Bring your video camera to your town hall

[Centrism'sVoice]

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

 

[Sweet Willy]

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

It is priceless.

The silence is golden.

 

[Ravi]

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

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

They'll pee their pants and yell fascism.

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

 

[Annie]

What a flake you are Annie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sweet Willy]

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. You're a hypocrite.


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

That sound fair enough to everyone?

 

[DiveCon]

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

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

They'll pee their pants and yell fascism.

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

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

 

[DiveCon]

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

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

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

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

Ok. You're a hypocrite.


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

That sound fair enough to everyone?

nope, you took it out of context
as your usual

 

[Sweet Willy]

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

Straight Dope Message Board - Powered by vBulletin

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

 

[Sweet Willy]

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

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

Ok. You're a hypocrite.


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

That sound fair enough to everyone?

nope, you took it out of context
as your usual

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

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

You're still a pathetic liar divecon.

 

[Ravi]

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

I doubt she'll ever answer you.

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

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

Pretty simple, really.

 

[DiveCon]

Ok. You're a hypocrite.


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

That sound fair enough to everyone?

nope, you took it out of context
as your usual

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

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

You're still a pathetic liar divecon.

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

asshole
and its YOU that is the pathetic fucking LIAR

 

[Terry]

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

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

 

[Sweet Willy]

nope, you took it out of context
as your usual

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

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

You're still a pathetic liar divecon.

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

asshole
and its YOU that is the pathetic fucking LIAR

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

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

 

[RadiomanATL]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DiveCon]

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

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

You're still a pathetic liar divecon.

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

asshole
and its YOU that is the pathetic fucking LIAR

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

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

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

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

 

[DiveCon]

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

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

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

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

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

exactly

 

[Sweet Willy]

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

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

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

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

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

Now that is a beautiful piece of verbal gymnastics!

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

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

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

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

 

[RadiomanATL]

Now that is a beautiful piece of verbal gymnastics!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Intense]

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

Be creative.

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

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

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

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

 

[Gunny]

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

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

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