GOP strategy - disrupted Dem town hall meetings

[DiveCon]

The GOP is getting more and more desperate.

72% of Americans want healthcare reform.

yeah, but Obamacare IS NOT REFORM

Why do you care?

You have government sponsored healthcare.

just keep lying, its what you are known for, that and copy & paste things you dont even read or understand

 

[Political Junky]

Some understand the difference in voicing an opinion and disruptive shouting.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Some understand the difference in voicing an opinion and disruptive shouting.

I do......i'm lurking and watcing the battle.

I added my intelligent 2 cents and got ignored by chris.....makes me think he isn't interested in any real discourse.

 

[Sweet Willy]

YouTube - Antiwar Protesters Force Senate Into Recess

Where is all this finger pointing whe

That is an excellent example of yelling and shouting that DISRUPTED a proceeding. As we would expect, there was a call for the "seargent art arms" to restore order.

Thats my point though Willy, if these people are seen as disruptive then do the same thing, but don't condemn these Americans for speaking out and exercising a right that is given to them under the constitution. Let me ask you something Willy had those protestors in the video been a bunch of republicans rather than code pink then what do you suppose the uproar in the media would have been? The point is that no matter the cause even if may not agree with them we should never advocate the curbing of free speech. While people should try to act in an honorable and peaceful manner, when doing so, I think it's a little sad that these Americans are condemend as somehow being lapdogs of some extreme movement and at the same time over the last several years on a daily basis this same tactic has been used over and over again by the left and seen as an honorable exercise in civil rights.

I don't condem any of them. They have a right to speak and I support a great lattitude for that. I think you are missing the points I am making. It has nothing to do with anyone's politics.

1) If we are going to arrest people for yelling on their front porch, I have to insist the same law be applied to everyone, everywhere, yelling at public officials. If I can't yell at an official that is standing in MY YARD without being arrested, I certainly expect that anyone yelling at an official in a public place will also be arrested.

OTOH, just be consistant and admit that there is no reason to arrest a person for yelling from their front porch in the middle of the afternoon. Gates was every bit as unhappy about cops fucking with him in his home as anyone is upset about Healthcare. If you can yell about your objections to healthcare, you can certainly yell about a cops entering your house and lying that someone said a black man was seen breaking in.

2) The memo is an obvious playbook for disruption. Whether you agree or disagree with the disruption is secondary. The memo instructs them to "rock the boat", "shout" and "yell". To simply substitute the phrase "rock the boat" for "disruption" does not change the meaning of the memo. That's what "rock the boat" means. It's the equivalent of instructing someone to fire a lethal projectile into a person. But don't shoot him.

3) The memo doesn't even suggest to EVER LISTEN to what your rep has to say. If we went by this memo, we'd never even get to hear what the Rep has to say. Which is the PURPOSE of the meeting. The fact that these plans make NO intention to EVER listen to what anyone has to say betrays them for what they are: a plan to disprupt. It's not a plan to object to anything said. It doesn't even suggest that anyone ever listen to see if anything objectionable is ever even said. The entire premise IS NOT to participate in a discussion, there are no suggestions as to what it is anyone is objecting to. It's just a plan to disrupt a meeting. If you don't read carefully, you don't even know WTF you're supposed to be disrupting, only that you are going to a meeting with the expressed purpose of yelling and shouting at someone.

4) I don't care who yells and shouts. I think we have that right. I certainly think we have that right at our home. No need to arrest anyone.

5) If you think Henry Gates arrest was just, for shouting at a police officer on his front porch, there is no way to make a logical argument that groups of people should be allowed to conspire to yell and shout, rock the boat, and stagger public officials in a public forum. If you split your opinion on the issue, you are a clear partisan and are allowing your political leanings to influence your judgement.

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpDmFggkNi4]YouTube - Protest Outside of McCain Town Hall[/ame]

So I suppose now by definition I can start calling these people who are rightfully exercising their rights as paid lobbyists because they are with SEIU and other Unions and are trying to disrupt a townhall?

 

[DiveCon]

That is an excellent example of yelling and shouting that DISRUPTED a proceeding. As we would expect, there was a call for the "seargent art arms" to restore order.

Thats my point though Willy, if these people are seen as disruptive then do the same thing, but don't condemn these Americans for speaking out and exercising a right that is given to them under the constitution. Let me ask you something Willy had those protestors in the video been a bunch of republicans rather than code pink then what do you suppose the uproar in the media would have been? The point is that no matter the cause even if may not agree with them we should never advocate the curbing of free speech. While people should try to act in an honorable and peaceful manner, when doing so, I think it's a little sad that these Americans are condemend as somehow being lapdogs of some extreme movement and at the same time over the last several years on a daily basis this same tactic has been used over and over again by the left and seen as an honorable exercise in civil rights.

I don't condem any of them. They have a right to speak and I support a great lattitude for that. I think you are missing the points I am making. It has nothing to do with anyone's politics.

1) If we are going to arrest people for yelling on their front porch, I have to insist the same law be applied to everyone, everywhere, yelling at public officials. If I can't yell at an official that is standing in MY YARD without being arrested, I certainly expect that anyone yelling at an official in a public place will also be arrested.

OTOH, just be consistant and admit that there is no reason to arrest a person for yelling from their front porch in the middle of the afternoon. Gates was every bit as unhappy about cops fucking with him in his home as anyone is upset about Healthcare. If you can yell about your objections to healthcare, you can certainly yell about a cops entering your house and lying that someone said a black man was seen breaking in.

2) The memo is an obvious playbook for disruption. Whether you agree or disagree with the disruption is secondary. The memo instructs them to "rock the boat", "shout" and "yell". To simply substitute the phrase "rock the boat" for "disruption" does not change the meaning of the memo. That's what "rock the boat" means. It's the equivalent of instructing someone to fire a lethal projectile into a person. But don't shoot him.

3) The memo doesn't even suggest to EVER LISTEN to what your rep has to say. If we went by this memo, we'd never even get to hear what the Rep has to say. Which is the PURPOSE of the meeting. The fact that these plans make NO intention to EVER listen to what anyone has to say betrays them for what they are: a plan to disprupt. It's not a plan to object to anything said. It doesn't even suggest that anyone ever listen to see if anything objectionable is ever even said. The entire premise IS NOT to participate in a discussion, there are no suggestions as to what it is anyone is objecting to. It's just a plan to disrupt a meeting. If you don't read carefully, you don't even know WTF you're supposed to be disrupting, only that you are going to a meeting with the expressed purpose of yelling and shouting at someone.

4) I don't care who yells and shouts. I think we have that right. I certainly think we have that right at our home. No need to arrest anyone.

5) If you think Henry Gates arrest was just, for shouting at a police officer on his front porch, there is no way to make a logical argument that groups of people should be allowed to conspire to yell and shout, rock the boat, and stagger public officials in a public forum. If you split your opinion on the issue, you are a clear partisan and are allowing your political leanings to influence your judgement.

the memo is likely a complete fabrication

 

[Navy1960]

I don't miss your point Willy and people should act in a honorable manner when they are expressing themselves. I don't condone anyone that would not allow their fellow citizen to speak. I believe that anyone that acting in a manner that the people who are running these townhalls feel is being disruptive should be removed. That being said though, it's equally dishonorable to somehow in the media make these people feel like they have no right to express their opinion simply because someone does not agree with them or make an effort in the media to make them appear as dishonorable for doing so.

 

[alan1]

GOP strategy - disrupted Dem town hall meetings

Are you of the position that nobody but democrats should attend town hall meetings?
Do you work for CNN or is it MSNBC?

 

[DiveCon]

I don't miss your point Willy and people should act in a honorable manner when they are expressing themselves. I don't condone anyone that would not allow their fellow citizen to speak. I believe that anyone that acting in a manner that the people who are running these townhalls feel is being disruptive should be removed. That being said though, it's equally dishonorable to somehow in the media make these people feel like they have no right to express their opinion simply because someone does not agree with them or make an effort in the media to make them appear as dishonorable for doing so.

and i can see how people wopuld be upset when Specter claimed they didnt have time or the ability to read the bills
that should piss off anyone

 

[Amanda]

I read about 4 pages of this nonsense then realized it went on for 20+ more...

All I see here are people exercising their rights. If that pisses you off maybe another country where dissent is silenced would be more to your liking.

 

[DiveCon]

GOP strategy - disrupted Dem town hall meetings

Are you of the position that nobody but democrats should attend town hall meetings?
Do you work for CNN or is it MSNBC?

of course, only Dems have the right to be pissed off

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G5QdLYFJdA&feature=related]YouTube - 051 Counter Protest with moveon.org in front of Sen Hagan' office in Releigh for Public Health Care[/ame]

So then what do you call the people from moveon.org in front of the Sen. office advocating for healthcare " oh they just showed up". See what I mean about selecting a group and calling them dishonorable for actually exercising their rights , then the same must apply to every group/ SEIU, moveon.org, organize for america, code pink, and others...

 

[Amanda]

YouTube - 051 Counter Protest with moveon.org in front of Sen Hagan' office in Releigh for Public Health Care

So then what do you call the people from moveon.org in front of the Sen. office advocating for healthcare " oh they just showed up". See what I mean about selecting a group and calling them dishonorable for actually exercising their rights , then the same must apply to every group/ SEIU, moveon.org, organize for america, code pink, and others...

It's more of the same hypocrisy that we see from the libs all the time. When they do it... great! When others do it... OMG!

Seriously, the Republicans are getting organized, in the same way Democrats have been, and now suddenly when it's them having it happen they cry like little babies.

Grow up Dems, you elected these people, if they don't have what it takes to stand up to the public then pick someone who can next time.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Let me get this straight

Liberals are bitching about conservatives voicing their opinions loudly at town hall meetings.

So this must have really had the liberals up in arms, cause this is worse.

Michelle Malkin » Black Panther intimidation at the polls?; NBPP: “We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of ou


I've got that right, don't I?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yes, Gates was arrested for yelling at Crowley IN PUBLIC.

So, just like I said. Yelling at a police officer. Thats what I said the first time.

The comparison is absolutely just. One man is arrested for yelling at a public official and here we have an entire group of people planning to go yell at a public official.

No the comparison is not. Yelling out one or two words in a public meeting is NOT the same as berating a police officer after being told to stop. No matter how many times that you repeat it is.

Saying that they are the same is at best intellectual dishonest. Lying at worst.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

Absolute bullshit.

The purpose is to rattle the speaker off of his message and to make him have doubts about his position. A disruption would be that the speaker is unable to get his message out due to the disorderly conduct of the audience.

This is clearly not what the memo states for the audience to do. Do not try to spin it. You will get called on your BS.

There is no spin, only the instructions in the memo.

The memo instructs participants to yell and shout before they are recognized to speak, before the normal time for them to speak. That's a disruption. An interuption of the normal course of events.

I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with double standard dipshits who think a man should be arrested for yelling at an official on his own porch but an organized crowd who have conspired to yell and shout at an official during a meeting are somehow above the same law.

It's a double standard. Anyone but a partisan can see the point. You can stand on either side of the issue, disagreeing with or advocating arrest in both cases. However, if you split your opinion on the issue, there is some kind of unreasonalbe, illogical thought process going on.

Once again, shouting out one or two word intermittently during a public gathering is not the same as berating a police officer repeatedly after being told to stop.

Stop being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I don't miss your point Willy and people should act in a honorable manner when they are expressing themselves. I don't condone anyone that would not allow their fellow citizen to speak. I believe that anyone that acting in a manner that the people who are running these townhalls feel is being disruptive should be removed. That being said though, it's equally dishonorable to somehow in the media make these people feel like they have no right to express their opinion simply because someone does not agree with them or make an effort in the media to make them appear as dishonorable for doing so.

I agree with you. Show up and speak. It is your right to be heard.

I am only asking for some logical consistancy. Not from the media, that's a lost cause. Each side has it's own partisan coverage. Rush and Fox do a fine job of portraying left wing protestors as traitors and criminals. The truth is that everyone has a right to protest and be heard and no one is any more or less patriotic or entitled to do so.

With regard to the "disorderly conduct" angle, if a group of people plan to yell and shout, out of turn, at a public meeting, with the intent to derail the normal course of civilized debate, that is a hell of a lot more fitting to the definition of "disorderly conduct" than an old man shouting from his front porch at a cop he's pissed off with. The old man's intention is not to cause disorder. A group that plans to yell and shout, rock the boat and speak out of turn.....well, that's the definition of disorder. And they didn't do it spontaneously, they planned it.

It's simple. if you split your opinion on the criminal nature of these two incidents, no matter which way you split, you're a partisan pea brain, on one side or the other. YOu can support both causes for arrest or neither and you're at least taking a respectable position. If you split, you aren't honest. Even with yourself.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't miss your point Willy and people should act in a honorable manner when they are expressing themselves. I don't condone anyone that would not allow their fellow citizen to speak. I believe that anyone that acting in a manner that the people who are running these townhalls feel is being disruptive should be removed. That being said though, it's equally dishonorable to somehow in the media make these people feel like they have no right to express their opinion simply because someone does not agree with them or make an effort in the media to make them appear as dishonorable for doing so.

I agree with you. Show up and speak. It is your right to be heard.

I am only asking for some logical consistancy. Not from the media, that's a lost cause. Each side has it's own partisan coverage. Rush and Fox do a fine job of portraying left wing protestors as traitors and criminals. The truth is that everyone has a right to protest and be heard and no one is any more or less patriotic or entitled to do so.

With regard to the "disorderly conduct" angle, if a group of people plan to yell and shout, out of turn, at a public meeting, with the intent to derail the normal course of civilized debate, that is a hell of a lot more fitting to the definition of "disorderly conduct" than an old man shouting from his front porch at a cop he's pissed off with. The old man's intention is not to cause disorder. A group that plans to yell and shout, rock the boat and speak out of turn.....well, that's the definition of disorder. And they didn't do it spontaneously, they planned it.

It's simple. if you split your opinion on the criminal nature of these two incidents, no matter which way you split, you're a partisan pea brain, on one side or the other. YOu can support both causes for arrest or neither and you're at least taking a respectable position. If you split, you aren't honest. Even with yourself.

the two situations are so far from each other yet you seem to think they are similar

that makes YOU the peabrain

 

[Sweet Willy]

Absolute bullshit.

The purpose is to rattle the speaker off of his message and to make him have doubts about his position. A disruption would be that the speaker is unable to get his message out due to the disorderly conduct of the audience.

This is clearly not what the memo states for the audience to do. Do not try to spin it. You will get called on your BS.

There is no spin, only the instructions in the memo.

The memo instructs participants to yell and shout before they are recognized to speak, before the normal time for them to speak. That's a disruption. An interuption of the normal course of events.

I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with double standard dipshits who think a man should be arrested for yelling at an official on his own porch but an organized crowd who have conspired to yell and shout at an official during a meeting are somehow above the same law.

It's a double standard. Anyone but a partisan can see the point. You can stand on either side of the issue, disagreeing with or advocating arrest in both cases. However, if you split your opinion on the issue, there is some kind of unreasonalbe, illogical thought process going on.

Once again, shouting out one or two word intermittently during a public gathering is not the same as berating a police officer repeatedly after being told to stop.

Stop being intellectually dishonest.

So now cops get special treatment?

If our US rep tells these people to stop shouting at him, can we then arrest them? Or is it just cops that have this special power to take away our rights? Is there a list of who gets to tell me to stop yelling at them or I get arrested? It would be good legal info to have.

Please, do tell me more about who I can and can not yell at.

If a group plans to "rock the boat" at a public meeting, by shouting and yelling, what is that? Don't we have a designated time for allowing them to speak? Why are they planning to yell out of turn? Has someone told them they wouldn't be allowed to speak at the meeting? If that is so, I'm all for yelling and screaming and setting the damned town hall on fire. But that's not the case is it? They have provided that these people can speak and ask questions. But that isn't enough. They plan to yell and shout, interupt the speaker and cause a disturbance.

And that's fine by me......except that other people are being arrested for creating a disturbance....at their own house.

 

[Xenophon]

Some understand the difference in voicing an opinion and disruptive shouting.

Yes, that is true.

The opposition to Obama and his wasteful spending are voicing an opinion.

Obama's sycophants are trying desperately to disruptively shout them down.