Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I dunno...
I personally never put someone on my ignore list (I have one?).
IMO, if you ignore someone, you are just avoiding the questions your response to their presense/actions poses to you.
But that's just me.
You guys just evidently can'r read the word PEACEABLY so I have made it stand out for you. (My last response on this overused & failed argument)
Back during our founders day speakers spoke loudly and the audience responded the same. So i do not believe that people who speak loudly are infringing on others right of speech. So it is your argument that has failed.
You guys just evidently can’t read the word PEACEABLY so I have made it stand out for you. (My last response on this overused & failed argument)
Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.
The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.
Oh, Devil.
Oh Devil
Lookie Here.
Lookie Here.
Lookie Here what i found that supports your point.
YouTube - TAMPA TOWN HALL MEETING - VIOLENCE FROM UNION THUGS
And Look at This.
And Look at This Devil,
And Look at This.
YouTube - UNION THUGS VICIOUSLY ATTACK A BLACK PATRIOT
Is this what you mean Devil?
Is this what you mean Devil?
Uh, humm?
As I recall,,,most Left Wing "Protests" I've seen in the past weren't all that polite, or sanitary.:lol: Remember the Democratic Convention in Denver? The Leftists were carrying buckets of crap to throw around...:roll:
Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.
The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.
It might not be a bad idea to hold the Union Thugs accountable for blocking people from voicing their opinions...It's obvious to all that they're "bought and paid for" by the Dems...:lol:
I can't argue with you there either.
BUT
If one side hires thugs to get in the face of others they should not run home to mommy crying when thugs from the other side give them a bloody nose.
If,,,or when you find anyone opposed to the B.O. Health Care Boondoggle, that's being "bought"...I'll agree with you. Until then,,,we KNOW the Unions are "Bought, and Paid" for.:lol:
Here you go. (bought & paid for by the GOP posing as "Just A Mom")
Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative
From page 17
Moderator's Warning:
Going to say this once, to both sides.
This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.
I hope the mods will carry through on the above warning by dealing with the violating poster & not the thread itself. Many of us, on both side are trying to keep this thread generic & an intelligent discussion on protests rights/tactics in general. It would be a shame to allow one side to shut down this discussion, which I fear may be the ultimate goal of some.
Here you go. (bought & paid for by the GOP posing as "Just A Mom")
Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative
What you are suggesting would require that somehow we legislate what, precisely, "disturbing the peace" is.
Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.
Is this correct?
Yeah, no one who is (correction was) a member of the Republican Party could ever have their own desires and concerns regarding health care. Every Republican must be receiving secret instructions from the RNC. That's why the secret decoder rings are cleverly hidden in every other box of Cracker Jacks.:roll:Here you go. (bought & paid for by the GOP posing as "Just A Mom")
Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative
Besides the point I just made without typing anything, I would be grateful if you would respond to my post #304, wherein I asked:
Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.
Is this correct?
& she was trying to deceive by hiding any affiliation she had with the GOP & saying that she was "Just A Mom".Your link proves she was a Republican.
Actually, the First Amendment itself precludes such an action.Just as Congress made many previously (State jurisdiction) crimes like Murder (of a President or murder as a Hate Crime") federal offenses, I see no reason why crossing state borders with the intention of interfering with someone's First Amendment rights couldn't also be mnade a federal crime.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
If a person speaks out loudly, boorishly, and disruptively, seeking to co-opt and frame public debate, while it is arguable that such a person intrudes upon the First Amendment rights of others, Congress is precluded from criminalizing that person's own First Amendment rights. The power of Congress to pass laws circumscribing free speech is itself greatly circumscribed.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Does mere shouting and unruly behavior rise to the level of a substantive evil that Congress has the right and duty to prevent? Hardly. At worst it is disturbing the peace, and, as such, it is the duty of the state and the municipality to regulate. Congress lacks the competence to legislate a federal disturbing the peace standard.The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
I acknowledged that you proved she was a Republican. You have proffered no evidence that she was paid to be at that town hall meeting, nor that she is in the employ of the RNC. Mere party affiliation does not disqualify her commentary, nor does it make her statement of being there "as a mom" a lie.I have misjudged you as a man of your word, who agreed to acknowledge proof when presented to you. I further guessed that you would simply deny ANY proof as bogus & you have lived up to my expectations.
She said she was no longer involved in the local Republican party. How was she attempting to conceal anything?Your torturing of logic does not negate that fact that this woman was attempting to deceive the people & media by hiding her GOP affiliation.
You have not, and I have not reneged. You state the matter falsely.I have completed my part of the bargain....You have reneged on yours. Let any other member who engages you in debate understand that you are not a man of your word.
I acknowledged that you proved she was a Republican. You have proffered no evidence that she was paid to be at that town hall meeting, nor that she is in the employ of the RNC. Mere party affiliation does not disqualify her commentary, nor does it make her statement of being there "as a mom" a lie.
She said she was no longer involved in the local Republican party. How was she attempting to conceal anything?
You have not, and I have not reneged. You state the matter falsely.
What others will think of my words, here or elsewhere, is a matter for them and their respective consciences. I have no apology to make, nor will I. I have stated my case, and I have stated how you have failed to make your case.
I will also state that this thread is not about proving one person or another is a "plant" at any town hall meeting, but to discuss the merits of legal sanction against such persons. I rebutted your assertion of proof that Ms Blish was such a person to illustrate the fecklessness and shaky legal (and political) foundation upon which such sanctions would be predicated. Your commentary in this thread amounts to a call for criminalizing political affiliations--which is itself a violation of people's First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Regardless of why a person is at a town hall meeting, it is their right to be their, and it is their right to be heard. You have offered no convincing argument why that should not be so.
Devil505, it is possible to leave a party. Think of it as quitting a job. She quit as a Republican.
celticlord, don't bother having any reasonable debate on this topic. You just wont get it.
From page 17
Moderator's Warning:
Going to say this once, to both sides.
This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.[/QUOTE
Please, do not go off topic. I would like to abide by the moderators warning.I know I'm being deliberately drawn off topic here but....What proof (other than her words that her current dues weren't paid) do you have that she "quit" as a Republican??
Devil505, in order to understand what you mean by all of this, I am going to give you videos of specific events and ask you if you believe that the protesters in these events are preventing the free speech of others/disturbing the peace and therefore should be removed. I am not doing this to talk about specific events, but merely to cite examples to use for a general discussion. FYI it is possible to ask opinions on specific events to then talk about a general discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?