Rep Paul Ryan's freedom of silence

[Taichiliberal]

Notice that neither Yurt, Bravo or Alias can answer simple questions or provide the proof necessary to back up their assertions about a "law" regarding townhall meetings that justified the treatment of the man. Little point in me further entertaining the repetitive bluff and blusters of these lame neocon/teabagger hacks for Ryan. Watch them dance, folks.

 

[Alias]

Your dodges are as lame as the Bravo you bitch for. the video tells a different tale than the one you spin here.....but all you're doing is parroting the party line and NOT answering the questions I put forth.

You're done.

I tried being nice, but if you want to get into it with me then let's get it on.

What you're doing is par for the course. You're angry at the TP and you see this as an opportunity to demonize Paul Ryan and the TP over Obama's policies that you don't have the guts to admit are a failure. You remind me of some high school girl screaming "bitch" while she pulls hair and bites. Your questions are not questions looking for an answer. Your questions are for the purpose of playing "gotcha" because you're too damn weak and pitiful to understand how things work. Asswipe.

 

[Alias]

Notice that neither Yurt, Bravo or Alias can answer simple questions or provide the proof necessary to back up their assertions about a "law" regarding townhall meetings that justified the treatment of the man. Little point in me further entertaining the repetitive bluff and blusters of these lame neocon/teabagger hacks for Ryan. Watch them dance, folks.

Why was the guy removed?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Gee Damo, you didn't include your EXCUSE for the teabaggers...I'm sure you just 'forgot'

QUOTE by Damocles
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.

 

[Alias]

Gee Damo, you didn't include your EXCUSE for the teabaggers...I'm sure you just 'forgot'

QUOTE by Damocles
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.

This has nothing to do with the TP. The only reason the TP is brought up is another lame attempt at demonizing the opposition. The left is coming unhinged. You're Dear Leader has failed. You made a big mistake. Now act like adults and move on.

 

[Damocles]

Gee Damo, you didn't include your EXCUSE for the teabaggers...I'm sure you just 'forgot'

QUOTE by Damocles
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.

That's not an "excuse" it is simply pointing to the differences in what they did with what this gentleman did and likely why he was arrested while they were not. I think it is likely the "sit down" part that never sunk in with this guy.

Either way, I'll repeat, mostly for my entertainment as you have demonstrated a remarkable ability for actually ignoring what people say if it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe about others:

If they were arrested I would say the same thing about them as I did about this guy. They don't have any absolute right to make it impossible for the Congressman to hold a conversation with constituents.

After that I added conjecture as to why I thought they were likely not arrested while this guy was. It really had nothing to do with "excusing" anything.

You asked me one question, suggesting that I would react differently if TEA Party people got arrested, you were wrong.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's not an "excuse" it is simply pointing to the differences in what they did with what this gentleman did and likely why he was arrested while they were not. I think it is likely the "sit down" part that never sunk in with this guy.

Either way, I'll repeat, mostly for my entertainment as you have demonstrated a remarkable ability for actually ignoring what people say if it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe about others:

If they were arrested I would say the same thing about them as I did about this guy. They don't have any absolute right to make it impossible for the Congressman to hold a conversation with constituents.

After that I added conjecture as to why I thought they were likely not arrested while this guy was. It really had nothing to do with "excusing" anything.

You asked me one question, suggesting that I would react differently if TEA Party people got arrested, you were wrong.

You are missing the point Damo. The guy should not have been arrested. Paul Ryan works for him, not the other way around. It was a public forum, not a private meeting. The man had a legitimate point.

It amazes me how you so called 'less government' types so easily side WITH government when it bombs, invades, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings. Democracy is not always orderly. The Nazis had order

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

What the video shows; is a pinhead who feels that he's enabled to act how ever he wants and demands that his wants (not needs) be met immediatelly. You know, a Liberal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

Instead of just flapping your gums, why don't YOU look up the laws for that City/County/State and then present your findings.
Either that, or keep acting like a fucking idiot; but then, I digress.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Notice that neither Yurt, Bravo or Alias can answer simple questions or provide the proof necessary to back up their assertions about a "law" regarding townhall meetings that justified the treatment of the man. Little point in me further entertaining the repetitive bluff and blusters of these lame neocon/teabagger hacks for Ryan. Watch them dance, folks.

Why don't you educate yourself on Robert's Rules of Order and then maybe, just maybe, you'll have a better understanding of where you and the guy in the video fucked up.

 

[poet]

What the video shows; is a pinhead who feels that he's enabled to act how ever he wants and demands that his wants (not needs) be met immediatelly. You know, a Liberal.

Oh, you mean the exact same way "baggers" act , at a rally....all out of order and shit. Last time I checked, we pay the salaries of legislators, via taxes, so, they're kinda beholden to us...not the other way around. Moron.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh, you mean the exact same way "baggers" act , at a rally....all out of order and shit. Last time I checked, we pay the salaries of legislators, via taxes, so, they're kinda beholden to us...not the other way around. Moron.

Sorry; but this thread is about the pinhead who interupted the meeting, by not following Robert's Rules of Order.
But then, you're a pinhead also; so you think whatever pinheads do, is OK.

You're also a liar; because at 1:06 AM you said I was on IA, on another thread, and yet you responded to my post at 1:10 on this thread.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[apple0154]

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.

First, I was clear he shouldn't have disrupted the meeting the way he did. As for "nothing at all happening" there is continuous talk about changing SS. Ideas like raising the age from 65 - 67 and means tests requires. Are they considering those changes to come into effect 25 or 30 years from now? Should people say nothing until a proposal is actually being put forward for a vote?

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).

So let's say in individual paid in to the plan from 21 years of age until they were 49, 28 years. What happens to their "contract" with the government? At 65, would they receive the promised benefits or could the government arbitrarily raise the retirement age to 67? If so, that's retroactively altering the contract and that's absurd.

EDIT: "Means tests requires" is in relation to Medicare. It slipped in there as it's another "contract" the government is trying to renege on.

 

[Rune]

I tried being nice, but if you want to get into it with me then let's get it on.

What you're doing is par for the course. You're angry at the TP and you see this as an opportunity to demonize Paul Ryan and the TP over Obama's policies that you don't have the guts to admit are a failure. You remind me of some high school girl screaming "bitch" while she pulls hair and bites. Your questions are not questions looking for an answer. Your questions are for the purpose of playing "gotcha" because you're too damn weak and pitiful to understand how things work. Asswipe.

So, when Alias decides to debate, this is what he comes up with?
You sir, are in way over your head.
When given an opportunity to post some facts you devolve into a finger pointing four year old pulling a temper tantrum.

What a fucking pussy.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry; but this thread is about the pinhead who interupted the meeting, by not following Robert's Rules of Order.
But then, you're a pinhead also; so you think whatever pinheads do, is OK.

You're also a liar; because at 1:06 AM you said I was on IA, on another thread, and yet you responded to my post at 1:10 on this thread.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Right wing authoritarian bullshit...

Robert's Rules of Order is the short title of a book containing rules of order intended to be adopted as a parliamentary authority for use by a deliberative assembly written by Brig. Gen. Henry Martyn Robert.

The book is designed for use in ordinary societies rather than legislative assemblies, and it is the most commonly adopted parliamentary authority among societies in the United States. The book claims to be a "codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)". This statement does not imply any approbation on the part of the courts, and the "general parliamentary law" is related neither to statutory legal requirements nor to common-law precedent derived from court judgments. Being widely accepted, and being based for the most part on long-standing traditions of parliamentary procedure, however, the current edition of the book is a reliable reference. Nevertheless, the provisions of any particular manual are not, as a general matter, legally binding upon an assembly that has not formally adopted it as its parliamentary authority; any such manual can at best be cited as "persuasive". In addition, a number of changes have been made to recent editions, such as provisions dealing with videoconferences, teleconferences, and email, which now makes these editions more than merely codifications of the "present-day general parliamentary law" as existed at the time Robert was originally writing. wiki

 

[poet]

Originally Posted by Alias
I tried being nice, but if you want to get into it with me then let's get it on.

What you're doing is par for the course. You're angry at the TP and you see this as an opportunity to demonize Paul Ryan and the TP over Obama's policies that you don't have the guts to admit are a failure. You remind me of some high school girl screaming "bitch" while she pulls hair and bites. Your questions are not questions looking for an answer. Your questions are for the purpose of playing "gotcha" because you're too damn weak and pitiful to understand how things work. Asswipe.

Are you serious? Demonize Paul Ryan? He's already "toast". Repubs are running like banshees, away from the Paul Ryan Budget (an attempt to keep from taxing the rich while destroying Medicare, Medicaid and SS). Haven't you noticed? Townhalls are not particularly pleasant or pretty for Republican legislators, because of it. A failure? Find a GOP presidential candidate willing to go on record in support of the Ryan budget. Delusion and delerium, heart-tugging though they are, are not becoming.

 

[Alias]

Originally Posted by Alias
I tried being nice, but if you want to get into it with me then let's get it on.

What you're doing is par for the course. You're angry at the TP and you see this as an opportunity to demonize Paul Ryan and the TP over Obama's policies that you don't have the guts to admit are a failure. You remind me of some high school girl screaming "bitch" while she pulls hair and bites. Your questions are not questions looking for an answer. Your questions are for the purpose of playing "gotcha" because you're too damn weak and pitiful to understand how things work. Asswipe.

Are you serious? Demonize Paul Ryan? He's already "toast". Repubs are running like banshees, away from the Paul Ryan Budget (an attempt to keep from taxing the rich while destroying Medicare, Medicaid and SS). Haven't you noticed? Townhalls are not particularly pleasant or pretty for Republican legislators, because of it. A failure? Find a GOP presidential candidate willing to go on record in support of the Ryan budget. Delusion and delerium, heart-tugging though they are, are not becoming.

LOL. You keep telling yourself that because we're counting on it. If Obama's minions believe what you just spewed, and we're hoping they do, then they'll stay home instead of voting next year because they'll believe that there is no way their people can lose. Please, keep it up. You're doing exactly what we want.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL. You keep telling yourself that because we're counting on it. If Obama's minions believe what you just spewed, and we're hoping they do, then they'll stay home instead of voting next year because they'll believe that there is no way their people can lose. Please, keep it up. You're doing exactly what we want.

History has proven that mid term election turn out favors the party out of power. Presidential elections do not follow that history. I suspect you are in for a rude awaking.

 

[poet]

LOL. You keep telling yourself that because we're counting on it. If Obama's minions believe what you just spewed, and we're hoping they do, then they'll stay home instead of voting next year because they'll believe that there is no way their people can lose. Please, keep it up. You're doing exactly what we want.

No need to patronize me. You think beating an incumbent president is a piece of cake? Keep on thinking like you do...despite the economy, despite appearances, your side has the uphill battle.

 

[Damocles]

You are missing the point Damo. The guy should not have been arrested. Paul Ryan works for him, not the other way around. It was a public forum, not a private meeting. The man had a legitimate point.

It amazes me how you so called 'less government' types so easily side WITH government when it bombs, invades, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings. Democracy is not always orderly. The Nazis had order

Your answer is actually quite simplistic and based solely in emotive nonsense... It "feels" as if this guy was violated because you "agree"...

Your assumption is that rights of everybody else in the room are suspended when somebody you agree with stomps on them. The reality is it doesn't matter that Ryan is a Congressman, he and the rest of the participants in that private venue (you can't trespass on public property it was a private venue), have a right to be able to assemble and speak and he has no right to interrupt and make that impossible.

You "agree" that nobody should ever be able to hear Paul Ryan, therefore overriding the rights of others in the room is not only okay, but it should be cheered.

I evaluate it directly. Are the rights of others being violated? Yes. Therefore he should be removed from the venue. It doesn't matter if it is somebody left or right of the spectrum. If they are violating the rights of others assembled there, they should be removed.