GOP strategy - disrupted Dem town hall meetings

[probus]

has sarah divorced yet?-- man, if i were a gal don't see how u could go wrong with this todd guy-- maybe she's tired of one guy-- i understand from a male perspective as we always want "strange"-- just to talk, be with, email, flirt with on the street, anything-- Regards, probus

 

[Sweet Willy]

has sarah divorced yet?-- man, if i were a gal don't see how u could go wrong with this todd guy-- maybe she's tired of one guy-- i understand from a male perspective as we always want "strange"-- just to talk, be with, email, flirt with on the street, anything-- Regards, probus

I got some KGB.....hit me up dude.

 

[Darkwind]

WHAT part of:
– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate:

do you need an explanation on???

Oh yeah. BTW, those little quotes in red were a characterization of the memo by the leftist site thinkprogress. They weren't part of the memo itself. The memo actually states:







I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. Thinkprogress was just trying to slander the oppositions attempt at a national debate. Too bad their characterization is completely wrong to anyone who actually reads the memo.

THIS part...if people are bused in, HOW are they part of that TOWN??????????????

Townhall is a format. Not necessarily specific to that town. The issues that are being debated are national ones. Too bad if the politicians can't stand the debate.

NO, the townhall is for CONSTITUENTS of THAT representative to debate and discuss issues and policies that are SPECIFIC to THAT district...that is WHY we have so many House members...

You really need a course in CIVICS...

Really?

You do realize that Spectre is a U.S. Senator and that means that fully half the state can be 'bussed' in to ask him questions. Civics is a wonderful thing to know.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Really?

You do realize that Spectre is a U.S. Senator and that means that fully half the state can be 'bussed' in to ask him questions. Civics is a wonderful thing to know.

Now your confusing the KOOKs with facts.

Silly liberals...I wonder what sort of Civic's classes they went to?
Всесоюзный Ленинский Коммунистический Союз Молодёжи

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh yeah. BTW, those little quotes in red were a characterization of the memo by the leftist site thinkprogress. They weren't part of the memo itself. The memo actually states:







I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. Thinkprogress was just trying to slander the oppositions attempt at a national debate. Too bad their characterization is completely wrong to anyone who actually reads the memo.

Townhall is a format. Not necessarily specific to that town. The issues that are being debated are national ones. Too bad if the politicians can't stand the debate.

NO, the townhall is for CONSTITUENTS of THAT representative to debate and discuss issues and policies that are SPECIFIC to THAT district...that is WHY we have so many House members...

You really need a course in CIVICS...

Really?

You do realize that Spectre is a U.S. Senator and that means that fully half the state can be 'bussed' in to ask him questions. Civics is a wonderful thing to know.

Senators are NOT in the House of Representatives and Senators don't represent a district... and judging by your reply, I wonder if you believe each Senator represents only 1/2 of their state instead of the whole state...

And YES, Civics IS a wonderful thing to know...come back after you take a course in it...

 

[Navy1960]

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how a collection of old ladies, old vets, young children, families, and a whole host of others constitutes a paid lobby group. Come now people, these are Americans expressing their 1st Amendment rights and it's no different than any other American who does so. Do you know when a number of Doctors and nurses stood up during the hearings on the hill and dusrupted them in favor of healthcare , I thought no differently than I do now. While some may not agree with these people and some do, the right they are expressing is a bedrock of our form of Govt. its in very first of the rights expressed in the bill of rights. I find it somewhat amusing that anyone would think that these people are paid to protest and remotly look like lobbyist. This label that is trying to be attached to Americans that come to these townhalls to express their veiws is nothing more than attempt to make them appear outside the mainstream. For years now this nation has had many groups right and left that have protested every event large and small for various reason and they are making their voices heard. While some may call that disruptive, I like to call it the ultimate expression of an American citizen. In the end it is up to the townhall hosts to set the rules of conduct in these townhalls and to enforce them. I had no trouble with Chairpersons ejecting various groups disrupting these hearings because everyone going in knew the code of conduct. So if there were a little more of that and little less of this trying to make these Americans look as if they are lobbyist which is amusing at best, then you might see a more civil debate. One more thing I might remind people here, these Senators, Congressmen, and Govt. appointees represent ALL americans and when they hold townhalls they do so for ALL americans regardless of who voted for them. If you want a nation where only the winners are represented then I suggest that you have one where the laws they pass only apply to you then.

 

[Darkwind]

NO, the townhall is for CONSTITUENTS of THAT representative to debate and discuss issues and policies that are SPECIFIC to THAT district...that is WHY we have so many House members...

You really need a course in CIVICS...

Really?

You do realize that Spectre is a U.S. Senator and that means that fully half the state can be 'bussed' in to ask him questions. Civics is a wonderful thing to know.

Senators are NOT in the House of Representatives and Senators don't represent a district... and judging by your reply, I wonder if you believe each Senator represents only 1/2 of their state instead of the whole state...

And YES, Civics IS a wonderful thing to know...come back after you take a course in it...

there are two Senators per state and they are there to represent the interests of the State to the Federal Goverment so in that, you are correct. The entire state had a right to be bussed there to ask questions. But if this is supposed to be a townhall for ONLY that district, WHY IS A U.S. Senator there and not a Congressperson?

Either way, you are losing this argument. The people who were there had the RIGHT to be there.

 

[Bfgrn]

Really?

You do realize that Spectre is a U.S. Senator and that means that fully half the state can be 'bussed' in to ask him questions. Civics is a wonderful thing to know.

Senators are NOT in the House of Representatives and Senators don't represent a district... and judging by your reply, I wonder if you believe each Senator represents only 1/2 of their state instead of the whole state...

And YES, Civics IS a wonderful thing to know...come back after you take a course in it...

there are two Senators per state and they are there to represent the interests of the State to the Federal Goverment so in that, you are correct. The entire state had a right to be bussed there to ask questions. But if this is supposed to be a townhall for ONLY that district, WHY IS A U.S. Senator there and not a Congressperson?

Either way, you are losing this argument. The people who were there had the RIGHT to be there.

You stuck your foot in your mouth once, and now you're here to do it again...if you read the original article, you might stop making an ass out of yourself...

The town hall meetings that were disrupted were held by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD)... Members of the House or Representatives who represent A DISTRICT in their state...

YOU are the one that ASSumed the town hall meeting being discussed was Senator Specter's... which occurred after the article was written...

Also it is Senator Arlen Specter...not Spectre...which is a British word for ghost...

you LOSE...

 

[Darkwind]

Senators are NOT in the House of Representatives and Senators don't represent a district... and judging by your reply, I wonder if you believe each Senator represents only 1/2 of their state instead of the whole state...

And YES, Civics IS a wonderful thing to know...come back after you take a course in it...

there are two Senators per state and they are there to represent the interests of the State to the Federal Goverment so in that, you are correct. The entire state had a right to be bussed there to ask questions. But if this is supposed to be a townhall for ONLY that district, WHY IS A U.S. Senator there and not a Congressperson?

Either way, you are losing this argument. The people who were there had the RIGHT to be there.

You stuck your foot in your mouth once, and now you're here to do it again...if you read the original article, you might stop making an ass out of yourself...

The town hall meetings that were disrupted were held by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD)... Members of the House or Representatives who represent A DISTRICT in their state...

YOU are the one that ASSumed the town hall meeting being discussed was Senator Specter's... which occurred after the article was written...

Also it is Senator Arlen Specter...not Spectre...which is a British word for ghost...

you LOSE...

I'm discussing the video that showed Spectre and that other dits who was with him. And yes, I know what a Spectre is. I spell that was for a purpose. Much like those who used to spell Bush as shrub. Might be to subtle or you however.

But to take the other town hall meetings into the discussion My assertion holds up.

Those peopel have a right to be there.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

wrong thread probus. NOOB

 

[Bfgrn]

there are two Senators per state and they are there to represent the interests of the State to the Federal Goverment so in that, you are correct. The entire state had a right to be bussed there to ask questions. But if this is supposed to be a townhall for ONLY that district, WHY IS A U.S. Senator there and not a Congressperson?

Either way, you are losing this argument. The people who were there had the RIGHT to be there.

You stuck your foot in your mouth once, and now you're here to do it again...if you read the original article, you might stop making an ass out of yourself...

The town hall meetings that were disrupted were held by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD)... Members of the House or Representatives who represent A DISTRICT in their state...

YOU are the one that ASSumed the town hall meeting being discussed was Senator Specter's... which occurred after the article was written...

Also it is Senator Arlen Specter...not Spectre...which is a British word for ghost...

you LOSE...

I'm discussing the video that showed Spectre and that other dits who was with him. And yes, I know what a Spectre is. I spell that was for a purpose. Much like those who used to spell Bush as shrub. Might be to subtle or you however.

But to take the other town hall meetings into the discussion My assertion holds up.

Those peopel have a right to be there.

Well, here's the final outcome...you LOSE...YOU quoted MY words and then commented on them...I WAS TALKING about Tim Bishop and Frank Kratovil, NOT Senator Specter...so, what YOU want to apply them to is IRRELEVANT...you are dismissed...LOL

 

[Nevadamedic]

Surprised?
Anyone who questions the dear leader is labeled a right wing nutter, and it's going to get worse.
People are speaking out at these "town halls" because they are very concerned and aren't receiving any real answers, just bleeding heart stories of why this garbage must be passed.

You left out racist too. They are not only labeled a right wing nutter but a racist.

 

[Diuretic]

only if its a political meeting talking about poltics that relate to how govt interacts with the people.

If its that type of thing then its our right and duty to speak up if we agree or disagree with what is going on so our representatives know we approve or dissaprove of their ideas.


Do you accept code pink's tactics or when cindy sheehan protested outside of bush's home? If you do then you shouldn't have a problem with what this thread is discussing.

If it's a meeting that's being conducted in a venue then my belief is that it shouldn't be disrupted. I don't much mind if people are outside the venue and demonstrating but if they're inside the venue and deliberately disrupting the meeting then they should not be permitted to do so.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Surprised?
Anyone who questions the dear leader is labeled a right wing nutter, and it's going to get worse.
People are speaking out at these "town halls" because they are very concerned and aren't receiving any real answers, just bleeding heart stories of why this garbage must be passed.

You left out racist too. They are not only labeled a right wing nutter but a racist.

Its funny, I spent the last several years on another forum getting yelled at by conservatives for being upset with Bush over the defecit, patriot act, then the bailouts.

Now I'm in this forum and i'm getting crap from the left because i'm mad at obama for the defecit, growing govt encroachement in my private life, and the continued bailouts.


All the while i just continued to be a constitution loving american but have gone from being called a "left wing cook" to a "right wing nutjob".

As soon as you attack a partisan's party canidate you become the opposite party and their talking points in these looney far left and far right people's minds.

 

[Diuretic]

Disrupting a meeting isn't exercising a right, is it?

If 'disrupting' becomes defined as strenuously disagreeing, yes, it is a right.

I would think that "disruption" isn't a synonym for "strenuous disagreement".

 

[RadiomanATL]

Anyone yelling and shouting in public should be arrested.

OR.....admit that the Gates arrest was bullshit. Can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can have it both ways. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct. Which covers a much broader range than just "shouting and yelling". If he went into his back yard and shouted and yelled at a garbage can he wouldn't have been arrested. Under your premise it would have gotten him arrested. Therefore it wasn't simply the shouting and yelling that got him into trouble.Specifically what got Gates in trouble was shouting and yelling at a police officer who was attempting to investigate the possibility of a crime. Those last few parts is what got him into trouble. Not the shouting and the yelling. It was that combined with something else. Obstructing police verbally from carrying out their duties will always get you in deeper hot water.

WRONG.

Crowley justified his arrest due to seven people standing on the sidewalk that he claimed to have looked Gates way when he yelled.

Think there might be seven people at these meetings? Seven people who will be caused to look at the person yelling?

If you can arrest a man for disorderly conduct for yelling in front of seven people, on the sidewalk in front of his house, you can sure as hell arrest a man for yelling and shouting in a public place, in a room full of people. What is the need to yell? Why shout? Are they intentionally trying to cause alarm? Why not just speak? Yelling isn't needed, unless you intend to cause alarm and be disruptive.

No. Wrong. The arrest report clearly states that Gates was yelling at Crowley, in public. Here's the arrest report:

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Police Report - July 23, 2009

Once again, yelling at a police officer will always get you in trouble.

But this has nothing to do with people exercising their right to free speech at a townhall. Thats the subject. Not a rehash of Gates/Crowley which was IMO an extremely idiotic tempest in a teapot.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I wonder if Radioman will see this.

I saw it.

What point of yours do you think it proves? What I saw was a politician saying something that no one in the audience liked. And the audience reacted to his statement. For about 3 to 5 seconds according to my count. Disruptive? No. Organized opposition? Didn't seem like it. Protest signs? Cameraman didn't seem to capture any. Sorry you seem to want them to not ever say anything, but that just ain't how it works. Nor was that the original complaint that started the thread.

So the video proved nothing. Was that your point?

Of course it was disruptive. Both Sebellius and Specter had to back away from the microphone several times waiting for the din to die down. They screamers didn't want to hear answers; they wanted to hear themselves YELL.

You said to start Googling. I didn't have to wait too long.

Disruptive? For 5 seconds? No, thats not disruptive. Disruption is not allowing the speaker to be able to speak.

And the original task you had was to show that the majority of townhall meetings have been unable to be conducted because of protestors or disruption.

So far 0 for 1. Better keep going.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You're right about that much.

One instance is on private property, one is on public property.

One instance is planned, one is not.

and one was yelling racist crap(Gates) and one was exercising their rights to redress of grievance(town hall)

Doesn't matter what you're yelling. There is no description in disorderly conduct laws of particualr speech that is unlawful. The disorderly laws address the distubance of the peace, loud noises, yelling and music.

The stated purpose of this yelling, from the memo is to cause uneasiness.

"The purpose is to make him uneasy, early on and set the tone..."

So the stated reason bears out that the intentions of this yelling is to make someone feel uneasy in public and to "set the tone" with yelling and shouting. The definition of disorderly conduct.

"Look for these opportunities before he takes questions."

They are instructed to intterupt the speaker before he is taking questions.



This entire memo is a plan to disrupt meetings. If I send you instructions on how to build a bomb but then put in a disclaimer that "these are not instructions to build a bomb", they are still instructions to build a bomb.

These instructions to yell and shout, out of turn, in order to make the meeting "uneasy" and to "stagger" the speakers, is clearly a plan to disrupt and cause disorder. Should be addressed by the authorities.

Absolute bullshit.

The purpose is to rattle the speaker off of his message and to make him have doubts about his position. A disruption would be that the speaker is unable to get his message out due to the disorderly conduct of the audience.

This is clearly not what the memo states for the audience to do. Do not try to spin it. You will get called on your BS.

 

[DiveCon]

and one was yelling racist crap(Gates) and one was exercising their rights to redress of grievance(town hall)

Doesn't matter what you're yelling. There is no description in disorderly conduct laws of particualr speech that is unlawful. The disorderly laws address the distubance of the peace, loud noises, yelling and music.

The stated purpose of this yelling, from the memo is to cause uneasiness.

"The purpose is to make him uneasy, early on and set the tone..."

So the stated reason bears out that the intentions of this yelling is to make someone feel uneasy in public and to "set the tone" with yelling and shouting. The definition of disorderly conduct.

"Look for these opportunities before he takes questions."

They are instructed to intterupt the speaker before he is taking questions.



This entire memo is a plan to disrupt meetings. If I send you instructions on how to build a bomb but then put in a disclaimer that "these are not instructions to build a bomb", they are still instructions to build a bomb.

These instructions to yell and shout, out of turn, in order to make the meeting "uneasy" and to "stagger" the speakers, is clearly a plan to disrupt and cause disorder. Should be addressed by the authorities.

Absolute bullshit.

The purpose is to rattle the speaker off of his message and to make him have doubts about his position. A disruption would be that the speaker is unable to get his message out due to the disorderly conduct of the audience.

This is clearly not what the memo states for the audience to do. Do not try to spin it. You will get called on your BS.

thats all he does is spin

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Surprised?
Anyone who questions the dear leader is labeled a right wing nutter, and it's going to get worse.
People are speaking out at these "town halls" because they are very concerned and aren't receiving any real answers, just bleeding heart stories of why this garbage must be passed.

You left out racist too. They are not only labeled a right wing nutter but a racist.

Its funny, I spent the last several years on another forum getting yelled at by conservatives for being upset with Bush over the defecit, patriot act, then the bailouts.

Now I'm in this forum and i'm getting crap from the left because i'm mad at obama for the defecit, growing govt encroachement in my private life, and the continued bailouts.


All the while i just continued to be a constitution loving american but have gone from being called a "left wing cook" to a "right wing nutjob".

As soon as you attack a partisan's party canidate you become the opposite party and their talking points in these looney far left and far right people's minds.

Well...don't forget...you're a racist and a Nazi now too.