Bring your video camera to your town hall

[DiveCon]

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

You are demonstrably a big fan of "free speech zones," Dilly. By your logic, that's exactly where the people disrupting these meetings belong.

thats not what he said, dipshit

 

[Coyote]

I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.

They want to be able to silence those who oppose them in any manner they deem fit and then hide behind the Constitution, but when the tables are turned, they are little kids stomping their feet yelling, "Quit it, quit it right now!"

I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

That's because it's in the same category as "your right to free speech stops when it effects someone else's rights". Like my right to free speech which can't be exercised when you are yelling loud enough to drown it out.

I guess some folks believe that only they (the loudest) have the right to free speech.

Keep making excuses.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

You are demonstrably a big fan of "free speech zones," Dilly. By your logic, that's exactly where the people disrupting these meetings belong.

You're a phony douchebagge.

The bad news is that you're not the only one here.

 

[DiveCon]

Really? your defense of positions are just idiotic shift sands

This is a gold platted turd I'm throwing here.
What do I have to do to join the club?

Just ask me to add you to the list.
That's what the Meister baiter did...

btw, dipshit, your sig is a lie
you havent taught anyone
you're too ******* stupid

 

[DiveCon]

I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

That's because it's in the same category as "your right to free speech stops when it effects someone else's rights". Like my right to free speech which can't be exercised when you are yelling loud enough to drown it out.

I guess some folks believe that only they (the loudest) have the right to free speech.

Keep making excuses.

thats not what i saw happening

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

That's because it's in the same category as "your right to free speech stops when it effects someone else's rights". Like my right to free speech which can't be exercised when you are yelling loud enough to drown it out.

I guess some folks believe that only they (the loudest) have the right to free speech.

Keep making excuses.

thats not what i saw happening

That is certainly what was happening in many of those videos posted.

It's rude and frankly selfish for those who wanted to hear their representatives answers to the questions.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

That's because it's in the same category as "your right to free speech stops when it effects someone else's rights". Like my right to free speech which can't be exercised when you are yelling loud enough to drown it out.

I guess some folks believe that only they (the loudest) have the right to free speech.

Keep making excuses.

Oh I understand the problem--I think the Constitution neglected to address our right to hear. Sorta like politicians neglect promises to be transparent.

 

[DiveCon]

That's because it's in the same category as "your right to free speech stops when it effects someone else's rights". Like my right to free speech which can't be exercised when you are yelling loud enough to drown it out.

I guess some folks believe that only they (the loudest) have the right to free speech.

Keep making excuses.

thats not what i saw happening

That is certainly what was happening in many of those videos posted.

It's rude and frankly selfish for those who wanted to hear their representatives answers to the questions.

no, what it was was congress people NOT listening
they tried to use their double talking bullshit, only NO ONE was buying it

 

[Ravi]

I think this entire thread and the OP's position is nothing more then sour grapes.

They want to be able to silence those who oppose them in any manner they deem fit and then hide behind the Constitution, but when the tables are turned, they are little kids stomping their feet yelling, "Quit it, quit it right now!"

I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

We fought a war over the right to be represented...so yes, we have a right to be heard by our reps and to hear our reps.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

We fought a war over the right to be represented...so yes, we have a right to be heard by our reps and to hear our reps.

wrong again, moron

 

[RadiomanATL]

The right to hear?

I don't remember seeing that one in the constitution anywhere. While I sympathize with the position, claiming that it is a part of the freedom is speech is downright wrong. Unless SCOTUS has ruled on such? The freedom to hear as part of a free speech case, not disturbing the peace or such.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't think it's sour grapes.


I think it's an honest expression of "free speech"...you know, that little right that means I too have a right to be heard and right to hear what my elected representative has to say even though my voice may lack the stridency and volume of those seeking to prevent my exercising that right.

It seems so simple....but maybe it's because there are those who believe free speech belongs only to the angriest and the loudest.

I'm not sure about that "right to be heard and too hear--".
Haven't read that anywhere.

We fought a war over the right to be represented...so yes, we have a right to be heard by our reps and to hear our reps.

NeoMarxists Constitution 2.0

Article 1. Congress shall make atheism the official religion of the State; the right of Representatives to be heard shall not be infringed, so when you meet with a Representative you shall shutteth the **** up

 

[Annie]

Quote of the day, off Twitter:

If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, right now he'd be more famous than Rodney King. Al Sharpton would have a whole rack of new suits.
about 19 hours ago from web

JTlol
Jim Treacher

 

[Darkwind]

Unfortunitly the representatives are using stalling tactics like Obama, long non answer answers and laborious talking points , to eat up all of the alloted time.
Then when and if they take a question they lie , all bets are off.

When you think your representative is lying, even if you're correct, it still doesn't entitle you to rob your neighbors of the right to ask their own questions.

Take the conversation transcript to your local newspaper or TV station and point out where the lies are. They'll cover it.

Two things.

My neighbor can wait his turn and;

if the local tv or newprint is liberal, they simply wont' cover it.

 

[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

 

[Sweet Willy]

Because you're a moron too, you fail to realize that Conservatives don't go out and "protest" -we have JOBS and no time to do such nonsense...

And yes, those idiots should be cleansed - put em' out of their own misery...

Nice quote here from 2004 in a conversation about killing war protesters.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-are-the-suicide-bombers-when-ya-need-em.html

 

[Sweet Willy]

Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'

Annie has been running from this quote, back in 2004.

Annie, shouldn't you be asking for these health care protesters to be kept in managable areas? In the interest of the "whole"?

 

[EriktheRed]

Because you're a moron too, you fail to realize that Conservatives don't go out and "protest" -we have JOBS and no time to do such nonsense...

And yes, those idiots should be cleansed - put em' out of their own misery...

Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'

Very interesting, though not surprising.


How times have changed, huh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, thats's no Fair! Conservatives are protesting without the help of Community Organizers!

 

[EriktheRed]

Hey, thats's no Fair! Conservatives are protesting without the help of Community Organizers!

No, they just have healthcare industry lobby groups and wingnut orgs like Freedom's Watch helping them out.