Town Hall Meetings

[Darkwind]

First, a disclaimer for those who come here just to call people names without the fear of getting hit in the mouth.

I am the first to defend the right of every American citizen to attend any public meeting held by their elected Representatives for the purpose of discussing pending legislation or public policy.


Who is really being silence in these town hall meetings? After all, the purpose of these meetings is for our elected representatives to hear from their constituents, but more importantly, to hear from those who disagree.

The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular speech. It also exists to protect the rights of the citizenship to disagree and debate with their elected representatives. After all, there is little need to protect the speech of those who agree with pending legislation or of popular speech. In short, "Yes Men" are rarely silenced.

So what purpose is served by those who agree to pending legislation in a town hall meeting? After all, they agree with what is about to go down. Our legislators NEED to be hearing from those who oppose their plans MORE then they need to have their ego's stroked. Why is this you may ask?

It is nearly impossible to convey anger, betrayal, hurt and fear in an email and there is no real way that an elected representative could take the phone call of every person in their district. That is why they have town hall meetings. To reach as many as possible. There is no real need to convey happiness for legislation. After all, human nature being what it is, the elected person likely just fills in the jubilation themselves during the process of patting themselves on the back.

The bottom line is that the voices that need to be heard the most are those in dissent. After all, if you are surrounded by yes men, the only opinion you hear is your own. And we all know that elected representatives are not in their job for your benefit or some sense of wishing to server their country.

So, as I'm writing this, I decided I'd make a little poll and see what kind of results I'll get on this.

 

[Annie]

there should be an option for all citizens.

 

[Darkwind]

there should be an option for all citizens.

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

 

[Zoom-boing]

First, a disclaimer for those who come here just to call people names without the fear of getting hit in the mouth.

I am the first to defend the right of every American citizen to attend any public meeting held by their elected Representatives for the purpose of discussing pending legislation or public policy.


Who is really being silence in these town hall meetings? After all, the purpose of these meetings is for our elected representatives to hear from their constituents, but more importantly, to hear from those who disagree.

The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular speech. It also exists to protect the rights of the citizenship to disagree and debate with their elected representatives. After all, there is little need to protect the speech of those who agree with pending legislation or of popular speech. In short, "Yes Men" are rarely silenced.

So what purpose is served by those who agree to pending legislation in a town hall meeting? After all, they agree with what is about to go down? Our legislators NEED to be hearing from those who oppose their plans MORE then they need to have their ego's stroked. Why is this you may ask?

It is nearly impossible to convey anger, betrayal, hurt and fear in an email and there is no real way that an elected representative could take the phone call of every person in their district. That is why they have town hall meetings. To reach as many as possible. There is no real need to convey happiness for legislation. After all, human nature being what it is, the elected person likely just fills in the jubilation themselves during the process of patting themselves on the back.

The bottom line is that the voices that need to be heard the most are those in dissent. After all, if you are surrounded by yes men, the only opinion you hear is your own. And we all know that elected representatives are not in their job for your benefit or some sense of wishing to server their country.

So, as I'm writing this, I decided I'd make a little poll and see what kind of results I'll get on this.

Well said.

I have no problem with people attending these meetings and showing their anger, their fear, their concern, etc. It needs to be said and it needs to be heard. I do have a problem with people developing some kind of 'mob' mentality and drowning out everything and everyone else. I have a problem with rude. What's the point of that? If you want to be heard - and by all means, show your emotions when presenting your pov or asking your questions - do so respectfully and without all the b.s. The worst thing anyone can do right now is to stop going to these meetings and to stop writing your congresscritters. Silence is not an option.

 

[Darkwind]

First, a disclaimer for those who come here just to call people names without the fear of getting hit in the mouth.

I am the first to defend the right of every American citizen to attend any public meeting held by their elected Representatives for the purpose of discussing pending legislation or public policy.


Who is really being silence in these town hall meetings? After all, the purpose of these meetings is for our elected representatives to hear from their constituents, but more importantly, to hear from those who disagree.

The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular speech. It also exists to protect the rights of the citizenship to disagree and debate with their elected representatives. After all, there is little need to protect the speech of those who agree with pending legislation or of popular speech. In short, "Yes Men" are rarely silenced.

So what purpose is served by those who agree to pending legislation in a town hall meeting? After all, they agree with what is about to go down? Our legislators NEED to be hearing from those who oppose their plans MORE then they need to have their ego's stroked. Why is this you may ask?

It is nearly impossible to convey anger, betrayal, hurt and fear in an email and there is no real way that an elected representative could take the phone call of every person in their district. That is why they have town hall meetings. To reach as many as possible. There is no real need to convey happiness for legislation. After all, human nature being what it is, the elected person likely just fills in the jubilation themselves during the process of patting themselves on the back.

The bottom line is that the voices that need to be heard the most are those in dissent. After all, if you are surrounded by yes men, the only opinion you hear is your own. And we all know that elected representatives are not in their job for your benefit or some sense of wishing to server their country.

So, as I'm writing this, I decided I'd make a little poll and see what kind of results I'll get on this.

Well said.

I have no problem with people attending these meetings and showing their anger, their fear, their concern, etc. It needs to be said and it needs to be heard. I do have a problem with people developing some kind of 'mob' mentality and drowning out everything and everyone else. I have a problem with rude. What's the point of that? If you want to be heard - and by all means, show your emotions when presenting your pov or asking your questions - do so respectfully and without all the b.s. The worst thing anyone can do right now is to stop going to these meetings and to stop writing your congresscritters. Silence is not an option.

The worst thing that can happen is that the elected representatives cancel these meetings because fear hearing dissent.

 

[Annie]

there should be an option for all citizens.

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

That's the point. No group is 'more important', all should have their say. Then the rep votes and pays the price for good or ill.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If the employees cancel, you fire them. They answer to us not the other way around.

 

[pete]

Neither are more important.
Those that disagree will voice their concerns ... if allowed.
Those that agree might actually have a better idea than the original.

 

[Darkwind]

there should be an option for all citizens.

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

That's the point. No group is 'more important', all should have their say. Then the rep votes and pays the price for good or ill.

Re-Read the OP.

Particularly the part in red.

It goes without saying that every voice should be heard. But the purpose of Town Halls are not to stroke the egos of our elected representatives but to highlight the problems with pending legislation or policy. After all, why would you wish to attend a meeting on legislation you agree with? A town hall meeting IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE LEGISLATION.

Debate takes place in newspapers, coffee shops or anywhere people gather, even internet forums. Debate happens between citizens.

A Town Hall meeting is a place where the elected representatives give information and receives feedback from his constituents.

 

[Darkwind]

If the employees cancel, you fire them. They answer to us not the other way around.

You know better then that My friend. You have to have enough people believe that they work for us to begin with, then you have to have a way to combat the advantage of being an incumbent.

But that is another discussion completely. This one is to address those who say that those who agree with the legislation are being silenced when in fact, they can't be silenced. They agree with the politician.

 

[Darkwind]

Neither are more important.
Those that disagree will voice their concerns ... if allowed.
Those that agree might actually have a better idea than the original.

But that is not what the debate is centered around nor is that what is happening. With regards to UHC and attendance at Town Hall meetings. A Town Hall is not a place to debate the issues. It is a place to give your elected representative your feedback.

 

[Soaring]

I agree that a townhall meeting is not a place for the elected official the gavel and silence everyone so they can tell the audience the reason why they are voting for a particular bill such as the medical bill. The meeting is to let the elected official know how the audience who elected them feels about the bill. If the content of the bill has not been advertised adequately, then that is the downfall of the elected official. In the case of the medical bill, most elected officials have not even read the bill, much less the president of the United States. That is one reason why so many folks, and especiallly elders, are pissed.

 

[Darkwind]

BTW. The poll does not differentiate between parties or parties in power.

 

[alan1]

Neither are more important.
Those that disagree will voice their concerns ... if allowed.
Those that agree might actually have a better idea than the original.

But that is not what the debate is centered around nor is that what is happening. With regards to UHC and attendance at Town Hall meetings. A Town Hall is not a place to debate the issues. It is a place to give your elected representative your feedback.

And every representative that cancels a town hall, or doesn't host one is a coward.
There are lots of cowards in the congress.

 

[Soaring]

Then don't vote for the cowards in 2010.

 

[alan1]

Then don't vote for the cowards in 2010.

I haven't voted for them for many years.

 

[Mr. FNB]

Hi folks. I am new here. Allow me to say you all seem A LOT more friendly that the folks that fwere active on the last political message board I was visiting. So that alone is refreshing.

In regards to the townhall meetings. I am all for self expression, and support the protesters, but hope it stays non-violent. Violence is not the answer and I hope all parties remain civil.

 

[dilloduck]

Hi folks. I am new here. Allow me to say you all seem A LOT more friendly that the folks that fwere active on the last political message board I was visiting. So that alone is refreshing.

In regards to the townhall meetings. I am all for self expression, and support the protesters, but hope it stays non-violent. Violence is not the answer and I hope all parties remain civil.

A big ass kindergarten teacher needs to be there and show them how to take turns. A fine example of hyper-partisanship.

 

[Darkwind]

Hi folks. I am new here. Allow me to say you all seem A LOT more friendly that the folks that fwere active on the last political message board I was visiting. So that alone is refreshing.

In regards to the townhall meetings. I am all for self expression, and support the protesters, but hope it stays non-violent. Violence is not the answer and I hope all parties remain civil.

Well, I too hope that it stays non-violent.

But there are no protesters.

 

[DiveCon]

Hi folks. I am new here. Allow me to say you all seem A LOT more friendly that the folks that fwere active on the last political message board I was visiting. So that alone is refreshing.

In regards to the townhall meetings. I am all for self expression, and support the protesters, but hope it stays non-violent. Violence is not the answer and I hope all parties remain civil.

A big ass kindergarten teacher needs to be there and show them how to take turns. A fine example of hyper-partisanship.

not sure about yours, but i seem to remember mine wasnt so big(the teachers)