Rep Paul Ryan's freedom of silence

USFREEDOM911 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...Ryan-s-freedom-of-silence&p=866202#post866202

I guess we can add Freedumb to the dance card, folks! ;)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

As I've told you for all these years, Tempie....I don't do your homework for you. Your barfly buddy made a declarative statement, and I asked him to provide PROOF that statement is valid. To date, neither he, you or any of the Ryan apologist and neocon/teabagger flunkies can do so. So you are all full of it. And since I KNOW from past dealings that you are incapable of admitting an inability to meet a simple burden of proof Tempie , I'll just watch you repeat your bluff and blusters, lies and BS ad nauseum. Dance, clown, dance!
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

what a liar, i gave you the LAW he is 99% likely to be guilty of. you're too lazy to verify i am correct, that doesn't mean i didn't give you the law.
 
Bfgrn said:
Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911
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
Click to expand...



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
Click to expand...

Interesting that YOU provided the information that our resident Ryan flunkies couldn't, but yet the ardently kept referring to it. And upon examination, it's just a bunch of BS...because Ryan was at a TOWNHALL meeting, NOT a private address. As you said, typical right wingnut authoritarian BS.
 
poet said:
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.
Click to expand...


I already took that teabagger flunkie Alias to task...so he's no longer worth responding to. He, like his like minded cohorts, don't know wtf they're talking about, much less can prove beyond opinion and wishful thinking what the spew forth. Debating them is like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop! :)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Apparently you don't understand Roberts rules of order either or else you would understand that they don't apply in a public meetings. Or maybe it's that you only feel that the first ammendment only applies to people who agree with you? I mean what is it with you right wingers that freedom is just an empty and meaningless word to you folks and why is it when a true American like Mr. Nielsen actually practices his constitutionally protected freedom that wingnuts like you howl in outrage.

Well it may outrage you but I'm all for political freedom.
Click to expand...

The little stupe didn't even READ the very Rules he mentions....he just picked it up as a talking point, but like his buddies he couldn't give you any direct quotes or provided links. In short, our resident Ryan flunkies are just full of it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You know what's really fucking pathetic about what happened and why I don't respect Ryan for this episode is if it had been me. I would have stopped the police officers, I would have allowed Mr. Nielsen to have his say, no matter how virulent it was. I would have let him vent his rage cause even though he may be a member of a different party he's still my constituent and then after Mr. Nielsen had vented himself and wound down, I would have gave him the respect he deserved as a constituent and addressed his complaints, as any of Mr Ryans constituents deserve.

I see this and it just gives me the impression that Ryan is a weak assed punk who is to big a pussy to listen to his own constituents. And before any of you wing nuts jump on my ass about the approach I would have taken I should inform you that I learned this from watching Strom Thurmond cause that's exactly what Strom would have done and he would have won Mr. Nielson over! Not have his thugs beat his ass and arrest him. So this isn't a Republcian/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal thing. This is a doing things right and respecting people vs. I'm a fucking pussy punk thug who can't deal with dissent, issue. Ryan's a pussy.
Click to expand...

Hell, we just recently saw Mitt Romney deal with a bunch of rowdy anti-GOP folks at one of his rallies.....seems he's got tougher skin than Ryan, who's obviously doing more than contemplating neo-fascist tactics that he discussed with the fake Koch brother.
 
Bfgrn said:
The man was fucking arrested. ARRESTED for speaking out in a PUBLIC forum. Ryan is a PUBLIC servant. A town hall meeting is not a private venue. What kind of freedom of speech is that? I never called for the tea partiers that deliberately disrupted Democrats that held town hall meetings to be ARRESTED.
Click to expand...

You're dishonest. He was arrested for being disruptive while Congressman Ryan was speaking.

Case closed.
 
Yurt said:
Originally Posted by 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.
Click to expand...

what a liar, i gave you the LAW he is 99% likely to be guilty of. you're too lazy to verify i am correct, that doesn't mean i didn't give you the law.
Click to expand...

And once again, the chronology of the posts shows Yurt to be either psychotic or a painfully bad liar, as there is NO post were Yurt gives me a link or quotes or references to the actual content of this Ryan's Law (and I defy him to provide the post number or link where he did). Fortunately, BFGRN did, and as I suspected, the truth makes asses out of Yurt and his cohorts.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...Ryan-s-freedom-of-silence&p=866455#post866455

Dance, my Yurtle clown, dance!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Hell, we just recently saw Mitt Romney deal with a bunch of rowdy anti-GOP folks at one of his rallies.....seems he's got tougher skin than Ryan, who's obviously doing more than contemplating neo-fascist tactics that he discussed with the fake Koch brother.
Click to expand...


Romney (POS that his is) is a hundred times the man Ryan is.
 
Return of Dune said:
So they cops grabbed the guy because he was resisting arrest?
Click to expand...

where did i say that retard of dune? you should try actually READING what people write.

strawman2.jpg
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Care to restate your position based on public venue rather than private?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top