Rep Paul Ryan's freedom of silence

Damocles said:
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. In GWB's it was hardly a change, but was promoted by idiots to be some total privatization plan... 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...
Click to expand...

So just to be clear you're saying SS can continue on like it is if one prefers that or they have another option if they choose. Am I reading you correctly?
 
icedancer2theend said:
Chile pension system
Click to expand...

I checked the link.

(Excerpt) There are government guarantees for the following cases:

All citizens who have contributed to a fund for at least 20 years are guaranteed a minimum pension. The difference between the minimum pension and the pension entitlement from the investment fund is paid by government.

If a pension fund is unable to perform a defined minimum profit, it will be liquidated and the collected assets will be transferred to another fund. In this case, the government solves the assets gap.

In case of bankruptcy of a pension fund the government pays out the pensions on public expenses. (End)

I like that!
 
apple0154 said:
So just to be clear you're saying SS can continue on like it is if one prefers that or they have another option if they choose. Am I reading you correctly?
Click to expand...

I said that in GWB's plan it was that way. You are being deliberately obtuse.

I'll repost here:

Again you misinterpret what was said into your fantasy. The scaled down version is available for those younger than 50 until a certain set (arbitrary) age... 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.
 
apple0154 said:
I checked the link.

(Excerpt) There are government guarantees for the following cases:

All citizens who have contributed to a fund for at least 20 years are guaranteed a minimum pension. The difference between the minimum pension and the pension entitlement from the investment fund is paid by government.

If a pension fund is unable to perform a defined minimum profit, it will be liquidated and the collected assets will be transferred to another fund. In this case, the government solves the assets gap.

In case of bankruptcy of a pension fund the government pays out the pensions on public expenses. (End)

I like that!
Click to expand...


The point is that Chile managed to transition away from national social security.

That solution was enacted in like 2008 when it became evident that there were cracks in the system. Here is how they did it.

Under the Bachelet government, the pension system was reformed again in the year 2008. Andrés Velasco, the leading economic adviser to the government, addressed the two main problems as the coverage of the population and the amount of the administrative costs. Too many people are outside the pension system, and capital accumulation by using the pension funds is quite expensive[21] The reform follows a recommendation by the World Bank, who has found in the 1980 pension system a strong redistributive component at the expenses of low paid or occasionally unemployed workers. A big part of the Chilean population is not able to finance meaningful pensions, because many workers are not able to regularly contribute a higher amount of money. Additionally many workers have difficulties to achieve the 20 years of contributions to at least qualify for minimum pension. Since the pension funds charge high fixed administrative costs per insured person and only a small portion of the administrative costs depend on the amount of the capital account, capital accumulation by pension funds is very unprofitable for workers with lower incomes. The World Bank therefore recommended that the minimum pension and the Pensiones Asistenciales should be abolished and instead introduced a public risk pooling device financed by VAT tax revenue.[22]
The reform includes mainly the following points: [23]

  • The minimum pension and the Pensiones Asistenciales were replaced by a tax-funded solidary pension system (SPS). All citizens older than 65 years, that lived in Chile for at least 20 years and do not have a private pension on a defined minimum level qualify for an SPS pension.
  • The legally defined framework within which pension fund investments are allowed has been extended.
  • Within a transitional period until 2015, self-employed individuals are integrated into the pension system too.
 
bravo said:
Originally Posted by 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 (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?
Click to expand...


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

Did he truly "disrupt" the meeting or did he just raise a question that Ryan just didn't want to deal with in public? The only "disruption" came when the local security tried to silence the man. Any "pinhead" could see that from the video.

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.
Click to expand...

No shit sherlock....but given the atmosphere of the townhall meeting, it would seem Ryan defines "peace" as long as things go his way. The man was NOT instigating a riot or inciting a riot by any definition outside of a neocon/teabagger political hacks trying to justify anything Ryan does to quell dissent. The ONLY legit charge would be "resisting a police officer in the perfomance of his duty".....any good lawyer would bounce that BS by simply showing the video in it's entirety.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Originally Posted by 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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

Really? Because when all the teabaggers and neocons were barn storming the townhall meeting of Democrats and disrupting them (courtesy of Dick Armey's Freedomworks & Fox News promotion), I didn't hear a peep from you or any of your like minded bretheren. Can you say, "hypocrit" boys and girls? Sure you can....I knew you could.

Like I told our barstool bumpkin Bravo, it's not exactly a question & answer at the local Sunday School meeting with townhalls, now is it. The video doesn't exactly support the Fox Noise description of this guy being some wild eye agitator, but a guy who wants an answer to his question.
 
Superfreak said:
So, just to be clear.... if a person is having a public speaking engagement, anyone in the audience is free to interrupt and try to shout them down with no consequences? Is that what you two are proposing?
Click to expand...

The sad thing was Ryan made a bad joke at the guys expense and if you watch the video, for him to be treated this way for his actions is a wee bit extreme. Ryan didn't even address the man to ask him ti calm down, the officers were on him immediately.

People are angry these days.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No shit sherlock....but given the atmosphere of the townhall meeting, it would seem Ryan defines "peace" as long as things go his way. The man was NOT instigating a riot or inciting a riot by any definition outside of a neocon/teabagger political hacks trying to justify anything Ryan does to quell dissent. The ONLY legit charge would be "resisting a police officer in the perfomance of his duty".....any good lawyer would bounce that BS by simply showing the video in it's entirety.
Click to expand...
Fuck you pinhead...the asshole was yelling and disturbing the people around him and disrupting the meeting....he got exactly what deserved, forced, physical removal....and if he resisted that removal, I would hope he was cited for that, too.....
 
Yurt said:
Originally Posted by 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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Hey Yurt, you STILL haven't answered the question: EXACTLY what part of the 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? If your such an expert on the law, you should be able to give me a link or direct quote that supports your assertion. YOU jokers kept making GENERAL references, so pony up the link to the information.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, a town hall meeting is a speaking engagement. It is not a forum in which a person can come in and simply try and shout down/disrupt the meeting in any manner he/she wishes. It is childish on the part of the man that was arrested. In a town hall forum, typically the speaker is allowed the ability to make a statement and then to actually answer the questions posed to him/her by the crowd. But I know, you support complete chaos. You believe that people can just disrupt these events in any manner they wish. For your information.... Paul Ryan is also entitled to free speech. The crowd there is entitled to hear his answers.

Tell me.... if every townhall meeting allowed people to simply start shouting at each other at will, what would be accomplished?
Click to expand...

Actually, a town hall forum and a speaking engagement are different.
 
Rana said:
The sad thing was Ryan made a bad joke at the guys expense and if you watch the video, for him to be treated this way for his actions is a wee bit extreme. Ryan didn't even address the man to ask him ti calm down, the officers were on him immediately.

People are angry these days.
Click to expand...

You can be angry and still speak when it's your turn. Some of you just never seem to get it or if you do get it, then it seems you purposely ignore the point. He was acting up and speaking out of turn and disrupting the meeting. Perhaps he needs to attend anger management classes. No one is to blame but him.
 
bravo said:
Fuck you pinhead...the asshole was yelling and disturbing the people around him and disrupting the meeting....he got exactly what deserved, forced, physical removal....and if he resisted that removal, I would hope he was cited for that, too.....
Click to expand...

Something about being 70ish makes men angry, you can relate, would you accept being treated in such a fashion?
 
Rana said:
The sad thing was Ryan made a bad joke at the guys expense and if you watch the video, for him to be treated this way for his actions is a wee bit extreme. Ryan didn't even address the man to ask him ti calm down, the officers were on him immediately.

People are angry these days.
Click to expand...
You want cheese with that whine....the video speaks for itself and proves the asshole was loud and disruptive......handcuffed and removed...
 
Rana said:
Something about being 70ish makes men angry, you can relate, would you accept being treated in such a fashion?
Click to expand...

The cops removed someone who interrupted a speaker. He would not shut up and let the speaker speak. What is it exactly that you wanted the cops to do?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Hey Yurt, you STILL haven't answered the question: EXACTLY what part of the 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? If your such an expert on the law, you should be able to give me a link or direct quote that supports your assertion. YOU jokers kept making GENERAL references, so pony up the link to the information.
Click to expand...
You don't need a link pinhead,....the answer is disturbing the peace, if he was cited at all...a misdemeanor...
 
bravo said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No shit sherlock....but given the atmosphere of the townhall meeting, it would seem Ryan defines "peace" as long as things go his way. The man was NOT instigating a riot or inciting a riot by any definition outside of a neocon/teabagger political hacks trying to justify anything Ryan does to quell dissent. The ONLY legit charge would be "resisting a police officer in the perfomance of his duty".....any good lawyer would bounce that BS by simply showing the video in it's entirety.
Click to expand...


Fuck you pinhead...Wow, crowding that barstool has given Bravo the courage to come up with his most brilliant retort :palm: the asshole was yelling and disturbing the people around him and disrupting the meeting....he got exactly what deserved, forced, physical removal....and if he resisted that removal, I would hope he was cited for that, too.....
Click to expand...

Repeating yourself won't make your assertions any more valid, bunky. All one has to do is actually WATCH the video to see what happened, how it happened and in the proper context and time frame. Bottom line: WHERE WAS ALL THIS MORAL OUTRAGE AND CALLS FOR ARRESTS FROM BRAVO WHEN DICK ARMEY'S TEABAG ARMY WAS PURPOSELY DISRUPTING DEMOCRATIC TOWNHALL MEETINGS?
 
bravo said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Hey Yurt, you STILL haven't answered the question: EXACTLY what part of the 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? If your such an expert on the law, you should be able to give me a link or direct quote that supports your assertion. YOU jokers kept making GENERAL references, so pony up the link to the information.
Click to expand...
You don't need a link pinhead,....the answer is disturbing the peace, if he was cited at all...a misdemeanor...
Click to expand...

So our barstool bumpkin Bravo DOES NOT KNOW THE EXACT "LAW" that he and his fellow partisan hacks have been referring to that would justify the guy getting the bum's rush from the local cops at Ryan's behest. And more to the point, jokers like Bravo and Yurt don't care, because jackboot tactics are alright by them so long as it's not their flabby asses on the receiving end.

Bravo on displaying willful ignorance of a neocon/teabagger parrot, my barstool bumpkin! Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top