Free speech vs. taxation without representation

[WillowTree]

Willow,
Columbia? The District of? Or the hundreds of other cities, schools, businesses and even people so named?

I'm sure with the posted videos on this subject eventually you will figure it out.. eventually!

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I'll try to ask you a less difficult question."
"How is the majority infringing on the minority in these town hall situations?"

No need to bog down in semantics. Whether a majority of those present or a minority of those present engage in behavior aimed at disrupting free speech, and the free and unfettered discourse between a citizen and his/her representative, such behavior is (IMO) reprehensible, and may in fact be criminal, depending on the local criminal code.
Now, lets expand the debate and consider the behavior during the past administration, wherein (hypothetically, because I do not have access to a source) a person wearing a 'T' shirt stood and silently protested the policies of President Bush. Was it proper if those protesters were removed and detained by law enforcement?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"I'll try to ask you a less difficult question."
"How is the majority infringing on the minority in these town hall situations?"

No need to bog down in semantics. Whether a majority of those present or a minority of those present engage in behavior aimed at disrupting free speech, and the free and unfettered discourse between a citizen and his/her representative, such behavior is (IMO) reprehensible, and may in fact be criminal, depending on the local criminal code.
Now, lets expand the debate and consider the behavior during the past administration, wherein (hypothetically, because I do not have access to a source) a person wearing a 'T' shirt stood and silently protested the policies of President Bush. Was it proper if those protesters were removed and detained by law enforcement?

Based on what I've seen in these latest town hall clips, people were questioning their representatives, not cause a disruption. They were not shouting down anyone but merely expressing their opinions and wanting answers. Look at the clips that Willow provided and compare them to the clips from the townhall meetings. Then ask yourself, who is infringing on whose rights?

 

[manifold]

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.

democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

If we use your "popular usage" definition of the word "democracy," then the answer to your original question is no.

See how that works?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.

democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

If we use your "popular usage" definition of the word "democracy," then the answer to your original question is no.

See how that works?

I wouldn't expect any less of a moronic response from an idiot. Thanks for not letting me down.

 

[manifold]

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.

democracy is rule by the majority is it not?

If we use your "popular usage" definition of the word "democracy," then the answer to your original question is no.

See how that works?

I wouldn't expect any less of a moronic response from an idiot. Thanks for not letting me down.

Translation: You got pantsed trying to play stupid word games and now you're going to pout.

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulence!

 

[Anguille]

If we use your "popular usage" definition of the word "democracy," then the answer to your original question is no.

See how that works?

I wouldn't expect any less of a moronic response from an idiot. Thanks for not letting me down.

Translation: You got pantsed trying to play stupid word games and now you're going to pout.

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulence!

I liked it when he called you "Nancy". That was funny. But your argument tops his.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fine Willow,
fyi, I don't view, read spam. And with the tone of your posts, your messages either.
Have a nice day.

 

[Vel]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

We've been saying all along that our Community Organizer in Chief was an affront to the Constitution. ( SOMEONE had to say it )
The irony of this is that up until it started biting their policies in the ass, liberals have praised the efforts of community organizer led protests in order to force the governement to listen to THEIR concerns. Good for the goose you know.

 

[WillowTree]

Fine Willow,
fyi, I don't view, read spam. And with the tone of your posts, your messages either.
Have a nice day.

damn you are a chicken licken ain't ya?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If we use your "popular usage" definition of the word "democracy," then the answer to your original question is no.

See how that works?

I wouldn't expect any less of a moronic response from an idiot. Thanks for not letting me down.

Translation: You got pantsed trying to play stupid word games and now you're going to pout.

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulence!

Ok Nancy democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Darkwind]

Here is the problem the left has with what happened in these town hall meetings.

Historically, a citizen would get up and ask their question. The Democrat would then offer a platitude and/or a talking point without actually giving any details. The answer would be couched in such a way as to prevent attaching any actual position by the politician so that at a later date, he/she could say "Thats not what I meant when I said that".

If the citizen persisted and demanded an answer, the politician could then say that they had answered the question and isn't this person being selfish when others want to speak too!

And then we have business as usual and we get an un-Constitutional and ruinous healthcare reform bill shoved down our throats.

In fact, if you watch the ones that were videoed, and read the events at other townhalls, you'll find that the citizens were NOT disruptive, but instead held their ground and pinned the politician to the wall demanding some hard answers backed by facts.

The others had their chance, they just had to wait their turn.

 

[del]

Based solely on the video we see on another thread, I'd say that nothing those people is doing is remotely outside the bounds of appropriate behavior.

Asking questions and voicing one's contrary opinion is not uncivil.

I haven't seen the video but this sounds out of bounds to me.

Congressman Bishop suspends town hall meetings - 27east

Why would the right of others to shout down trump my right to hear?

here's the video. i don't think they're out of control just because they disagree with bishop. they also have right to protest outside which is where most of the noise comes from. i've been at ZBA meetings that were more contentious than this.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UOLs7Cybnqw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UOLs7Cybnqw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Published on Friday, October 15, 2004 by the KGW - NewsChannel 8 (Portland, Oregon)
Teachers' T-Shirts Bring Bush Speech Ouster
by kgw.com and AP Staff

CENTRAL POINT, Ore. -- Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and thrown out of the President Bush rally at the Jackson County Fairgrounds Thursday night, after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties."

Three Medford school teachers who were thrown out of a Bush rally because of their t-shirts.


Three Medford school teachers who were thrown out of a Bush rally because of their t-shirts.

All three women said they were carrying valid tickets for the event that they had received from Republican Party headquarters in Medford, which had been distributing event tickets to Bush supporters.

Teacher Janet Voorhies said she simply wanted to bring a message to President Bush, but did not intend to protest.

"I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Voorhies, 48.

The women said they were angered by reports of peaceful protesters being thrown out of previous Bush-Cheney events. They said they chose the phrase, "Protect Our Civil Liberties," because it was unconfrontational.

"We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.

The women got past the first and second checkpoints and were allowed into the Jackson County fairgrounds, but were asked to leave and then escorted out of the event by campaign officials who allegedly told them their T-shirts were "obscene."

Democrats were quick to pounce on the incident and claimed the GOP has routinely sought to disclude anyone from public appearances by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney who might question the administration. There was no immediate comment from Republican officials.

"Thursday's actions in Oregon set a new standard even for Bush/Cheney - removing and threatening with arrest citizens who in no way disrupt an event and wear clothing that expresses non-disruptive party-neutral viewpoints such as "Protect Our Civil Liberties," said Adam Green, a spokesman for the Oregon Democratic Party.

When Cheney visited Eugene last month, the Register-Guard newspaper reported that Perry Patterson, 54, was cited for criminal trespassing for blurting out the word "No" after Cheney claimed that the Bush administration had made the world safer.

In a separate and unrelated case Thursday, two protesters were arrested in nearby Jacksonville, outside the historic inn where President Bush was spending the night.

A few hundred people were demonstrating peacefully there, but police moved to disperse the crowd after a few protesters allegedly put their hands on police officers. City officials said police fired projectiles known as "pepper balls" -- similar to paint balls, but filled with cayenne pepper to break up the demonstrators.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

Gosh. If we had of done what you are saying way back when, we'd still be under the rule of England. You're just pissed because you don't like what the general public has to say about Obama's idiotic way of trying to run this country.

 

[Ravi]

Free speech has limits, and any speech used to limit the free speech of others must be curtailed. Such behavior strikes at the heart of our democratic republic.
Under the guise of free speech, a minority of Americans are interferring with the sanctity of representative government, such behavior is reprehensible as well as criminal and should be condemned by anyone who believes in our Constitution. Those who support and encourage such behaviors are an afront to our Constitution and those who died in its defense.

Gosh. If we had of done what you are saying way back when, we'd still be under the rule of England. You're just pissed because you don't like what the general public has to say about Obama's idiotic way of trying to run this country.

When we were under England we were under a monarchy and we didn't have free speech. Kind of a silly argument.

 

[manifold]

I wouldn't expect any less of a moronic response from an idiot. Thanks for not letting me down.

Translation: You got pantsed trying to play stupid word games and now you're going to pout.

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulence!

Ok Nancy democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that perfectly Sally. And by that defintion the USA is NOT a democracy. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Translation: You got pantsed trying to play stupid word games and now you're going to pout.

Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulence!

Ok Nancy democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that perfectly Sally. And by that defintion the USA is NOT a democracy. What part of that do you not understand?

Well now Nancy, I've never stated that the USA was a democracy. As a matter of fact I stated

"the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. However, by popular usage the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy."

So pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

 

[Ravi]

Ok Nancy democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that perfectly Sally. And by that defintion the USA is NOT a democracy. What part of that do you not understand?

Well now Nancy, I've never stated that the USA was a democracy. As a matter of fact I stated

"the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. However, by popular usage the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy."

So pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

Why do you call him Nancy?

 

[manifold]

Ok Nancy democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that perfectly Sally. And by that defintion the USA is NOT a democracy. What part of that do you not understand?

Well now Nancy, I've never stated that the USA was a democracy. As a matter of fact I stated

"the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. However, by popular usage the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy."

So pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

You're offering two completely different defintions of democracy and you tell me to pull my head out of my ass?

Here I'll make it simple for you.

Traditional definition of democracy - rule of the majority - Clearly not the system of the USA

Popular usage defintion you've kindly provided - A government the derives it's power from the people and is accountable to them for it's use of that power (an example of which is the USA) - CLEARLY NOT RULE OF THE MAJORITY!

So my only question is, do you actually have a point to make regarding the topic of this thread?