Town halls gone wild

[Coyote]

I don't think repetition is working anymore for the Dems, and I'll concede that it's worked very well for them in the past, but people are fed up. Until someone can offer irrefutable evidence that these are 'pros', then you really should quit spreading the propaganda put out by your party leaders. All you are doing is repeating what you've heard elsewhere w/o really knowing if it's true or not. It's not going to work in this case like it has in the past. Sorry.

I think there is a bit of distortion here - they aren't all saying the attendees are "pro's" but that they are funded and organized by "pro's" and there is clear evidence for that - at best, it's a mix of honest sentiment and political and corporate manipulation much like the "Tea Party" movement, but with the clear intent of derailing health reform through disruption. They are doing exactly what they accused the Dems of doing through Moveon.org or war protesting.

I understand that many of these folks are upset about the whole ball of wax of big government and big spending, not just the potential for the high cost of health care reform. So my question would be why weren't there such angry protests day in and day out when Republicans held a majority and were pushing their spending programs? Were there big protests against Reagan's expansion (bailout) of Social Security which actually taxed high earners? Were they in the streets protesting the expansion of Medicare by giving a select group of voters (elderly) billions of dollars worth of free prescription drugs annually?

Why is it that "enough is enough" happens on the Democrats' watch and never the Republicans' watch?

Exactly....and wasn't it Reagan who said deficits don't matter?

But now they do?

At least - one plus - the numbers are a little more honest since war spending is now included.

 

[Coyote]

Anytime I see George Soros mentioned, I know that the person is stuck forever in the black hole of the right wing noise machine. The guy is an INVESTOR in many things, just as some of the mega-billionnaires who have invested heavily in right wing people and projects over the years and no more evil than they are.

But....but....isn't George Soros linked to the devil and the number of the beast and .... Al Queda....and he probably funded 9/11.....

Hmm, I stated 'funded' you stated 'invested', them went on about the beast. You think I'm twisted? LOL! I'm as far from bible thumper that you are going to get. Twit.

I was just being sarcastic and it wasn't even directed at you....I'm not assuming anything or saying anything about your beliefs - just about the whole tendancy of partisans to invest an incredible amount of power, evil intent etc. in one individual simply because he invests in political causes for the wrong ideology.

Also, I did not use the term "invested" but rather, "funded".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't think repetition is working anymore for the Dems, and I'll concede that it's worked very well for them in the past, but people are fed up. Until someone can offer irrefutable evidence that these are 'pros', then you really should quit spreading the propaganda put out by your party leaders. All you are doing is repeating what you've heard elsewhere w/o really knowing if it's true or not. It's not going to work in this case like it has in the past. Sorry.

I think there is a bit of distortion here - they aren't all saying the attendees are "pro's" but that they are funded and organized by "pro's" and there is clear evidence for that - at best, it's a mix of honest sentiment and political and corporate manipulation much like the "Tea Party" movement, but with the clear intent of derailing health reform through disruption. They are doing exactly what they accused the Dems of doing through Moveon.org or war protesting.

I understand that many of these folks are upset about the whole ball of wax of big government and big spending, not just the potential for the high cost of health care reform. So my question would be why weren't there such angry protests day in and day out when Republicans held a majority and were pushing their spending programs? Were there big protests against Reagan's expansion (bailout) of Social Security which actually taxed high earners? Were they in the streets protesting the expansion of Medicare by giving a select group of voters (elderly) billions of dollars worth of free prescription drugs annually?

Why is it that "enough is enough" happens on the Democrats' watch and never the Republicans' watch?

Are you blind or do you just see what you choose to see?

I recall many protesters protesting against the war in Iraq and the billions of dollars being spent.

The POTUS isn't the one that does the spending and in Reagans presidency, the democrats controlled the house for all but two years of his two terms.

But nice try.

 

[Coyote]

I think there is a bit of distortion here - they aren't all saying the attendees are "pro's" but that they are funded and organized by "pro's" and there is clear evidence for that - at best, it's a mix of honest sentiment and political and corporate manipulation much like the "Tea Party" movement, but with the clear intent of derailing health reform through disruption. They are doing exactly what they accused the Dems of doing through Moveon.org or war protesting.

I understand that many of these folks are upset about the whole ball of wax of big government and big spending, not just the potential for the high cost of health care reform. So my question would be why weren't there such angry protests day in and day out when Republicans held a majority and were pushing their spending programs? Were there big protests against Reagan's expansion (bailout) of Social Security which actually taxed high earners? Were they in the streets protesting the expansion of Medicare by giving a select group of voters (elderly) billions of dollars worth of free prescription drugs annually?

Why is it that "enough is enough" happens on the Democrats' watch and never the Republicans' watch?

Are you blind or do you just see what you choose to see?

I recall many protesters protesting against the war in Iraq and the billions of dollars being spent.

The POTUS isn't the one that does the spending and in Reagans presidency, the democrats controlled the house for all but two years of his two terms.

But nice try.

The Republicans controlled the house for all but two years of Bush's term. Were there any angry protests from the right over deficits? Or did they only start up in the last two years when the Democrats had control?

 

[MaggieMae]

Which is exactly what you are defending. Do you expect them to just shut up and go away? Isn't that what you want?

I never thought I'd see the day where leftist progressives were complaining about protesting the government. Absolutely hilarious.

Actually - yes. In a manner of speaking.

Their intent is not to "be heard" - it's to disrupt the meetings so NO ONE ELSE can be heard.

If I were at one of those meetings it would be because I would want information - the chance to ask questions, listen to answers, and have my views heard - it would not be to DROWN OUT the opposition through rude and immature mob-like behavior.

Maybe it's just me - but I find it rude - not patriotic.

So, you advocate taking away the right to free speech on a selective group of your fellow Americans? If they don't agree with you, they should just shut the hell up? How can you even have such a stance??

You have shown no evidence of an 'immature mob' at any of them. I've seen the videos of them, and it is not an 'immature mob', nor is it people having been coerced by insurance companies. Until you can provide proof of either of these, you should quit spreading propaganda put out by your party leaders in an effort to shut up hard working, honest Americans that have every right to voice their opinions.

You can find it rude all you like, that is your opinion. The difference is this time that no one cares whether those on the left find it 'rude'. I found it offensive for many years what those on the left have done, but I've never questioned their right to do it. That's the difference between you and I.

I don't think Coyote said anything about wanting to eliminate the rights of those who want to protest. But like every other thinking ADULT watching this shit go on, the intent is clearly to be disruptive, and not to contribute anything serious to the conversations. When they become SHOUT OUTS, they might as well just start yelling FIRE and clear the room of everyone.

And there most certainly have been loud protests by arm-chair warriors over the Code Pink women and Cindy Sheehan. It got real ugly during that time, in case you've forgotten. There were many on the right who came to actually believe that dissent was unpatriotic, and we were screamed at on a daily basis both on websites and on the streets.

 

[Annie]

More of those 'professional and disruptive' protests:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdnzIrnzkU

 

[MaggieMae]

But....but....isn't George Soros linked to the devil and the number of the beast and .... Al Queda....and he probably funded 9/11.....

Hmm, I stated 'funded' you stated 'invested', them went on about the beast. You think I'm twisted? LOL! I'm as far from bible thumper that you are going to get. Twit.

I was just being sarcastic and it wasn't even directed at you....I'm not assuming anything or saying anything about your beliefs - just about the whole tendancy of partisans to invest an incredible amount of power, evil intent etc. in one individual simply because he invests in political causes for the wrong ideology.

Also, I did not use the term "invested" but rather, "funded".

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

 

[Annie]

Hmm, I stated 'funded' you stated 'invested', them went on about the beast. You think I'm twisted? LOL! I'm as far from bible thumper that you are going to get. Twit.

I was just being sarcastic and it wasn't even directed at you....I'm not assuming anything or saying anything about your beliefs - just about the whole tendancy of partisans to invest an incredible amount of power, evil intent etc. in one individual simply because he invests in political causes for the wrong ideology.

Also, I did not use the term "invested" but rather, "funded".

Sorry, looks like MM responded and I wrongly thought you.

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

How many states are now investigating ACORN? Finally LA is looking into the main organization.

 

[Coyote]

Hmm, I stated 'funded' you stated 'invested', them went on about the beast. You think I'm twisted? LOL! I'm as far from bible thumper that you are going to get. Twit.

I was just being sarcastic and it wasn't even directed at you....I'm not assuming anything or saying anything about your beliefs - just about the whole tendancy of partisans to invest an incredible amount of power, evil intent etc. in one individual simply because he invests in political causes for the wrong ideology.

Also, I did not use the term "invested" but rather, "funded".

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

There is a report regularly done by the non-partisan Center for Excellance in Journalism on the current state of the media and it mentioned that Fox had the highest number of opinions mixed in with the news in it's reporting....I guess that sort of proves it.

 

[Ringel05]

Hmm, I stated 'funded' you stated 'invested', them went on about the beast. You think I'm twisted? LOL! I'm as far from bible thumper that you are going to get. Twit.

I was just being sarcastic and it wasn't even directed at you....I'm not assuming anything or saying anything about your beliefs - just about the whole tendancy of partisans to invest an incredible amount of power, evil intent etc. in one individual simply because he invests in political causes for the wrong ideology.

Also, I did not use the term "invested" but rather, "funded".

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

Injecting ACORN and fox news into a thread about Town Hall Meetings.

I don't see the correlation, unless you're simply playing the party hack.

 

[Coyote]

...then you would also remember the posters from the left that claimed, 'protest is the most patriotic action one can take...

I think we can probably find some posts about those Code Pink, ACORN, SEIU, Soros funded protests. Should be interesting to compare the 'spontaneity and professionally directed' protests.

And I think you'll find that in many cases - the "spontaneity" is just as "spontanious" as these Townhall disruptions or the Tea Bag movement -- in otherwords well funded and well organized by pro's. I find it amusing that the GoP keeps pretending it's otherwise.

What a bunch of hypocrites - both parties.

Nope, I'm on multiple lists from the right, I get emails about 'Durbin' and 'Roskum' but not one offer to earn money or get a ride. That is a large difference. This is a movement that is getting organized, may well lead to a 3rd party.

I'm on multiple lists from the left and I've never gotten emails with an offer to earn money or get a ride either....perhaps....we are both on the wrong lists?

Or....maybe there's a lot of spin going on.

 

[Coyote]

I was just being sarcastic and it wasn't even directed at you....I'm not assuming anything or saying anything about your beliefs - just about the whole tendancy of partisans to invest an incredible amount of power, evil intent etc. in one individual simply because he invests in political causes for the wrong ideology.

Also, I did not use the term "invested" but rather, "funded".

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

Injecting ACORN and fox news into a thread about Town Hall Meetings.

I don't see the correlation, unless you're simply playing the party hack.

Fox news has been brought up several times as they are one of the primary (vocal) sponsors of "Tea Parties" and this Town hall stuff.

Talking about that has nothing to do with being a "party hack".

 

[Ringel05]

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

Injecting ACORN and fox news into a thread about Town Hall Meetings.

I don't see the correlation, unless you're simply playing the party hack.

Fox news has been brought up several times as they are one of the primary (vocal) sponsors of "Tea Parties" and this Town hall stuff.

Talking about that has nothing to do with being a "party hack".

It was the way the two were injected, specifically a thinly disguised jab at fox news. Truly a "hack" job by someone who seems to be blatantly partisan.
(Yes I do know how to parse a sentence and derive the authors intent)

 

[Coyote]

Injecting ACORN and fox news into a thread about Town Hall Meetings.

I don't see the correlation, unless you're simply playing the party hack.

Fox news has been brought up several times as they are one of the primary (vocal) sponsors of "Tea Parties" and this Town hall stuff.

Talking about that has nothing to do with being a "party hack".

It was the way the two were injected, specifically a thinly disguised jab at fox news. Truly a "hack" job by someone who seems to be blatantly partisan.
(Yes I do know how to parse a sentence and derive the authors intent)

Really?

Maggie's post mentioning ACORN was preceeded by this from Annie:

I think we can probably find some posts about those Code Pink, ACORN, SEIU, Soros funded protests. Should be interesting to compare the 'spontaneity and professionally directed' protests.

So..if she comments on ACORN (or Fox) she is a "blatantly partisan" "hack"...but others (right-leaning) aren't?

 

[Ringel05]

(but others (right-leaning) aren't?)
An definite assumption on your part but since she wasn't addressing the issue from a right leaning position there was no need for me to address her from that perspective.
try parsing the sentence, not reading in to it.

 

[Newby]

Actually - yes. In a manner of speaking.

Their intent is not to "be heard" - it's to disrupt the meetings so NO ONE ELSE can be heard.

If I were at one of those meetings it would be because I would want information - the chance to ask questions, listen to answers, and have my views heard - it would not be to DROWN OUT the opposition through rude and immature mob-like behavior.

Maybe it's just me - but I find it rude - not patriotic.

So, you advocate taking away the right to free speech on a selective group of your fellow Americans? If they don't agree with you, they should just shut the hell up? How can you even have such a stance??

Of course not - where did I say that even remotely?

You and I both know there are limits on free speech (for example - you can't yell "fire" in a theatre when there is no fire) - and no where did I say they should "shut the hell up" did I? I said people should behave politely and professionally sponsored agitators such as these aren't doing that nor do they want to since their aim is disruption. As such - I have every right to use my "free speech" to tell them to shut the fuck up and wait their turn so I can hear what people are trying to say without others trying to drown them out.

I recall instances where leftist protestors for Bush events were turned away for wearing obnoxious t-shirts or relegated to "free speech" zones well away from the main events. Where was your outrage then?

You have shown no evidence of an 'immature mob' at any of them. I've seen the videos of them, and it is not an 'immature mob', nor is it people having been coerced by insurance companies. Until you can provide proof of either of these, you should quit spreading propaganda put out by your party leaders in an effort to shut up hard working, honest Americans that have every right to voice their opinions.

I did not say "coerced" - I said organized and funded by, and I and others have offered links showing that in that regard they are no different then moveon.org and Code Pink's "grassroots" protesters. In fact - no one seems to be able to refute that fact except by trying to draw distinctions between "their" movements and Code Pink or Moveon.org - distinctions that are more semantical then substantive.

P.S. - I don't have a party.

You can find it rude all you like, that is your opinion. The difference is this time that no one cares whether those on the left find it 'rude'. I found it offensive for many years what those on the left have done, but I've never questioned their right to do it. That's the difference between you and I.

Of course it's my opinion - this whole thread is about "opinion" more than fact: opinions that say their movements are some how holier-than-thou, more rightious and authentically "grass roots" when we all know it's astroturf every step of the way. Just follow the money. And I have not questioned their "right" to do so any more then you have. I'm just saying I have a just as much a right to tell them to shut up so I can hear the voices they are trying to drown out.

And that, my friend - is my right too.

I still see no evidence of any of it being organized or funded by any corporation or political group, yet you keep saying that is was. All I am asking for is what your source is for even saying such a thing? Show me the money trail that you keep saying is in existance. Where are you getting this information?

 

[Newby]

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

Injecting ACORN and fox news into a thread about Town Hall Meetings.

I don't see the correlation, unless you're simply playing the party hack.

Fox news has been brought up several times as they are one of the primary (vocal) sponsors of "Tea Parties" and this Town hall stuff.

Talking about that has nothing to do with being a "party hack".

If they're 'sponsers' of it, yet another untruth, then what are all the other networks who don't report on them at all, or try to degrade them?

 

[Darkwind]

So, you advocate taking away the right to free speech on a selective group of your fellow Americans? If they don't agree with you, they should just shut the hell up? How can you even have such a stance??

Of course not - where did I say that even remotely?

You and I both know there are limits on free speech (for example - you can't yell "fire" in a theatre when there is no fire) - and no where did I say they should "shut the hell up" did I? I said people should behave politely and professionally sponsored agitators such as these aren't doing that nor do they want to since their aim is disruption. As such - I have every right to use my "free speech" to tell them to shut the fuck up and wait their turn so I can hear what people are trying to say without others trying to drown them out.

I recall instances where leftist protestors for Bush events were turned away for wearing obnoxious t-shirts or relegated to "free speech" zones well away from the main events. Where was your outrage then?



I did not say "coerced" - I said organized and funded by, and I and others have offered links showing that in that regard they are no different then moveon.org and Code Pink's "grassroots" protesters. In fact - no one seems to be able to refute that fact except by trying to draw distinctions between "their" movements and Code Pink or Moveon.org - distinctions that are more semantical then substantive.

P.S. - I don't have a party.

You can find it rude all you like, that is your opinion. The difference is this time that no one cares whether those on the left find it 'rude'. I found it offensive for many years what those on the left have done, but I've never questioned their right to do it. That's the difference between you and I.

Of course it's my opinion - this whole thread is about "opinion" more than fact: opinions that say their movements are some how holier-than-thou, more rightious and authentically "grass roots" when we all know it's astroturf every step of the way. Just follow the money. And I have not questioned their "right" to do so any more then you have. I'm just saying I have a just as much a right to tell them to shut up so I can hear the voices they are trying to drown out.

And that, my friend - is my right too.

I still see no evidence of any of it being organized or funded by any corporation or political group, yet you keep saying that is was. All I am asking for is what your source is for even saying such a thing? Show me the money trail that you keep saying is in existance. Where are you getting this information?

They have a memo.....from...ah...somewhere. If I remember right.

 

[Sinatra]

The degrading nature of the mainstream media regarding these citizens coming to the town hall meetings and demanding answers beyond the regurgitated Democrat talking points is appalling.

This is a practice in representative democracy, and the media portrays these Americans as either knuckle dragging morons or participants in some dark political machine that is sending 80 year olds forth to raise townhall hell.

Regardless, the agitation continues to grow, the Democrats continue to flounder, the Republicans continue to hope to hell someone within their ranks can come forward with a cogent and applicable message to unify the party, and the rest of us watch with increasing concern as the battle for the direction of our nation is now being played out before us...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Exactly. Also, I don't think FOXNEWS can go an entire evening without injecting ACORN into one of their reports and/or discussions. Of course that keeps their audience constantly all stirred up and Acorn=Evil floats around like a continuous subliminal message.

Injecting ACORN and fox news into a thread about Town Hall Meetings.

I don't see the correlation, unless you're simply playing the party hack.

Fox news has been brought up several times as they are one of the primary (vocal) sponsors of "Tea Parties" and this Town hall stuff.

Talking about that has nothing to do with being a "party hack".

Fox News is a "Sponsor" of the Tea Parties?

Link please.