GOP strategy - disrupted Dem town hall meetings

[Sweet Willy]

Yes, they do. Yelling and shouting, especially a co ordinated effort to do so, is disorderly.

For some reason, the idiots here think you have rights in public that you don't have at your home. Most people with common sense understand that just the opposite is true.

Thanks for the info, I was a bit worried that it was legal to disrupt public meetings.

Actually Willie is wrong, , there is more leeway in a public forum such as political rally or city/county/state meeting than on front porch of your home. D'oh

Poppy cock. You are very limited and moderated at the town hall meetings. THis is even made clear in the memo. You rattle on for more than 5 or 6 sentences and you get cut off. Don't sit down and shut up and it's "don't tase me bro!".

 

[Sweet Willy]

yeah, because there is no difference in yelling racist crap at a cop while he is trying to do his job and yelling at a congressman that isnt doing his

Fucking retard.

The congressman is doing his job, just the same as the cop. The fact you don't like the way he is doing it means NOTHING.

the con gressman is supposed to REPRESENT HIS PEOPLE
doing something they dont want is NOT doing his job


and you are proving that it is YOU that is the fucking retard
although that might be an insult to those that are mentally challenged

You have a vote. Cast it.

You don't get to yell and shout in public.

Or you do get to yell and shout in public.

Just chose one and stick with it. You'll look like less of a prick.

 

[DiveCon]

Fucking retard.

The congressman is doing his job, just the same as the cop. The fact you don't like the way he is doing it means NOTHING.

the con gressman is supposed to REPRESENT HIS PEOPLE
doing something they dont want is NOT doing his job


and you are proving that it is YOU that is the fucking retard
although that might be an insult to those that are mentally challenged

You have a vote. Cast it.

You don't get to yell and shout in public.

Or you do get to yell and shout in public.

Just chose one and stick with it. You'll look like less of a prick.

again, silly willy, you are confusing the two situations
they are NOT equal

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

you two better stop yelling at each other before i arrest both of you

 

[Sweet Willy]

the con gressman is supposed to REPRESENT HIS PEOPLE
doing something they dont want is NOT doing his job


and you are proving that it is YOU that is the fucking retard
although that might be an insult to those that are mentally challenged

You have a vote. Cast it.

You don't get to yell and shout in public.

Or you do get to yell and shout in public.

Just chose one and stick with it. You'll look like less of a prick.

again, silly willy, you are confusing the two situations
they are NOT equal

You're right about that much.

One instance is on private property, one is on public property.

One instance is planned, one is not.

 

[DiveCon]

You have a vote. Cast it.

You don't get to yell and shout in public.

Or you do get to yell and shout in public.

Just chose one and stick with it. You'll look like less of a prick.

again, silly willy, you are confusing the two situations
they are NOT equal

You're right about that much.

One instance is on private property, one is on public property.

One instance is planned, one is not.

and one was yelling racist crap(Gates) and one was exercising their rights to redress of grievance(town hall)

 

[Diuretic]

Disrupting a meeting isn't exercising a right, is it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

only if its a political meeting talking about poltics that relate to how govt interacts with the people.

If its that type of thing then its our right and duty to speak up if we agree or disagree with what is going on so our representatives know we approve or dissaprove of their ideas.


Do you accept code pink's tactics or when cindy sheehan protested outside of bush's home? If you do then you shouldn't have a problem with what this thread is discussing.

 

[DiveCon]

Disrupting a meeting isn't exercising a right, is it?

except no one was disrupting

 

[Sweet Willy]

again, silly willy, you are confusing the two situations
they are NOT equal

You're right about that much.

One instance is on private property, one is on public property.

One instance is planned, one is not.

and one was yelling racist crap(Gates) and one was exercising their rights to redress of grievance(town hall)

Doesn't matter what you're yelling. There is no description in disorderly conduct laws of particualr speech that is unlawful. The disorderly laws address the distubance of the peace, loud noises, yelling and music.

The stated purpose of this yelling, from the memo is to cause uneasiness.

"The purpose is to make him uneasy, early on and set the tone..."

So the stated reason bears out that the intentions of this yelling is to make someone feel uneasy in public and to "set the tone" with yelling and shouting. The definition of disorderly conduct.

"Look for these opportunities before he takes questions."

They are instructed to intterupt the speaker before he is taking questions.



This entire memo is a plan to disrupt meetings. If I send you instructions on how to build a bomb but then put in a disclaimer that "these are not instructions to build a bomb", they are still instructions to build a bomb.

These instructions to yell and shout, out of turn, in order to make the meeting "uneasy" and to "stagger" the speakers, is clearly a plan to disrupt and cause disorder. Should be addressed by the authorities.

 

[Sweet Willy]

only if its a political meeting talking about poltics that relate to how govt interacts with the people.

If its that type of thing then its our right and duty to speak up if we agree or disagree with what is going on so our representatives know we approve or dissaprove of their ideas.


Do you accept code pink's tactics or when cindy sheehan protested outside of bush's home? If you do then you shouldn't have a problem with what this thread is discussing.

The only problem is the double standard.

Yell on the front porch = arrest.

Organize an entire group of people to go yell at a meeting and cause people to be uneasy........freedom of speech.


Lousy, double standard pieces of shit.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, it's oh so "constitutionally correct" to act like a bunch of raging bulls and banshees. These new and extremely arrogant "conservatives" are only proving that the total demise of America is just over the horizon. Intelligence, which comes from analysis of information, is sadly lacking when grown adults just make fools of themselves.

got news for ya Mags...there are some extremely arrogant "liberals" out there too....one of them is the speaker of the house.....

I never said there weren't. This is a whole new thing, however, where throngs of people just think they can somehow help their causes by creating unruly mobs. Yes, it's happened before--the 1968 Chicago riots are the best example. Is this what you want to see repeated by YOUR party members (or those who purport to be)?

not my party Mags....i wasnt invited....nor would i wanna be....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Uh, this guy doesn't strike me as a neo-con.

if you disagree with with the Hugster....your a Neo-Con....like it or not.....the way it seems to be on this board....but Huggy said once he just lashes out.....so he lashed out...

And if anyone disagrees with your "side," we're all "liberals" or "lefties." So what's the difference? They're just stupid labels.

not my side Maggie.....and if you can find anyplace anywhere in any thread here were i called anyone a lib or lefty for disagreeing with me ill give you a rep every day for a week....i did do that to Bobo a few times ONLY because he kept on refering to me as one of "THOSE GUYS" meaning a Con......so i was doing same to him,he knew it though....

 

[Bfgrn]

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,

I agree we all want the same things in health care; affordable and secure coverage...and in I believe we all want basically the same things in general.

I do take issue with your view of government...based on the core intent of our founders, the "We, the People" and trying to apply that core belief to the radical changes that have taken place since. Call it a "what would Thomas Jefferson do" line of thinking...As you spelled out, corporations in our founder's day had a totally different set of rules...

Here's a paragraph from the article I gave a link to:
...the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

As I see it, our founder's attitude toward corporations was very consistent with guarding their FIRST obligation..."We, the People"...

IF government is no longer in the "We, the People" business, then WHO is Navy? Certainly not corporations...they are only beholden to their shareholders. Corporations are not the "We the People" our founders had in mind. Corporations don't share the same aspirations as you or I. They don't have children and they're not mortal beings that can be injured, take ill or be killed. They're entities designed to put profit first. Only government is accountable to "We the People" through the election process. A corporation is only held "accountable" by the market. But the radical change from our founders day where corporations are now allowed INTO the political process allows them to rig the market for their benefit through government subsidies and political contributions. Now that individual stockholders are NO longer held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, it allows profit to come before We, the People...If a corporation's pollution kills people, fish and fowl, WHO is held accountable?

IMO, a corporatocracy, which the party on the right promotes without telling us is the most radical departure from our founder's intent... Accountability to We the People is destroyed...

 

[DiveCon]

only if its a political meeting talking about poltics that relate to how govt interacts with the people.

If its that type of thing then its our right and duty to speak up if we agree or disagree with what is going on so our representatives know we approve or dissaprove of their ideas.


Do you accept code pink's tactics or when cindy sheehan protested outside of bush's home? If you do then you shouldn't have a problem with what this thread is discussing.

The only problem is the double standard.

Yell on the front porch = arrest.

Organize an entire group of people to go yell at a meeting and cause people to be uneasy........freedom of speech.


Lousy, double standard pieces of shit.

it is incredibly dishonest for you to claim it as just that
it was causing a PUBLIC disturbance

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well yes! I wouldn't suggest otherwise. There is no reason to be arresting people un less they have comitted a crime. I am not taking any particular side on this issue, just noting that anyone who creates a disturbance or behaves disorderly should be removed from the meetings.

Just take a look at what this guy did at a meeting. An age old republican disruption tactic.

YouTube - Fart Interrupts City Council

Willy im sorry but that was hilarious...but i have a question...how do we know a Republican did the farting?......i know quite a few Democrats who happen to be guys who fart and think its funny just like a republican male would....and i suspect you thought it was funny also....thats why you posted it.....right?....

 

[Annie]

Disrupting a meeting isn't exercising a right, is it?

If 'disrupting' becomes defined as strenuously disagreeing, yes, it is a right.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thanks for the info, I was a bit worried that it was legal to disrupt public meetings.

Actually Willie is wrong, , there is more leeway in a public forum such as political rally or city/county/state meeting than on front porch of your home. D'oh

Poppy cock. You are very limited and moderated at the town hall meetings. THis is even made clear in the memo. You rattle on for more than 5 or 6 sentences and you get cut off. Don't sit down and shut up and it's "don't tase me bro!".

geezus...not at the immigration "meetings" we have had out here....people get ...PISSED...and do plenty of yelling....unless someone starts the pushing and shoving...it goes on.....

 

[Sweet Willy]

Well yes! I wouldn't suggest otherwise. There is no reason to be arresting people un less they have comitted a crime. I am not taking any particular side on this issue, just noting that anyone who creates a disturbance or behaves disorderly should be removed from the meetings.

Just take a look at what this guy did at a meeting. An age old republican disruption tactic.

YouTube - Fart Interrupts City Council

Willy im sorry but that was hilarious...but i have a question...how do we know a Republican did the farting?......i know quite a few Democrats who happen to be guys who fart and think its funny just like a republican male would....and i suspect you thought it was funny also....thats why you posted it.....right?....

Harry, I was just joking. Everyone farts.

But it's a well known fact that republicans seek out and sniff other peoples farts.

 

[Annie]

Actually Willie is wrong, , there is more leeway in a public forum such as political rally or city/county/state meeting than on front porch of your home. D'oh

Poppy cock. You are very limited and moderated at the town hall meetings. THis is even made clear in the memo. You rattle on for more than 5 or 6 sentences and you get cut off. Don't sit down and shut up and it's "don't tase me bro!".

geezus...not at the immigration "meetings" we have had out here....people get ...PISSED...and do plenty of yelling....unless someone starts the pushing and shoving...it goes on.....

Indeed. He's way off base. You have way more 'freedoms' in volume and content in a public forum than private. He's just trying to equate the two and he loses.