Tea Party Group Banned from Town Hall Because of Maryland Democrats' Smear

[daveman]

I am saying disrupters of the public, Dems or TPM, should be prevented from disrupting the public's business.

What say you?

I disagree. I say people should exercise their right to peaceably assemble free from government prior restraint based on lies from other people who view them as political enemies.

You've said you oppose that idea.

If they disrupt, then they can be thrown out. Not before.

That's reasonable if the Dems lied about it. However, if credible evidence arises showing that TPM subunit was going to disrupt if given the chance, does the government have ther right to bar their attendance.

No.

Here in America, we don't punish people before they've committed a crime.

In the Amerika you want, they do.

 

[daveman]

THIS government, the liberal progressive government, no longer represents conservatives. If conservatives want representation, they will have to find a new government.

I agree. Try Iran. Its totally ran by Conservatives. Also Afghanistan, the Taliban is ultra Conservative just like Jim Demint. They hate many of the same things you hate. Religion practiced by the men all day everyday.

Katzndogz doesn't care for elections since her side can only win through gerrymandering

And reality once again kicks Dottie's ass.

The Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts - Slate Magazine

16 of the 20 most-gerrymandered districts are Democratic.

So, in reality, your side can only win through gerrymandering.

Now that you know the truth, I fully expect you to keep lying about it -- and Zarius to thank you for it.

 

[daveman]

That's reasonable if the Dems lied about it. However, if credible evidence arises showing that TPM subunit was going to disrupt if given the chance, does the government have ther right to bar their attendance.

Jake booted little fascist

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Reported. Stay on OP, Frank. You don't get to act like a little storm trooper in public meetings.

Hint: If someone calls you a jack-booted fascist, the proper refutation of that charge is NOT to denounce him to the authorities.

All you did was confirm his charge is accurate, Comrade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hint: any fascist storm trooper type (like you) I would denounce in a heart beat. or militia gunner nut. or new black panther. You bet.

Comrade daveman shows his Nazi colors.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hint: any fascist storm trooper type (like you) I would denounce in a heart beat. or militia gunner nut. or new black panther. You bet.

Comrade daveman shows his Nazi colors.

yet you are the one supressing the speech of people you dont want to hear from.

 

[Jarlaxle]

its common knowledge that the t-partiers turned town halls into rw shout-fests in the 2010 election cycle Stephie.

That tried it in our town after they were told the consequences for bad choices.

Three were arrested, put under peace bonds of several thousands, and received a suspended fine.

Anyone using verbal violence in a tax-supported meeting of the public's business is in violation of the law, is infringing on other's right to free speech.

I'm calling your bluff: name the town, the date, and the names of the people involved.

You won't, of course.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I am saying disrupters of the public, Dems or TPM, should be prevented from disrupting the public's business.

What say you?

I disagree. I say people should exercise their right to peaceably assemble free from government prior restraint based on lies from other people who view them as political enemies.

You've said you oppose that idea.

If they disrupt, then they can be thrown out. Not before.

That's reasonable if the Dems lied about it. However, if credible evidence arises showing that TPM subunit was going to disrupt if given the chance, does the government have ther right to bar their attendance.

That would be prior restraint, so no, it would clearly be wrong. If they are disruptive, throw them out.

 

[daveman]

Hint: any fascist storm trooper type (like you) I would denounce in a heart beat. or militia gunner nut. or new black panther. You bet.

Comrade daveman shows his Nazi colors.

Boy, why do you keep up this charade? You're simply not equipped to carry it off.

I've seen conservatives successfully mole liberal message boards for years. It's really not that difficult.

But you idiot leftists who try to pose as conservatives out yourselves within seconds.

And now look at you: I'm supporting EVERYONE's Constitutional rights, and you call me a fascist storm trooper. You oppose your enemies exercising their Constitutional rights, and you're a good American and patriot.

Nobody believes you, boy. Nobody. You can keep stamping your foot and insisting you're a "moderate Republican" until you're blue in the face -- and all you do is look even stupider.

Do you really believe you're fooling anyone?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hint: any fascist storm trooper type (like you) I would denounce in a heart beat. or militia gunner nut. or new black panther. You bet.

Comrade daveman shows his Nazi colors.

I'm supporting EVERYONE's Constitutional rights, and you call me a fascist storm trooper.

Should anyone have the right to publicly disrupt a public meeting held at the tax-payers expense? Yes or no?

If there is no answer, the doctrine of affirmative silence will enter the answer as "yes".

 

[daveman]

Hint: any fascist storm trooper type (like you) I would denounce in a heart beat. or militia gunner nut. or new black panther. You bet.

Comrade daveman shows his Nazi colors.

I'm supporting EVERYONE's Constitutional rights, and you call me a fascist storm trooper.

Should anyone have the right to publicly disrupt a public meeting held at the tax-payers expense? Yes or no?

If there is no answer, the doctrine of affirmative silence will enter the answer as "yes".

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it.

Not before.

Don't forget to pay your fine tomorrow, or else you're going to jail, Comrade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm supporting EVERYONE's Constitutional rights, and you call me a fascist storm trooper.

Should anyone have the right to publicly disrupt a public meeting held at the tax-payers expense? Yes or no?

If there is no answer, the doctrine of affirmative silence will enter the answer as "yes".

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it. Not before.

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

 

[daveman]

Should anyone have the right to publicly disrupt a public meeting held at the tax-payers expense? Yes or no?

If there is no answer, the doctrine of affirmative silence will enter the answer as "yes".

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it. Not before.

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

Democrats telling lies is not unquestionable evidence.

What you advocate is unconstitutional and un-American.

But it IS "progressive".

 

[Jarlaxle]

Should anyone have the right to publicly disrupt a public meeting held at the tax-payers expense? Yes or no?

If there is no answer, the doctrine of affirmative silence will enter the answer as "yes".

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it. Not before.

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Does that word salad make sense to anyone but you? Dude: REMEDIAL ENGLISH!

 

[JakeStarkey]

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it. Not before.

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

Democrats telling lies is not unquestionable evidence. What you advocate is unconstitutional and un-American. But it IS "progressive".

No, and no, and is certainly American. Run along.

 

[Ernie S.]

Hint: any fascist storm trooper type (like you) I would denounce in a heart beat. or militia gunner nut. or new black panther. You bet.

Comrade daveman shows his Nazi colors.

Are you STILL drunk?

 

[Ernie S.]

Should anyone have the right to publicly disrupt a public meeting held at the tax-payers expense? Yes or no?

If there is no answer, the doctrine of affirmative silence will enter the answer as "yes".

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it. Not before.

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

PLEASE learn to use the quote function properly.

 

[Avatar4321]

They have the right to attend a public meeting UNTIL they disrupt it. Not before.

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

Democrats telling lies is not unquestionable evidence.

What you advocate is unconstitutional and un-American.

But it IS "progressive".

Even if it was unquestionable evidence, they don't have the right to preemptively remove the rights of people to attend, question, or speak. They can escort them out when they've shown they are going to violate the rules. But they cannot prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights.

 

[daveman]

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

Democrats telling lies is not unquestionable evidence.

What you advocate is unconstitutional and un-American.

But it IS "progressive".

Even if it was unquestionable evidence, they don't have the right to preemptively remove the rights of people to attend, question, or speak. They can escort them out when they've shown they are going to violate the rules. But they cannot prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights.

This thread illustrates the contempt Comrade Fakey has for the First Amendment.

 

[daveman]

Then it follows if unquestionable evidence exists, that such attendance should be prohibited.

Good for you. That's growth.

We did even better at our courthouse. The perps were told ahead of time they could attend, but if they acted out, they would be removed, fined, and place under a peace bond.

Three did not believe us before the meeting, but they certainly did after. Never had a problem out of those yahoos again.

Democrats telling lies is not unquestionable evidence. What you advocate is unconstitutional and un-American. But it IS "progressive".

No, and no, and is certainly American. Run along.

Wrong. It's not American. I didn't serve 20 years in uniform so that progressives like you could take away the rights of Americans.

You see the difference between us? I support the rights of every American.

You support the rights only of those you agree with.

How very progressive, Comrade.

 

[Stephanie]

You can upset, Steph: you just can't act like assholes and disrupt meetings.

the hell we can't...you and no government employee I pay will tell me what to do

lets all be like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton...go to get ourselves arrested then sue their asses...if you're there we'll sue your ass too...lol

So you DO plan to act like assholes and disrupt meetings. Point of the OP made, right there. Thank you.

If I want to I might, that's my right isn't it?
if I get kicked out then so be it..but not before they hear a few choice words...lol