Rep Paul Ryan's freedom of silence

[Damocles]

Fine Damo, now were you as critical and insulting of tea partiers who shouted down Democrats during the health care debate? The tea partiers were not even acting spontaneously. There were giving written instructions authored by lobbyists on how to disrupt town hall meetings and how to intimidate Congressman.

Rocking the Town Hall-Best Practices

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

And if they were arrested I would say the same thing. I believe that the largest difference is between public and private venues...

Nobody has a "right" to make it impossible for others to participate. That is not covered in the First Amendment...

I would note that in the "instructions" they want them to ask questions, not to shout them down and not shut up. In fact, it illustrates a difference between somebody attempting to make it impossible for others to participate (shouting him down and not shutting up) and somebody trying to "rattle" somebody. Stand up, shout, sit down...

One will likely get you arrested, the other probably not.

 

[Bfgrn]

And if they were arrested I would say the same thing. I believe that the largest difference is between public and private venues...

Nobody has a "right" to make it impossible for others to participate. That is not covered in the First Amendment...

I would note that in the "instructions" they want them to ask questions, not to shout them down and not shut up. In fact, it illustrates a difference between somebody attempting to make it impossible for others to participate (shouting him down and not shutting up) and somebody trying to "rattle" somebody. Stand up, shout, sit down...

One will likely get you arrested, the other probably not.

Holy fuck Damo. It is written in plain English that the tea partiers goal was to make it impossible for others to participate. You really are a right wing hack.

– Be Disruptive Early And Often:

disrupt

1. to cause disorder or turmoil in: The news disrupted their conference.
2. to destroy, usually temporarily, the normal continuance or unity of; interrupt:

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

If you go into your boss's office, does he have a right to shout at you? I strongly suggest you go back to elementary school and take American history. Ask the teacher to explain our form of government and what a Public SERVANT means.

No, the boss does not have a right to speak to me in that tone, unless of course he wants a facial rearrangement.

 

[Damocles]

Holy fuck Damo. It is written in plain English that the tea partiers goal was to make it impossible for others to participate. You really are a right wing hack.

– Be Disruptive Early And Often:

disrupt

1. to cause disorder or turmoil in: The news disrupted their conference.
2. to destroy, usually temporarily, the normal continuance or unity of; interrupt:

Right, because I said that if they were arrested I would say the same thing... that means I am a "hack"...

Let's see what I would say: "There is no right to make it impossible for others to participate, that is not covered by the First Amendment"...

You are thoroughly stupid when you attempt to "judge" me, I think it must be Damocles Derangement Syndrome used to cover a huge case of Obama Disappointment Syndrome. This is a usual case nowadays. The best defense, rather than being introspective and truthful, is to tell others they are a "hack", or to call somebody who thinks we should pay our bills a "terrorist" because clearly paying bills is the exact same thing as attacking and murdering unsuspecting innocents. If you say it loudly enough you may even believe that it will be worth a Billion Dollars to run a losing campaign for a second term.

 

[apple0154]

Paul Ryan Protester Handcuffed, Pushed To Ground By Wisconsin Police

WASHINGTON -- Three individuals were arrested and charged with trespassing on Tuesday for protesting a speech by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Video footage taken by an attendee at the event shows that one of them, Tom Nielsen, received particularly harsh treatment -- he was pushed to the ground and handcuffed. Nielsen received an additional charge of resisting arrest.

Nielsen is a 71-year-old retired plumber from Kenosha, which falls within Ryan's district. He had never been able to attend a Ryan town hall event in the past -- partly, he explained, because he rarely knew when they were scheduled for in advance -- and was excited to get to Tuesday's to make his views heard.

In video posted by Wisconsin Jobs Now, Nielsen shouts that he disagrees with Ryan on entitlement programs during the congressman's speech. Two uniformed police officers and another man in a suit then escort Nielsen out. In the hall, Nielsen can be heard shouting. He was eventually pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers.

"Three people got me and hauled me backwards out the side door and into a little room. ... They pushed me the floor and twisted my arms back and handcuffed me. They said I was resisting arrest," recounted Nielsen in an interview with The Huffington Post.

"I have a broken clavicle from a car accident I had about four weeks ago, and it's in the process of healing, but it's not done yet. So I was protecting that. I said, 'Don't hurt me! I have a broken shoulder here and collarbone.' They didn't pay attention to that. They put the cuffs on really, really tightly."

Nielsen and the two other individuals who were arrested had to sit in a "paddy wagon" for an hour or two before being taken to the police station, he said.

Nielsen said he is still a bit sore from Tuesday's scuffle. He faces fines amounting to approximately $1,000 for trespassing and resisting arrest, which he plans to challenge in court.

After Nielsen was removed from the event, Ryan tried to make light of the situation, saying, "I hope he's taking his blood pressure medication."

Ryan's office did not return a request for comment.

More

"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
President John F. Kennedy

I haven't read all the replies but the few I did read I have to agree the guy was in the wrong for interrupting the meeting. That said, I can understand his anger. He paid into SS. The government made a deal with him when he first started working and that deal was he would pay into a plan and collect money when he retired. It was a contract between he and the government.

Now the government says it doesn't have the money. In that case it is up to the government to get the money and they can do that by raising taxes. If SS is cut why should anyone enter into any contract with the government?

If the Repubs insist on cutting SS the Dems should take the matter to the Supreme Court and get a ruling on whether the government is permitted to force people into a contract and then renege on the deal.

Frequently governments offer subsidies and rebates. For example, the purchase of environmentally friendly cars or maybe energy conservation updates for homes or subsidies for growing corn (ethanol). Imagine if people bought a car or updated their home and the government refused to reimburse the subsidy. Would the car purchaser be responsible to pay the dealership? Would the car be repossessed? What about the farmer who was waiting for the subsidy to pay for fertilizer he used? Would his farm be repossessed because the government decided not to pay the subsidy after saying it would?

This "no money" argument is bullshit! The government has an obligation to pay the retirees just as it has an obligation to pay China or anyone else with whom it entered into an agreement/contract. It is a "government of the people" and the people owe the retirees money.

 

[Damocles]

I haven't read all the replies but the few I did read I have to agree the guy was in the wrong for interrupting the meeting. That said, I can understand his anger. He paid into SS. The government made a deal with him when he first started working and that deal was he would pay into a plan and collect money when he retired. It was a contract between he and the government.

Now the government says it doesn't have the money. In that case it is up to the government to get the money and they can do that by raising taxes. If SS is cut why should anyone enter into any contract with the government?

If the Repubs insist on cutting SS the Dems should take the matter to the Supreme Court and get a ruling on whether the government is permitted to force people into a contract and then renege on the deal.

Frequently governments offer subsidies and rebates. For example, the purchase of environmentally friendly cars or maybe energy conservation updates for homes or subsidies for growing corn (ethanol). Imagine if people bought a car or updated their home and the government refused to reimburse the subsidy. Would the car purchaser be responsible to pay the dealership? Would the car be repossessed? What about the farmer who was waiting for the subsidy to pay for fertilizer he used? Would his farm be repossessed because the government decided not to pay the subsidy after saying it would?

This "no money" argument is bullshit! The government has an obligation to pay the retirees just as it has an obligation to pay China or anyone else with whom it entered into an agreement/contract. It is a "government of the people" and the people owe the retirees money.

This begins with a lie, and continues to build on it. There are zero (and I truly mean none, not even one, nobody has promoted one,) plans to stop paying the dude's social security. It's a flat bold faced and stupid lie to say that there is, and it is inane to promote the idea that he should be "angry" because somebody is saying he won't get his money. Every plan out there from the most outrageous to Bush's measly plan to allow a tiny portion of the youngster's cash go into an account set aside for them, plans for and pays for the benefits of those currently receiving them as well as those close to retirement already.

 

[apple0154]

This begins with a lie, and continues to build on it. There are zero (and I truly mean none, not even one, nobody has promoted one,) plans to stop paying the dude's social security. It's a flat bold faced and stupid lie to say that there is, and it is inane to promote the idea that he should be "angry" because somebody is saying he won't get his money. Every plan out there from the most outrageous to Bush's measly plan to allow a tiny portion of the youngster's cash go into an account set aside for them, plans for and pays for the benefits of those currently receiving them as well as those close to retirement already.

And what is "close to retirement"? And should retirees wait until a bill is before the house before saying anything?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

And what is "close to retirement"? And should retirees wait until a bill is before the house before saying anything?

A bill to do what exactly? And at the current rate, the age of retirement will be 89 when youngsters reach the current age.

 

[Damocles]

And what is "close to retirement"? And should retirees wait until a bill is before the house before saying anything?

Most plans have it set in stone for those above 50 with a scaled down version available. It's like you never participate in reality and expect us to take your nonsense at face value. What they should wait for is their turn to speak, especially in a private venue.

 

[apple0154]

A bill to do what exactly? And at the current rate, the age of retirement will be 89 when youngsters reach the current age.

Revamping SS is always in the news. Raising retirement age. Having a means test for eligibility.

The purpose of continually talking about it is so people get accustomed to the idea. It's psychological conditioning. That's the problem. Keep telling people there's no money and they'll start to believe it. At least a little bit. Then they'll accept cuts here and there.

Another problem it creates is it causes people to not trust their government. That is one of the problems with Greece. There is/was so much corruption that people did everything they could to avoid paying taxes. Under the table deals. And it much easier for people who own small businesses to cheat the government. Jobs done for cash.

Governments complain about people doing those things and then the governments turn around and say they can't honor their commitments. It's damaging to the country.

 

[apple0154]

Most plans have it set in stone for those above 50 with a scaled down version available. It's like you never participate in reality and expect us to take your nonsense at face value. What they should wait for is their turn to speak, especially in a private venue.

Nonsense? If changes take place for those up to 50 years of age that means some people have paid into SS for 30 years already. Imagine honoring your part of a contract for 30 years only to have the other party renege on the deal. That's fine with you? I call that bullshit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Bottom line: true townhall meetings are seldom without a little heat between opposing viewpoints. However, unless someone can provide proof that this man's sole purpose was to disrupt Ryan's townhall meeting, what you have here is a strong arm tactic used to silence discent that the speaker is NOT able to refute or dispell.

I notice that NONE of the Ryan defenders here could answer some simple questions.....like exactly what law did that man break in order to be arrested in such a manner, and where was all this attitude when the financed and scripted teabaggers were purposely disrupting Dem townhall meetings?

 

[NOVA]

Bottom line: true townhall meetings are seldom without a little heat between opposing viewpoints. However, unless someone can provide proof that this man's sole purpose was to disrupt Ryan's townhall meeting, what you have here is a strong arm tactic used to silence discent (DISSENT) that the speaker is NOT able to refute or dispell. (DISPEL)

I notice that NONE of the Ryan defenders here could answer some simple questions.....like exactly what law did that man break in order to be arrested in such a manner, and where was all this attitude when the financed and scripted teabaggers were purposely disrupting Dem townhall meetings?

What his purpose was is irrelevant....The pinhead DID DISRUPT the meeting and was justifiably removed

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise, or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

Disturbing the peace is typically considered a misdemeanor or an infraction depending on the jurisdiction and is often punishable by either a fine or a brief term in jail.

 

[icedancer2theend]

Nonsense? If changes take place for those up to 50 years of age that means some people have paid into SS for 30 years already. Imagine honoring your part of a contract for 30 years only to have the other party renege on the deal. That's fine with you? I call that bullshit.

Right because it's so much better for people who are 50 to wait until they are almost dead to get their money back at about a 2.6% return... Even the worst of the market woes in 2009 didn't hurt people's investments that bad.!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The purpose of continually talking about it is so people get accustomed to the idea. It's psychological conditioning. That's the problem. Keep telling people there's no money and they'll start to believe it. At least a little bit. Then they'll accept cuts here and there.

Maybe it works in Canada; but then you'll fall for anything.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bottom line: true townhall meetings are seldom without a little heat between opposing viewpoints. However, unless someone can provide proof that this man's sole purpose was to disrupt Ryan's townhall meeting, what you have here is a strong arm tactic used to silence discent that the speaker is NOT able to refute or dispell.

I notice that NONE of the Ryan defenders here could answer some simple questions.....like exactly what law did that man break in order to be arrested in such a manner, and where was all this attitude when the financed and scripted teabaggers were purposely disrupting Dem townhall meetings?

Townhall meetings are to follow Robert's Rules of Order and his disruption is not allowed. Then failure to follow the lawful orders of the Police, resulted in him escalating the situation and the end result.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Bottom line: true townhall meetings are seldom without a little heat between opposing viewpoints. However, unless someone can provide proof that this man's sole purpose was to disrupt Ryan's townhall meeting, what you have here is a strong arm tactic used to silence discent that the speaker is NOT able to refute or dispell.

I notice that NONE of the Ryan defenders here could answer some simple questions.....like exactly what law did that man break in order to be arrested in such a manner, and where was all this attitude when the financed and scripted teabaggers were purposely disrupting Dem townhall meetings?

you have repeatedly been answered about what law. SF accurately surmised the law for you more than once. you would need to read the law in the county he was arrested. likely there is a disturbing the peace statute that his behavior would fall under as such statutes are generally broad.

can you now stop whining that no one has answered your question?

 

[apple0154]

Maybe it works in Canada; but then you'll fall for anything.

It's not happening here. Pensions are fine. And as a passing note of interest shortly after a Conservative win a number of years back (2004, if memory serves) one elected politician casually mentioned something about "adjusting" government medical. The words had no sooner left his mouth than the two opposition parties promised to being down the government (known as a "lack of confidence" vote) if any such thing was attempted. it was nipped in the bud!

 

[apple0154]

Right because it's so much better for people who are 50 to wait until they are almost dead to get their money back at about a 2.6% return... Even the worst of the market woes in 2009 didn't hurt people's investments that bad.!

That's a different discussion. The topic here is does the government have a right to renege on a contract?

 

[Damocles]

Nonsense? If changes take place for those up to 50 years of age that means some people have paid into SS for 30 years already. Imagine honoring your part of a contract for 30 years only to have the other party renege on the deal. That's fine with you? I call that bullshit.

Again you misinterpret what was said into your fantasy. The scaled down version is available for those younger... Basically recognizing that you paid, but that changes came into effect so you get a portion of what you would have with no change and partial participation in the new plan, whichever one it happens to be, or a choice for full participation in the new plan (usually).

In GWB's plan it was hardly a change, but was promoted by idiots to be some total privatization plan, it wasn't even an "end to SS as we know it"...

If you wanted to simply get the guarantee from the government, you could, if you wanted that tiny portion to go into a different account into safe, but with far larger returns, account you could...

In each case that I have seen that has been promoted seriously by anybody at all this guy's SS wouldn't change at all, including in any current ideas. You excuse him for acting in a way that violates others rights to participate and gather based on an unreasonable fear of nothing at all happening to him or his benefits, but at the same time you start out with a lie, saying that he was protesting him "losing his benefits"... Utter and total fabrication based on a fantasy of what you want to believe rather than what is in reality proposed. Basically your position is: even if nothing at all is going to happen to you, you still have a right to step all over others rights of assembly and free speech based on an unreasonable fear. You don't.