? Let's see some evidence.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


if they think this is so good, stop the town halls and just go back to DC and vote for it


----------



## Newby (Aug 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...




I guess the way I worded it was too complicated...


----------



## American Horse (Aug 10, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> I noticed the STLToday.com article talks about this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For a few moments after a fight (or a beating) the adrenaline is still hyping a person up, so to say he likely wasn't hurt as much as he complains now does him a disservice; he was simply living up to his ideals, probably knowing it is risky - vis-a-vis a Clarence Thomas.  He didn't think coming out and supporting his ideals would get him into a brawl with leftist thugs, even questioning his blackness (what kind of a N. are you?) but unfortunately our president is saying "push back twice as much" and to some of these thugs who see any rebuttal as impermissable, in their world, they think this is how the opposition is (man) handled.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Newby said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


In other words you have no evidence. It figures. 

So the only remaining possiblities are: 
1. The individuals in Congress believe the plan is good for the common American and are correct, OR
2. The individuals in Congress believe the plan is good for the average American and are mistaken. 

Even if scenario 2 is true, it's still not an excuse for the idiots on the right to deprive everyone else around them of their own free speech.

Hope I didn't word that in too complicated a way.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 10, 2009)

There is a very good reason why this  healthcare bill has not been passed on a pure democrat party line. The  biggest reason is , a whole LOT of democrats that are  in districts that just  "squeeked" by the last election know that by doing so they will be out of a job if they do.  The other reason is that you have a  block of democrats in the party who are trying  as best they can to keep spending down and are fighting a losing battle with their caucus. These so called "blue dogs" are not only house members but they also are represented in the Senate.  Many of these Senators  know that if they vote for this  they own it, and if it flops and causes  any problems it will result in a huge backlash and its a gamble that some are not willing to take.  So this  contention that we don't need the Republicans while that is true, it will be hard to pass anyway, because of the sheer number of  democrats who's hides are on the line with this bill.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Your analysis is fairly accurate for a change, but even with all that said, the bill will still pass.


----------



## Annie (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Your analysis is fairly accurate for a change, but even with all that said, the bill will still pass.



If it does, imagine 2010. Unless of course there are no longer elections which would make everything easier for the party in power, right?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Annie said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Your analysis is fairly accurate for a change, but even with all that said, the bill will still pass.
> ...


If people are happy with the bill on balance, and if unemployment drops by several percentage points, 2010 will be a cake walk. If one or both of those things doesn't happen, Congress will probably be up for grabs. You heard it here first.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Unemployment will NOT be dropping by several percentage points in less than a year...

Most are predicting that it will get worse...


----------



## Coyote (Aug 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed the STLToday.com article talks about this guy:
> ...



I don't buy it - adrenaline or no adrenaline (unless you are pumped up on meth) you don't go from bouncing up and walking away from a fight to heavily bandaged and in a wheelchair the next day.

Leftist thugs?  Howabout Rightwing thugs? What the hell do these people expect when they deliberately set out to be confrontational and disruptive?  There are other people on the opposing sides who are going to take it in the same spirit but you only call one partisan team "thugs".

Perhaps they need to read up on what peaceful protesting really means?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Your analysis is fairly accurate for a change, but even with all that said, the bill will still pass.


so lets stop wasting time with the meaningless town halls and get them back in DC and vote for it

if they dont want to know how large the opposition is to this mess, then just go ahead and pass this monstrosity and then face the music come 2010
but they dont have the BALLS to do that
they want to go out and lie to the people in the town halls and try to convince them against their will


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


lets see video of these "right wing thugs" beating people up


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



_Post saved.._


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Not very long until the 2010 election season begins...

I'd love to see any economic predictions that unemployment, a lagging economic indicator, will be dropping by several percentage points between now and next year's election...

I mean other than those from Liberalism'sVoice...


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 10, 2009)

The economy will get better with or without Obama's help, however I will say this, if these 2 bills pass healthcare and cap and trade  it will put this nation into a  deep financial position that it will not soon be able to get out of.  That will for years slow down a recovery that would have otherwise taken less time.  Between healthcare and cap and trade your talking about 3 trillion dollars of money this Govt. does not have. If you add to that additional bills such as a  second  Stimulus or any others then you run the risk of stalling a recovery.  The stock market is doing quite well at the moment but if the  US dollar should tank because of  out of control spending  then you have another down turn right after this one.  While unemployment numbers are slowing, the biggest job growth sector according to the BLS is  in the Govt. sector and not  the private sector.  This also does not bode well for the economy. However, if the healthcare bill should fail or a version of it should pass without the  public option and cap and trade should fail one would think the economy would pick up rapidly on the news of less Govt. spending and less regulation which the private sector responds too traditionally.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



I beg to differ.

I've personally experienced similar situations, not in fights but rather in contests. As an ex pro bullrider there has been numerous times when I would get injured but not really start feeling the effects of said injury(s) until hours and sometimes even the day after the fact. There may be several reasons why he is now in a wheelchair, if it's indeed a knee injury, he may have been ordered to stay off off his knee for a length of time by his doctor.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> I don't buy it - adrenaline or no adrenaline (unless you are pumped up on meth) you don't go from bouncing up and walking away from a fight to heavily bandaged and in a wheelchair the next day.


No you don't, especially when you haven't been beaten.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


Thug: a hood: an aggressive and violent young criminal

The definition of a thug is one who uses physical force on another person. Raising an uproar over a political issue in a public venue is not thuggery. When ordinary folks get upset this is how they behave.  I've seen it before; largely it's because they are not organized, rather than that they are organized.  The average American is far less articulate about issues they feel strongly, even frustrated about *than those who are organized tend to be.* 

Living in a university town that has seen more than it's share or protests from the 60's on,  and remonstrances, it's easy to identify the organized protestors:  They divide up the subject matter between a long range of speakers so that every point is hammered home, many times causing the real business of the body to have to be postponed and to have to come back again without getting any of their planned business done in its original session.  They dominate the rostrom for as long as possible, and seem reasonable and concerned. Those who are not organized, being less articulate, but frustrated do a  lot of yelling off the cuff hoping to find the catch words that make their intent clear.  Don't confuse the two. This may be hard for people who spend their time spinning words on a forum like this one to understand, but it's a fact of life and it's human nature.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


Don't expect any economic predicitons from me, either, Greg. I'm not in the business of foretelling economic fluctuations (and you should stick to medicine).


----------



## Chris (Aug 10, 2009)

Shouting down people in a town hall meeting is bullshit no matter who does it.

Whether it is unwashed hippies on the left or Glenn Beck groupies on the right.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



You already did in post #309...  Even announced that we heard it here first...


...but it doesn't take a rocket economist to know that the unemployment rate won't drop "several percentage points" in less than a year...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> You already did in post #309...  Even announced that we heard it here first...


I predicted the election, not the economy. And even that depends on at least two variables I didn't try to predict. Sorry, no dice.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > You already did in post #309...  Even announced that we heard it here first...
> ...



Come on dude - that's like predicting the sky will be dark at night...

Of course Barry's Posse will be trounced if unemployment is high and people are unhappy with a universal healthcare bill...

You're not the first to predict THAT...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


I just guessed at being the first on this forum to predict it. Feel free to show me a link if I'm wrong.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



I see...  You didn't qualify it earlier, limiting your plain-as-day prediction to just this forum...

Congrats, Captain Obvious...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 10, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> I see...  You didn't qualify it earlier, limiting your plain-as-day prediction to just this forum...
> 
> Congrats, Captain Obvious...



Who, you may remember, was tremendously influential during the Bush II administration...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Simple horse crap.  Screaming and yelling to disrupt the poltical process, which in a democracy is best served by rational discourse, is thuggery, is a crime, and these political shariasts of our extreme right wing are going to get led out hooded and shackled by the police.

GOP shariasts, beware or behave.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > The Dems do NOT need the republicans to vote this health care bill thru, period.  So, vote it thru, what's the problem?  It's only a 'minority' that is against it, right?  They have nothing to fear, vote it through.  Your excuses are done, the 'party of no' is meaningless, quit the crying and vote it through.
> ...



its how this conversation is moving along dipshit....maybe you should keep up...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Shouting down people in a town hall meeting is bullshit no matter who does it.
> 
> Whether it is unwashed hippies on the left or Glenn Beck groupies on the right.



even you Chris?....


----------



## Coyote (Aug 10, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Actually....if you want to be exact, thugs are a particular type of highway robber who committed ritual murder via strangulation in honour of the goddess Kali (she being a blood loving sort of patron)...but even going by your definition, you can't really call them "leftist thugs either".  It's a lot of folks getting upset.

However, I totally disagree that they are not organized. They are organized enough to maintain website connections and strategize on a national level even attending townhalls in areas where it is not their representative or a jurisdiction that they are a member of - they are organized enough to use the same tactics of disruption with the same aim: silence any opposition by shouting them down.  They are no more or less "average Americans" than Code Pink and they are using tactics to express themselves that are very confrontational.  I think the whole "we are not organized" schtick is a masquarade to make folks think it's a genuine grassroots movement rather than a well orchestrated and well funded special interest movement intended to silence attempts to explain the health bill in a way that opposes their aim or answer questions from anyone but their own.




> Living in a university town that has seen more than it's share or protests from the 60's on,  and remonstrances, it's easy to identify the organized protestors:  They divide up the subject matter between a long range of speakers so that every point is hammered home, many times causing the real business of the body to have to be postponed and to have to come back again without getting any of their planned business done in its original session.  They dominate the rostrom for as long as possible, and seem reasonable and concerned. Those who are not organized, being less articulate, but frustrated do a  lot of yelling off the cuff hoping to find the catch words that make their intent clear.  Don't confuse the two. This may be hard for people who spend their time spinning words on a forum like this one to understand, but it's a fact of life and it's human nature.



I don't think these people are as "unorganized" as they would appear - the messages and strategies are too consistent.

There's an interesting interview here: NPR Media Player


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


keep believing that


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 10, 2009)

THOSE IN FAVOR OF HEALTHCARE BILL!








THOSE OPPOSED TO THE BILL!!







It appears at least on the surface that from those signs and from a whole host of other images and video's, shirts that say SEUI in purple, ACRON in red, and nicely printed signs and they call those opposed to this an organized effort, I see so what do you call those for it then? "grassroots"


----------



## American Horse (Aug 10, 2009)

Coyote said:


> I don't think these people are as "unorganized" as they would appear - the messages and strategies are too consistent.
> 
> There's an interesting interview here: NPR Media Player


From that NPR interview there is nothing to suggest that people are being directed from any organized group to do any of this; there is evidence that people are availing themselves of modern methods of communicating systematically.  Would those who oppose a public's appearing to attempt to persuade or to discover the intent of a congress person's likely vote or to change it do it using smoke signals, or rely on random chance so as to handicap themselves?

I notice Maryland US Senator Ben Cardin went ahead and met with opponents of the "bill", and said he thought it was useful, and will go ahead with a town-hall meeting in Hagerstown. Only a position like his will defuse the situation.  Calling out the dogs to harass these people will only increase their numbers and lead to violence by purple shirted modern-variety "thugs"

Peggy Noonan in her article "You Are Terrifying Us" in part said _"[t]he leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren&#8217;t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can&#8217;t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss&#8212;loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don&#8217;t. 

People are not automatons. They show up only if they care. 

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of &#8220;carrying swastikas and symbols like that.&#8221; *(Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a &#8220;no&#8221; slash over a swastika.)* But they are not Nazis, they&#8217;re Americans. Some of them looked like they&#8217;d actually spent some time fighting Nazis. ....You cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan &#8220;extremists&#8221; and &#8220;right wing,&#8221; or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They&#8217;re citizens. They&#8217;re concerned. They deserve respect.

The Democrats should not be attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case. After all, they have the big mic. Which is what the presidency is, the big mic. 

And frankly they ought to think about backing off. The president should call in his troops and his Congress and announce a rethinking. There are too many different bills, they&#8217;re all a thousand pages long, no one has time to read them, no one knows what&#8217;s going to be in the final one, the public is agitated, the nation&#8217;s in crisis, the timing is wrong, we&#8217;ll turn to it again&#8212;but not now. We&#8217;ll take a little longer, ponder every aspect, and make clear every complication.

You know what would happen if he did this? His numbers would go up. Even Congress&#8217;s would. Because they&#8217;d look responsive, deliberative and even wise. Discretion is the better part of valor."_

That's sound advice; let's see if it's taken.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> THOSE IN FAVOR OF HEALTHCARE BILL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


of course, the Pro group IS organized much better than the Anti group
because the anti group ISNT organized at all


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> THOSE IN FAVOR OF HEALTHCARE BILL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good insight. Gee I wonder how many in the top poster are gonna have to leave for 20 minutes so that they can go punch out.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> THOSE IN FAVOR OF HEALTHCARE BILL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like a comparison between San Francisco and East Backwaterville, Kentucky. Which is about as sensible a comparison as apples and oranges.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

So what are you saying here  Centerist , that people in Ky. are somehow less entitled to an opinion than those in SF? Seem your  Centerist views are a little less than Center is your making such a statement.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So what are you saying here  Centerist , that people in Ky. are somehow less entitled to an opinion than those in SF? Seem your  Centerist views are a little less than Center is your making such a statement.


Nope: missed the point. The point was that demonstrations in large cities - any large cities - are going to look more "polished," if you will, just because they have easy access to people who can print up lots of slick signs and buttons.

You could just as easily have posted a photo of such an anti-healtcare demonstration in Louisville, and contrasted it with a small, motley group of supporters in some coastal town in Oregon.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

Portland, Ore. 






Denver,Co.

 That help make it better for you? or does the fact that I compared one group of Americans from one town to another because your assertion is that people in larger towns tend to be more sophisticated.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Portland, Ore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Off again: my assertion was that people in larger towns tend to have access to printers that can make slicker looking picket signs, buttons, etc., quickly and in large quantities.

Why the Denverites above didn't take advantage of that is, I confess, a mystery to me. Could be that they'd been instructed not to, in order to make the protest appear more grass-roots...


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Portland, Ore.
> ...


LOL
yeah, MASS PRODUCED posters
then you wonder why people think you are a moron


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

Give up on the point Centrist. Dem's were born to protest, you have ready made backers. The Right has not even gotten sea legs yet, so it's still home made. Who made your signs? Who bankrolled them? Union? ACORN Affiliate? Who pays for the gas in those buses? Taxpayers?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

Intense said:


> Give up on the point Centrist. Dem's were born to protest, you have ready made backers. The Right has not even gotten sea legs yet, so it's still home made.


That's actually a reasonable point, but I doubt it's the only factor at work here.


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Give up on the point Centrist. Dem's were born to protest, you have ready made backers. The Right has not even gotten sea legs yet, so it's still home made.
> ...



I hear that. Hey guess what I watched yesterday on Stars on Demand. "Battle In Seattle". From 2008, Woody Harrelson, Charlize Theron, Ray Liotta.  
December 19999 WTO Protest recreation. Great Movie, something we all should see. When Shit goes wrong, it happens much too fast. You've got a good head Centrist.


----------



## Annie (Aug 11, 2009)

In my way of thinking, we need to go back to the inception of the tea parties. When they were small in numbers attending, the left poked fun at them, compared to what the left was able to produce during GW's term. 

But they grew, in numbers and attendance, they became a problem. Truth is, they turned Alinsky like. Bad move as far as the Obama supporters were concerned. So they must be 'whackos'. Well that didn't work, at least at first. Then there were the extremists, something all of us on boards recognize. The extremists both the left and right try to distance themselves from, as they are unhinged and certainly not on message. We know them when we see them. Some are regulars, most are hit and run folks. 

I watched today both Spector and Obama, the first was balanced, the later loaded. But in both cases, while the audience and fairness might have been skewed, the messages were going out. I'd hope that it will lead to a fair hearing and perhaps more a reform than an overhaul, imho that is what is needed.


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> In my way of thinking, we need to go back to the inception of the tea parties. When they were small in numbers attending, the left poked fun at them, compared to what the left was able to produce during GW's term.
> 
> But they grew, in numbers and attendance, they became a problem. Truth is, they turned Alinsky like. Bad move as far as the Obama supporters were concerned. So they must be 'whackos'. Well that didn't work, at least at first. Then there were the extremists, something all of us on boards recognize. The extremists both the left and right try to distance themselves from, as they are unhinged and certainly not on message. We know them when we see them. Some are regulars, most are hit and run folks.
> 
> I watched today both Spector and Obama, the first was balanced, the later loaded. But in both cases, while the audience and fairness might have been skewed, the messages were going out. I'd hope that it will lead to a fair hearing and perhaps more a reform than an overhaul, imho that is what is needed.



Good Points Annie, I watched Specter, I have to give him credit for allowing the man to speak, leave, whatever, it kept the Security guy at bay, and the Gentleman did speak his piece. Specters control skills we're a little bit lacking though, sort of like when he chaired Judicial during some of the Court Nominee Hearings. The opposition sort of walked all over him, lucky for us He switched sides. The Gentleman, could have better recognized that Specter was cutting him a break, and I respect him for that. The Latter, Hammurabi, I can;t comment on. It's just too much. If it was a movie, I'd want a refund.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

I made a thread today on that very subject Intense and found that Specter had at least recognized that those that happen to disagree with him can do so. It was pointed out to me that he was forced to do this and I responded by saying that no matter how it was done. that just proves that the people  have  given him pause to understand that they are the ones he works for and deserve at least to be heard on this issue even if he happens to disagree with them as he represents everyone and not just  those who agree with him .


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Off again: my assertion was that people in larger towns tend to have access to printers that can make slicker looking picket signs, buttons, etc., quickly and in large quantities.



Bah.

Horse puckey.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Off again: my assertion was that people in larger towns tend to have access to printers that can make slicker looking picket signs, buttons, etc., quickly and in large quantities.
> ...


You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Go play with your sound board.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



You say that small towns don't have access to printers that can make posterboard size signs and a basic button making machine that you can pick up at WalMart....and you think *I* don't know what I'm talking about? 

Pop quiz hot-shot: What is the smallest town so far a townhall has been held in, and how far away is it from the nearest "large" town?

I gaurantee you that the answer to the question is "not too small to not have access to a screen printing business".

Your biases are showing. And their showing how much of a buffoon you really are.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Pop quiz hot-shot: What is the smallest town so far a townhall has been held in, and how far away is it from the nearest "large" town?
> 
> I gaurantee you that the answer to the question is "not too small to not have access to a screen printing business".


And you didn't say this to begin with because...? 

Answer: you are a troll.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



You say that small towns don't have access to printers that can make posterboard size signs and a basic button making machine that you can pick up at WalMart....and you think *I* don't know what I'm talking about? 

Pop quiz hot-shot: What is the smallest town so far a townhall has been held in, and how far away is it from the nearest "large" town?

I gaurantee you that the answer to the question is "not too small to not have access to a screen printing business".

Your biases are showing. And their showing how much of a buffoon you really are.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

Apparently you're a spammer, too.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Pop quiz hot-shot: What is the smallest town so far a townhall has been held in, and how far away is it from the nearest "large" town?
> ...


ROFLMAO
he is a troll???
wow, thats some mighty projection


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Pop quiz hot-shot: What is the smallest town so far a townhall has been held in, and how far away is it from the nearest "large" town?
> ...



Because anyone who is able to think logically should be able to ascertain this for themselves. The "horsepuckey" comment summed that up much more succinctly. Color me unsurprised that you were unable to figure it out though.



Centrism'sVoice said:


> Answer: you are a troll.



No. I'm just someone who enjoys pointing out how full of crap you are. That's not the same thing as a troll. Just so ya know.

But how typical that your only answer to being shown that you are wrong is "wwaaaaaaahhh, you're a TROLL!!"


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Apparently you're a spammer, too.



No, just someone who's wifi went out for a sec, so I reconnected, hit back, and then submit again. Not knowing if it went through the first time. I wanted to be sure that your idiocy was pointed out you see. Too bad it got pointed out twice, but them's the breaks kid.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

I could go into an explanation of how and why it's easier to get screen printed orders faster and more efficiently in a city, but I'm rapidly coming to the realization that your posts are growing increasingly less substantial and frankly, not worth anyone's time. Especially since the discussion has long since moved past the point you're apparently so passionate about.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I could go into an explanation of how and why it's easier to get screen printed orders faster and more efficiently in a city, but I'm rapidly coming to the realization that your posts are growing increasingly less substantial and frankly, not worth anyone's time. Especially since the discussion has long since moved past the point you're apparetnly so passionate about.


oh the irony


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I could go into an explanation of how and why it's easier to get screen printed orders faster and more efficiently in a city,



You could, but it would be pretty easily shot down in reference to these specific incidents. So if you want to waste your time, go ahead and be my guest.

I wonder really how difficult it would be for the poor hicks in "small towns" (still waiting on the smallest town so far question btw) to produce 50-200 signs. 

Hmmmmmm.....

Do you really want to step into the traps of your own words again, or are you tired of getting smacked on the nose?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

I'd far prefer you go back to making actual points and discussing them reasonably instead of for me to put you on ignore: post #358, in case you hand't figured it out, was fair warning. That's the last I'm saying about this or about protest signage.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I'd far prefer you go back to making actual points and discussing them reasonably instead of for me to put you on ignore: post #358, in case you hand't figured it out, was fair warning. That's the last I'm saying about this or about protest signage.


OH NOES
not that dreaded ignore list
LOL


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > I'd far prefer you go back to making actual points and discussing them reasonably instead of for me to put you on ignore: post #358, in case you hand't figured it out, was fair warning. That's the last I'm saying about this or about protest signage.
> ...






You just made the list!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I'd far prefer you go back to making actual points and discussing them reasonably instead of for me to put you on ignore: post #358, in case you hand't figured it out, was fair warning. That's the last I'm saying about this or about protest signage.



I did make actual, real points. Just because they made you look like a buffoon is nobodies fault but your own. You made the dumb statement, and then you wanted to defend your dumb statement. Looking back, your probably realize that you would have been better served by keeping your mouth shut, nuh?

Oh, and putting people on ignore is the ultimate sign of cowardice. So really, it wouldn't be out of character for you.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > I'd far prefer you go back to making actual points and discussing them reasonably instead of for me to put you on ignore: post #358, in case you hand't figured it out, was fair warning. That's the last I'm saying about this or about protest signage.
> ...


I already said I wasn't discussing this point further, and here you are, beating the dead horse. Who's the real buffoon here? 
Surely you must have something better to talk about.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


He's been on the list for a long time, and he knows it. I'm just so damn charismatic that he has to follow me around like a groupie.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Dr.House said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


hell, i've BEEN on it

i think i was a charter member


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


more like you are so damned moronic its a laugh riot


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



No, you said that you were discussing protest signs anymore. In case you didn't notice we've moved beyond the signage question about 3 posts ago and moved on to how much of a maroon you are looking like right now.

All in all, this new discussion is a whole lot more fun.


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

Radioman, If yo look back at the pictures, You Professional Signs on the Dem. side, these the graphics on these signs have allot of work in them. They do what they do so much, they are good at it and in mobilization. 
Learn from it. 
The beauty of our signs on the right is that they are home made. Personally I like them. They indicate Grass Roots, the foundation from which you progress. It represents a stage which is evidence against the claims from the left, of this being a large right wing conspiracy, which anyone with a brain already knows.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> No, you said that you were discussing protest signs anymore. In case you didn't notice we've moved beyond the signage question about 3 posts ago and moved on to how much of a maroon you are looking like right now.


You must be color blind: I've never seen anyone who looks maroon.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > No, you said that you were discussing protest signs anymore. In case you didn't notice we've moved beyond the signage question about 3 posts ago and moved on to how much of a maroon you are looking like right now.
> ...


bugs bunny

just a hint for you

this might be a bit more on your level
[youtube]C_Kh7nLplWo[/youtube]


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Intense said:


> Radioman, If yo look back at the pictures, You Professional Signs on the Dem. side, these the graphics on these signs have allot of work in them. They do what they do so much, they are good at it and in mobilization.
> Learn from it.
> The beauty of our signs on the right is that they are home made. Personally I like them. They indicate Grass Roots, the foundation from which you progress. It represents a stage which is evidence against the claims from the left, of this being a large right wing conspiracy, which anyone with a brain already knows.



Quite honestly, I really don't give a hoot how the signs look. I just don't like the prejudice that us poor hicks in the country don't have access to 'dem dere fancy-like printers. Gol-lee. We just got the talkie-box last week.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I sought I saw a puddy-tat!


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


thanks for quoting it so moron can actually see it
LOL
that is if YOU havent made "the list" yet


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Radioman, If yo look back at the pictures, You Professional Signs on the Dem. side, these the graphics on these signs have allot of work in them. They do what they do so much, they are good at it and in mobilization.
> ...



Are you really out of Atlanta? Talking like that. My daughter went to Savannah Art for a Year. Beautiful place. Man did I take to That Moon River Beer? was it? I live for micro breweries.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 11, 2009)

Intense said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Small town about 30 minutes outside of Atlanta. I work in Atlanta on the weekends. Grew up in a small town in Florida, only moved to Georgia after I got married.


----------



## Sweet Willy (Aug 11, 2009)

Intense said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...




Maybe Blue Moon.  Was it served with an orange slice?


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

Sweet Willy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Moon River Brewing Company Willie, only available in Georgia that I know of, Savannah definitely. Blue Moon is okay.  


 There is a website if you google it. I'm not sure it's okay to link it here.


----------



## Intense (Aug 11, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Nice country.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So what are you saying here  Centerist , that people in Ky. are somehow less entitled to an opinion than those in SF? Seem your  Centerist views are a little less than Center is your making such a statement.



another person saying how left of Centrist Sqigmont is......you better change your name, you were called out on this your first couple of days here and it hasnt stopped.....Centrist my aching ass....like saying Chris is a liberal republican....your a joke...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Pop quiz hot-shot: What is the smallest town so far a townhall has been held in, and how far away is it from the nearest "large" town?
> ...



....this guy calling someone a troll.....look in the mirror Squiggy.....see that little fucker looking back at ya....thats called a troll...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 11, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



if hes on your fucking list ...why are you responding to him dipshit....or are you full of shit about that too?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


when someone not on his ignore list quotes me, he can see it in their post


----------



## Emma (Aug 12, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Its time to face facts.  There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us.  One that will take decades to undo.
> 
> By all Means everyone.  Please do bring a video camera and be sure to record the ENTIRE town hall meeting.



How many of those opposed to these health care bills are opposed because of lies and distortions spread by others? How many of those opposed to 'government involvement' in health care are on Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, or disability?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



i understand that....but then why put him on ignore if he is going to respond to the IGNORED  anyway?.....


----------



## Meister (Aug 12, 2009)

Emma said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Its time to face facts.  There are actually people out there (over half by last count) that don't agree with the whole idea of UHC and they are pretty pissed off that this government is willing to enslave generations of people to push another disastrous bill upon us.  One that will take decades to undo.
> ...


How many understand the term "debt?"  How many do understand "fiscal responsibility?"
How many really don't trust the government?


----------



## ba1614 (Aug 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I think you can answer all three questions with "not many".


----------

