GOP strategy - disrupted Dem town hall meetings

[Bfgrn]

Senate Republicans plan to introduce a health care bill that is similiar to one favored by conservative House Democrats and includes many elements of President Clinton's plan but would not include most government mandates and price controls.

Although substantial differences exist among the three plans, it has been decades since such diverse congressional blocs agreed on even a general structure for health care reform. That apparent consensus may make it easier to pass comprehensive legislation in the near future.

"They're really all talking about the same framework," said John Rother, legislative director for the American Association of Retired Persons. "This is incredible progress since a ...
Senate GOP Health Care Bill to Include Elements of Clinton Plan | Article from The Washington Post | HighBeam Research

Feb 15, 1994 - A Senate committee voted 4-3 Monday for a Republican health-care bill that would require insurers to offer basic benefit packages that ... that the bill would restrict a woman's access to abortion, but supporters said at a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Health Care ...
From GOP HEALTH-CARE BILL GAINS IN WISCONSIN

The House last night passed a health care reform bill designed to guarantee access for millions of Americans who change jobs or lose them, establish medical savings accounts and set limits on malpractice awards


The vote was 267-151.

Democrats called the GOP measure an effort to "sabotage real health care reform" by "loading it up" with "gifts" for special interests, such as insurance companies and
NewsLibrary Search Results

Today, the leading Republican health care reform alternative, The Patients' Choice Act, will be introduced in the Senate by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC), and in the House by Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA). The bill would assure essential health coverage and health care to every U.S. citizen, without increased federal spending and taxes, and without the federal government taking over your health care. For precisely those reasons, today's left wing Democrats will not support it.

The American Spectator : The Republican Health Care Alternative
The House moved toward passage early today of a $350 billion Republican plan to help older Americans pay for prescription drugs, after a struggle within the GOP over legislation that both political parties consider vital to the elderly -- and to their electoral fortunes this fall.

Debate on the legislation was postponed throughout most of the day yesterday, as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and the Bush administration mounted a lobbying blitz to persuade a core of rebellious Republicans it was essential to demonstrate momentum on a pivotal issue before lawmakers go home this weekend ...

House Nears Vote on Prescription Drug Plan; Hastert Lobbying of Republican Faction on Aid Proposal Reveals Internal GOP Struggle - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com

Those are just a few of the Republican healthcare measures over the last several years. To simply make the statement or imply that Republicans have sat on the sidelines and done nothing on healthcare is completely false. In fact all the issues you pointed out were issues that are not related to a single party. I seem to recall that since 1/07 demcrats have been in power in both housees of congress and all the while could have proposed legislation on universal healthcare at anytime. One more thing to consider here as well all those votes on spending bills took the participation of a willing congress to make it happen. You will not find in me any support for over spending be it the last administration or the current one. It makes no difference to me if they are democrats or republicans. One other thing to consider here as well, all that war spending that you seem to imply was a result of republicans over spending could have been avoided easily had democrats decided to do so. However that was not the case. I don't look at one party and place blame, I look at the whole and hold them all accountable for their actions and that includes Bush if you really want to know the truth. Further, many on here who have read my postings know one thing about me and that is if I thought Bush had done something wrong I had no trouble pointing it out.

2007 Iraq War spending Vote 80-14

Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq Senate 77- 23

By the way here is something you probably didn't know
Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).

All voted AGAINST the war in Iraq when the likes of Clinton and others did, so my point here is this, these reps. are ours regardless of the D. and the R. so hold them accountable for what they do regardless of what party they belong too.

The Democrat's accusation came TRUE when Bush and the Republican Congress passed Medicare D...an unfunded burden on taxpayers BUT, a BOON for insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, ..too bad it F_CKED our elderly citizens and the poor...

This really sheds light on the heart of the problem Navy...there are two philosophies of governing today...the Democrats which is close to our founding father's beliefs and the Republicans, which would more closely match Mussolini's beliefs...

Our founding fathers created a government, not a corporate entity... Americans really need to educate themselves on what our founders thought of corporations and the LIMITS and restrictions they placed on them...and they also need to be fully aware and understand that the biggest threat to what our founders intended is the power corporations and special interests have gained since the horrible Supreme Court outcome of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

If you think for a moment that by posting the Part D bill I was somehow endorsing it, you would be wrong. To champion a program you don't have the means to pay for is complete lunacy in my humble opinion no matter who is proposing it. As for our founding fathers , thats a subject very near and dear to my heart. In fact I have another thread going on the subject. I will say this though, my view is that the founding fathers were very clear on their views that Govt. power should be limited to those spelled out in the constitution i.e. Madison, that is of course unless you read Hamilton, which I'm sure if your of the FRD mold then Hamiltons views would be more to your liking. No matter, all of the founding fathers had in mind that the Govt. existed at the will of the people and not the other way around. Commerce was an institution of good and an exercise of the people which under the guise of the framers was the responsibility of the Govt. to regulate and provide a means by which commerce would thrive. The so called " general welfare " view that Hamiton was so known for was not something shared by the father of the constitution Madison, or Jefferson. In fact this thinking can be traced back to Helvering v. Davis when the court sided with Hamiltons views. However in 1951 Justice Roberts commented that in order to make the decision on social security the court needed to go against the constitution in favor of popular sentiment.


You are somewhat correct in your assesment on corporations when it comes to the founding fathers. I say somewhat because I believe that it takes a leap of faith to assume that the founding fathers did not want corporations at all. In fact IMO most of the laws at the time reflected the founding fathers experience with the East India Company and thus you ended up with laws that put severe limits on them. In fact Jefferson was very much against large corporations having a huge influence on policy..

"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

That is exactly why, its my opinion that the founding fathers gave the power to regulate commerce to the Govt, which in my opnion they have done a piss poor job of and that goes for both parties. I cannot however agree that the founding fathers were against the formations of corporations all together or their success because that would run contrary to the notion of liberty in the hands of it's citizens that many so strongly favored.

Some of the restrictions on corporations during that time period were as follows..

1) Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years.

2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm.
3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose.
5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations.
6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corpoate behavior.

It's clear that the founding fathers while not against commerce, were more in favor of the rights of the people not to be tread upon and those corporations be subject to the will of the people as the the Govt. was to be subject to the will of the people. We have come a long way from those notions in my opinion and I do believe that the founding fathers would be shocked at how much we have actually stepped on the original notion of a Govt. by the people and for the people.

Good post Navy...we are much more in agreement than apart...although I believe liberals would side with Jefferson over Hamilton on almost every issue. I surmise you're applying the label of liberals as portrayed by the right...

There's no question we live in a much different world than our founding fathers. But I'm confident a "man for all time" like Thomas Jefferson would adapt to today's world. I think President Obama framed the issue of government's role perfectly in his Inaugural Address...I see the Lincoln in him...

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[RadiomanATL]

Obama leaves his meetings open. Bush carefully screened his audiences, usually relying on military audiences.

Yup, and that was absolute f'ing bullshit.

Bush had no business being president. Period. It was almost like he was trying to flush this country down the toilet. Obama seems intent on doing the same. Luckily America i s a lot more resilient than any one man or one administration. This is why we'll outlast Obama as well.

If whoever "we" is supposed to represent, you're so far in the minority you'll never make a dent. If so, where were "you" for the past decade?

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that the "we" in the sentence was all Americans.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Just more evidence that the GOP is the party of "NO". They have no plans for anything, except to disrupt Democratic meetings.

another one that didnt actually read the memo

Oh, I read it. I particularly liked this line from it:

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”

So you didn't read the memo, huh?

I'm sure that's what you meant to say. Either that or you're lying.

Pete Sessions wasn't mentioned once in the memo.






Busted.

 

[Navy1960]

The Democrat's accusation came TRUE when Bush and the Republican Congress passed Medicare D...an unfunded burden on taxpayers BUT, a BOON for insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, ..too bad it F_CKED our elderly citizens and the poor...

This really sheds light on the heart of the problem Navy...there are two philosophies of governing today...the Democrats which is close to our founding father's beliefs and the Republicans, which would more closely match Mussolini's beliefs...

Our founding fathers created a government, not a corporate entity... Americans really need to educate themselves on what our founders thought of corporations and the LIMITS and restrictions they placed on them...and they also need to be fully aware and understand that the biggest threat to what our founders intended is the power corporations and special interests have gained since the horrible Supreme Court outcome of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

If you think for a moment that by posting the Part D bill I was somehow endorsing it, you would be wrong. To champion a program you don't have the means to pay for is complete lunacy in my humble opinion no matter who is proposing it. As for our founding fathers , thats a subject very near and dear to my heart. In fact I have another thread going on the subject. I will say this though, my view is that the founding fathers were very clear on their views that Govt. power should be limited to those spelled out in the constitution i.e. Madison, that is of course unless you read Hamilton, which I'm sure if your of the FRD mold then Hamiltons views would be more to your liking. No matter, all of the founding fathers had in mind that the Govt. existed at the will of the people and not the other way around. Commerce was an institution of good and an exercise of the people which under the guise of the framers was the responsibility of the Govt. to regulate and provide a means by which commerce would thrive. The so called " general welfare " view that Hamiton was so known for was not something shared by the father of the constitution Madison, or Jefferson. In fact this thinking can be traced back to Helvering v. Davis when the court sided with Hamiltons views. However in 1951 Justice Roberts commented that in order to make the decision on social security the court needed to go against the constitution in favor of popular sentiment.


You are somewhat correct in your assesment on corporations when it comes to the founding fathers. I say somewhat because I believe that it takes a leap of faith to assume that the founding fathers did not want corporations at all. In fact IMO most of the laws at the time reflected the founding fathers experience with the East India Company and thus you ended up with laws that put severe limits on them. In fact Jefferson was very much against large corporations having a huge influence on policy..

"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

That is exactly why, its my opinion that the founding fathers gave the power to regulate commerce to the Govt, which in my opnion they have done a piss poor job of and that goes for both parties. I cannot however agree that the founding fathers were against the formations of corporations all together or their success because that would run contrary to the notion of liberty in the hands of it's citizens that many so strongly favored.

Some of the restrictions on corporations during that time period were as follows..

1) Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years.

2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm.
3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose.
5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations.
6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corpoate behavior.

It's clear that the founding fathers while not against commerce, were more in favor of the rights of the people not to be tread upon and those corporations be subject to the will of the people as the the Govt. was to be subject to the will of the people. We have come a long way from those notions in my opinion and I do believe that the founding fathers would be shocked at how much we have actually stepped on the original notion of a Govt. by the people and for the people.

Good post Navy...we are much more in agreement than apart...although I believe liberals would side with Jefferson over Hamilton on almost every issue. I surmise you're applying the label of liberals as portrayed by the right...

There's no question we live in a much different world than our founding fathers. But I'm confident a "man for all time" like Thomas Jefferson would adapt to today's world. I think President Obama framed the issue of government's role perfectly in his Inaugural Address...I see the Lincoln in him...

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

I have spent some time looking at the latest issues on both sides and think often that we all have pretty much the same wants and needs it's how we get there is where we end up in disagreement. Lets take the healthcare debate for example, it's pretty well known where I stand in that debate and I make no excuses for my contention that Govt. should spend more time in the commerce regulating business and less so in the people regulating business. I do think that most people would not deny that healthcare costs are high and that bringing them down is a good thing. Where we tend to disagree on the issue is how intrusive we want our Govt. to be in doing so. It's one of the reasons why those that stand up and make their voices heard on this issue have my great admiration no matter what it is. I tend to believe that people are the best at making decisions on whats best for their own lives. I also believe that Govt. should be in the business of solving the real issues that cause these costs to rise. Now while many may disagree with me and do so strongly and thats just fine with me. I believe the best way is to solve the issues that cause these costs to rise, and if that takes one bill at a time then so be it and a compromise on both sides then so be it, the real winners will be the American people. It's my feeling that that when healthcare is affordable, available, and in such a way that those that want it can purchase it , its a win win for everyone. In fact , if this issue is ever solvable then it is done so by all of us making our feelings known to those who represent us and holding them accountable when they don't finally,

 

[RadiomanATL]

YouTube - Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"

I wonder if Radioman will see this.

I saw it.

What point of yours do you think it proves? What I saw was a politician saying something that no one in the audience liked. And the audience reacted to his statement. For about 3 to 5 seconds according to my count. Disruptive? No. Organized opposition? Didn't seem like it. Protest signs? Cameraman didn't seem to capture any. Sorry you seem to want them to not ever say anything, but that just ain't how it works. Nor was that the original complaint that started the thread.

So the video proved nothing. Was that your point?

 

[driveby]

YouTube - Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"

I wonder if Radioman will see this.

I saw it.

What point of yours do you think it proves? What I saw was a politician saying something that no one in the audience liked. And the audience reacted to his statement. For about 3 to 5 seconds according to my count. Disruptive? No. Organized opposition? Didn't seem like it. Protest signs? Cameraman didn't seem to capture any. Sorry you seem to want them to not ever say anything, but that just ain't how it works. Nor was that the original complaint that started the thread.

So the video proved nothing. Was that your point?

How the fuck have these two nimrods not bored you into submission yet ? .....

 

[RadiomanATL]

I wonder if Radioman will see this.

I saw it.

What point of yours do you think it proves? What I saw was a politician saying something that no one in the audience liked. And the audience reacted to his statement. For about 3 to 5 seconds according to my count. Disruptive? No. Organized opposition? Didn't seem like it. Protest signs? Cameraman didn't seem to capture any. Sorry you seem to want them to not ever say anything, but that just ain't how it works. Nor was that the original complaint that started the thread.

So the video proved nothing. Was that your point?

How the fuck have these two nimrods not bored you into submission yet ? .....

I never get bored giving people shovels and watching them dig themselves deeper. Its fun.

 

[keee keee]

I heard about this meeting. It was in a huge democrat area and most of the people who were protesting and asking qustions of the anoited representative where DEMOCRATS, that were mad as hell and educated about this horable piece of legislation that is try to get implicated against their will. This is their new Democrats trick, blame and lable anyone who disagrees with them as republicans!!! If this was such a great piece of legislation it would get passed with out any problems, the dems don't need one republican vote to pass this abortion!!! So who is apposing them in congress now, DEMOCRATS? Why are they not all supporting this bill? Can't wait for the August break Im going to my congressmens townhall meeting and complain like hell for his actions and past votes!!!!! Counting the days for mid term elections!!!! The people are not in favor of higher taxes "CAP AND TRADE" and federally controled health care, which will also mean higher taxes. These people will pay next election!!!

 

[keee keee]

It funny to see the liberals sqirm when their own are disagreeing and leaving them. Education is a great thing, to bad they don't teach it in our school systems Thanks Dems!!! the more the people learn about this health care progam the more they dissagree and disprove of this and this current administration!!! eyes are being opened daily.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

 

[Political Junky]

It funny to see the liberals sqirm when their own are disagreeing and leaving them. Education is a great thing, to bad they don't teach it in our school systems Thanks Dems!!! the more the people learn about this health care progam the more they dissagree and disprove of this and this current administration!!! eyes are being opened daily.

Education? It's cons that want to teach creationism [the talking snake theory] in school.

 

[DiveCon]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

you cant see a difference between the Gates situation and a town hall?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

you cant see a difference between the Gates situation and a town hall?

Sure. One is private and one is public.

I'll let you guess where disorderly charges are more strictly enforced.

And I'll let you be the first prick to explain why a man should be arrested for yelling and protesting atr his own home but a man yelling and protesting at a public meeting should not be arrested.

 

[DiveCon]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

you cant see a difference between the Gates situation and a town hall?

Sure. One is private and one is public.

I'll let you guess where disorderly charges are more strictly enforced.

And I'll let you be the first prick to explain why a man should be arrested for yelling and protesting atr his own home but a man yelling and protesting at a public meeting should not be arrested.

first you will have to show me where anyone was being arrested at these town halls

 

[RadiomanATL]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

The memo states that the audience needs to call the reps on their bullshit and shout it out, but specifically states that it should be short and intermittent. The memo also clearly states that the audience should not carry on and make a scene.

And I don't care if someone yells and shouts intermittently on his front porch, as long as he doesn't make a scene and disrupt the entire neighborhood. If yer going to compare apples to apples and all, that should have been yer analogy.

There is a line. And the memo clearly states where it is and that the audience should not cross it. But nice try at mischaracterizing it though.

And go back through the Gates threads. Be my guest.

 

[Sweet Willy]

you cant see a difference between the Gates situation and a town hall?

Sure. One is private and one is public.

I'll let you guess where disorderly charges are more strictly enforced.

And I'll let you be the first prick to explain why a man should be arrested for yelling and protesting atr his own home but a man yelling and protesting at a public meeting should not be arrested.

first you will have to show me where anyone was being arrested at these town halls

There are often arrest for disorderly at such meetings, not that it has anything to do with the reasoning I ask of your silly ass.

If you support the arrest of Prof. Gates, a man arrested for yelling on his front porch, I ask you if you support the arrest of people yelling and shouting inside a public building with the stated purpose of flustering and disorienting the speaker?

Let me give you a hint, dumbass.......Gates wasn't guilty of anything. If you think he was, then it stands to reason that you should believe this memo is enciting people to disorderly conduct. "Yelling" and "shouting" in public.

 

[Annie]

Those that disagree with current pending legislation have as much of a right to go Alinsky, as Obama & Co., did before the election and after. What's fine for one is fine for the other. BTW, seems we should be seeing more about the death toll in Afghanistan too.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

The memo states that the audience needs to call the reps on their bullshit and shout it out, but specifically states that it should be short and intermittent. The memo also clearly states that the audience should not carry on and make a scene.

And I don't care if someone yells and shouts intermittently on his front porch, as long as he doesn't make a scene and disrupt the entire neighborhood. If yer going to compare apples to apples and all, that should have been yer analogy.

There is a line. And the memo clearly states where it is and that the audience should not cross it. But nice try at mischaracterizing it though.

And go back through the Gates threads. Be my guest.

The memo specifies "yelling" and "shouting" in a public place. Then it says not to be disruptive. Kind of like a memo that tells you to fart in church but not stink the place up.

The only thing I can see that is wrong with the memo is the directive to yell and shout. That isn't needed. And once again, if we're going to arrest a man for yelling a few words on his front porch, we certainly should be taking a really hard look at entire groups of people who plan to attend a public meeting with a plan that includes yelling and shouting by a lot of people in a co ordinated effort. That's conspiracy to commit a crime.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Those that disagree with current pending legislation have as much of a right to go Alinsky, as Obama & Co., did before the election and after. What's fine for one is fine for the other. BTW, seems we should be seeing more about the death toll in Afghanistan too.

Anyone yelling and shouting in public should be arrested.

OR.....admit that the Gates arrest was bullshit. Can't have it both ways.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Read the memo. It does direct people to "yell" and "shout" at the meetings.

I would ask that any of you pricks that advocated the arrest of Prof. Gates show that you aren't partisan douche bags and also advocate the arrest of anyone shouting and yelling in a public meeting. If you believe a man should be arrested for yelling and shouting on his front porch, you have no reason to support this memo that clearly advocates yelling and shouting at a public place.

Do I have to go to the Gates arrest threads and pick you lousy mother fuckers out for a line up?

The memo states that the audience needs to call the reps on their bullshit and shout it out, but specifically states that it should be short and intermittent. The memo also clearly states that the audience should not carry on and make a scene.

And I don't care if someone yells and shouts intermittently on his front porch, as long as he doesn't make a scene and disrupt the entire neighborhood. If yer going to compare apples to apples and all, that should have been yer analogy.

There is a line. And the memo clearly states where it is and that the audience should not cross it. But nice try at mischaracterizing it though.

And go back through the Gates threads. Be my guest.

The memo specifies "yelling" and "shouting" in a public place. Then it says not to be disruptive. Kind of like a memo that tells you to fart in church but not stink the place up.

The only thing I can see that is wrong with the memo is the directive to yell and shout. That isn't needed. And once again, if we're going to arrest a man for yelling a few words on his front porch, we certainly should be taking a really hard look at entire groups of people who plan to attend a public meeting with a plan that includes yelling and shouting by a lot of people in a co ordinated effort. That's conspiracy to commit a crime.

"Yelling and shouting", and "not being disruptive" are not mutually exclusive concepts.

You need to attend a Southern Pentecostal church to see both concepts in action at its finest. Then you'll get an idea.