• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Town Hall Protesters Shout Down Disabled Woman

You would have fit in quite well in the Bolshevik Revolution or in Mao's Cultural Revolution. You seem to have the mindset for it.

Oh yes, for sure. Because brow beat is sooooo the equivalent of executions and shooting people in their homes. :roll:
 
Um No even if I was wearing another uniform that doesn't give the other person the right to assault someone. The person was trying to get past the crowd who was blocking the entrance to the vigil to get to the vigil. This wasn't outside a town hall debate. There was no other way to get to the vigil but through the crowd. So it wasn't looking to start a fight. You guys seem to not understand what inciting violence is




Uhm, walking anywhere in the wachovia center is inciting violence. :lol:


Same with wearing boston gear to yankees stadium, you can build all the strawman you want, I am just laughing at your analogy. :shrug: :lamo
 
You're mistaken in believing this is all anti-UHC has to offer. Obama has no interest in debate and discussion. With Polocy clearly stating that "we were not elected to split the difference" or compromise in bi-partisan ship; with the Democrat leaders vowing to push UHC through regardless of Republican, Independent, or even fellow Democrat objections, this is what it's come to.

Why would you expect the Democrats to truly pursue compromise or bi-partisanship? They don't need the Republicans to pass this bill, assuming they can keep their own party in line. The only time either party is truly interested in bi-partisanship is when the need the other party to pass their agenda.

I have no problem using all the dirty tactics in the book and writing a few new one. If we have to cheat to block UHC, so be it. If we now are forced to hack voting machines, so be it. Whatever law we have to brake, whatever disabled person we have to shut down, who ever we have to brow beat into submission, whatever it takes.

It has come to that.

This sort of mindset, that clearly does not value the process or system of democracy and is only concerned with a result that favors your personal view is the mindset of countless terrorists and dictators. I'm curious, where if anywhere, do you stop? You've already endorsed voter fraud and intimidation, how about actual violence?

Loonies like you make the entire opposition look bad. Do your own cause a favor and stop talking.
 
Last edited:
Question . . .

Why would "shouting down" a disabled woman be somehow so much more onerous than "shouting down" someone who's not?

SoutherDemocrat needs a victim card to play, that's all it is.

I mean, come on, do you think I actually believe half the **** I say on this forum? No, and neither does SD believe half the **** he says. He plays his game with a victim card and I play my game as the EvilConservative.com :2wave:

No one actually thinks like either of us..
 
Last edited:
When you are justifying breaking the laws and spreading fear against people that disagree with you, that is domestic terrorism. If the shoe fits......

Then report my post to the fbi or you are now aiding and abetting :2wave:
 
Why would you expect the Democrats to truly pursue compromise or bi-partisanship?

I don't.

Shut down every town hall for all I care. Never evel let any pro-UHC speak wherever we can help it. Rules for Radicals FTW :2wave:
 
I have no problem using all the dirty tactics in the book and writing a few new one. If we have to cheat to block UHC, so be it. If we now are forced to hack voting machines, so be it. Whatever law we have to brake, whatever disabled person we have to shut down, who ever we have to brow beat into submission, whatever it takes.

It has come to that.

Come on man...Have the guts to say what you really mean!

Do you advocate armed insurrection against the elected leaders of our country?
Should President Obama be physically hurt?



You may want to read this before you answer:
Sedition legal definition of Sedition. Sedition synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.



Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
 
Last edited:
Question . . .

Why would "shouting down" a disabled woman be somehow so much more onerous than "shouting down" someone who's not?

You're absolutely right. Being disabled or in a wheelchair is completely irrelevent and I suspect this point is played up in an attempt to make the victim seem more sympathetic and those who shouted her down more unlikeable.

I don't care if she was in a wheelchair, a hospital bed, or an iron lung. The fact that people didn't let her speak at a public town hall is disgraceful no matter what her medical condition is.
 
Question . . .

Why would "shouting down" a disabled woman be somehow so much more onerous than "shouting down" someone who's not?

I think the issue is heckling and making whining noises when she was trying to talk. Do you heckle and mock the sick and disabled?
 
Oh yes, for sure. Because brow beat is sooooo the equivalent of executions and shooting people in their homes. :roll:

The point is that anyone that thinks that others that disagree with them should be silenced at all costs, even to the point of stuffing ballot boxes - what ever it takes as Jerry put it, is in the same type of mindset that the Culture Revolution thugs had.

Of course, go ahead and defend anything on your side no matter how extreme or offensive it is. Just excuse and rationalize all you want. I guess since you have been doing it for nearly 27,000 posts, no use stopping now.
 
SoutherDemocrat needs a victim card to play, that's all it is.

I mean, come on, do you think I actually believe half the **** I say on this forum? No, and neither does SD believe half the **** he says. He plays his game with a victim card and I play my game as the EvilConservative.com :2wave:

No one actually thinks like either of us..

If you don't believe what you say, then why come off like a total nut job? What is the point. I believe my arguments and my arguments on here are no where near as extreme as yours are. In fact, I don't think they are extreme at all, and I don't think most people on here would see them as extreme.

You went on a nut job tangent to simply avoid admitting that anyone that heckles and mocks someone in a wheelchair at a health care town hall is a douche bag.
 
The point is that anyone that thinks that others that disagree with them should be silenced at all costs, even to the point of stuffing ballot boxes - what ever it takes as Jerry put it, is in the same type of mindset that the Culture Revolution thugs had.

Of course, go ahead and defend anything on your side no matter how extreme or offensive it is. Just excuse and rationalize all you want. I guess since you have been doing it for nearly 27,000 posts, no use stopping now.

Sure, go right ahead and keep telling me how I believe and what I think. You do it to everybody else so why not me, too. :2wave:
 
I think the issue is heckling and making whining noises when she was trying to talk. Do you heckle and mock the sick and disabled?

There's a difference between "sick" and "disabled."

The point is, as a disabled person, she's a productive member of society like anyone else. Last I heard, they don't want to be coddled, but to be treated like everyone else. I know if I were disabled, I'd want the same thing.

If she's entering the political arena, then she's just as susceptible to the same kind of treatment as anyone else.

Making a point of her being physically disabled IS a mere hunt for victims. It has nothing to do with her mind or her ideas.
 
If you don't believe what you say, then why come off like a total nut job? What is the point.

To have fun.

You clearly are NOT here to have an honest debate, and we know this because you're all about a woman's disability and not her message or the issue itself. So, fine, you want to QQ over her disability and ignore UHC, I'm going to tailor my posts to troll you as best I can while getting as few infraction points as possible.

I believe my arguments and my arguments on here are no where near as extreme as yours are.

If you actually believe the crap you post then you're the nut job.

In fact, I don't think they are extreme at all, and I don't think most people on here would see them as extreme.

I don't car if you think anything is extreme or not. It realy does not matter if something is extreme, only if it's right. So you think "X" is extreme...ok, so the **** what? Shutting down UHC supporters is the always the right thing to do.

You went on a nut job tangent to simply avoid admitting that anyone that heckles and mocks someone in a wheelchair at a health care town hall is a douche bag.

Anyone who cares that she was in a wheelchair is a douche bag.

It does not matter if a person is disabled. It. Does. Not. Matter. The ONLY relevant item is what side of the issue they're on. That's it. This person happened to be on the pro-UHC side, so when she refuses to oppose UHC through honest debate, it is then always right and just to shut her up at every opportunity. The disability is irrelevant and if you gave a crap about the issue you wouldn't even mention anyone's disability. You would stick to the topic, but you didn't, therefore you don't give a crap about honest debate.
 
There's a difference between "sick" and "disabled."

The point is, as a disabled person, she's a productive member of society like anyone else. Last I heard, they don't want to be coddled, but to be treated like everyone else. I know if I were disabled, I'd want the same thing.

If she's entering the political arena, then she's just as susceptible to the same kind of treatment as anyone else.

Making a point of her being physically disabled IS a mere hunt for victims. It has nothing to do with her mind or her ideas.

The part you seem to either not get or are dancing around is that they were heckling her and making whining noises as she was prefacing her question with how her medical bills are making her practically destitute. Its not searching for a victim to point that out, its just pointing out that these people were being more indecent in their actions than the typical rudeness associated with shouting down those you disagree with.
 
The point is that anyone that thinks that others that disagree with them should be silenced at all costs, even to the point of stuffing ballot boxes - what ever it takes as Jerry put it, is in the same type of mindset that the Culture Revolution thugs had.

Of course, go ahead and defend anything on your side no matter how extreme or offensive it is. Just excuse and rationalize all you want. I guess since you have been doing it for nearly 27,000 posts, no use stopping now.

Do you like how I got you off the "disability" kick?

In WoW we call that "kiting"...I kited you away from something by agro'ing your attention to me so you focused on ME and nothing else :2wave:
 
Did you just seriously use WoW lingo?
 
To have fun.

You clearly are NOT here to have an honest debate, and we know this because you're all about a woman's disability and not her message or the issue itself. So, fine, you want to QQ over her disability and ignore UHC, I'm going to tailor my posts to troll you as best I can while getting as few infraction points as possible.

I guess reading comprehension is a difficult one for you. This thread from the OP to here has not been a debate about Universal Health Care. No where in the thread have I, or anyone else said look at his woman in a wheelchair, everyone should support Universal Health care.

In fact, I even went so far as to point out that I did not agree with what the woman was implying which seemed to be that we should have some kind of a single payer / nationalized system. It's not a sympathy thread.

The point of the thread was to point out how extreme and indecent people are acting at some of these meetings. The evidence for how extreme people were acting at these meetings was that this woman, sick and disabled, was heckled and mocked while she prefaced her question with how her medical care costs are resulting in her nearly being destitute. So the point is not, nor has it ever been, hey look at that poor old woman in a wheelchair, everyone should feel sorry for her and agree with her. What the point has actually been is that when are people from both sides of this going to start denouncing and shaming this kind of shameless and indecent behavior. I guess I had no idea how controversial such a notion would be. :roll:

If you actually believe the crap you post then you're the nut job.

Please point out some loony **** I have posted.
 
Sure, go right ahead and keep telling me how I believe and what I think. You do it to everybody else so why not me, too. :2wave:

Well if you would actually state your opinion on the thread topic no one would have to imply what you think.
 
Uhm, walking anywhere in the wachovia center is inciting violence. :lol:


Same with wearing boston gear to yankees stadium, you can build all the strawman you want, I am just laughing at your analogy. :shrug: :lamo

Not even close to a strawman fallacy. Walking through a crowd to get somewhere is not inciting violence as apst tried to proclaim. Even though I know new yorkers do love their teams wearing an opposing team's jersey to a game does not justify them committing violence against them. Again you're defending an indefensible position
 
The people who want you to believe cap-n-trade is anything more than a new tax and is going to do something about the environment = "pro global warming".

Folks like myself say it's a natural cycle perhaps negligibly exacerbated by human activity, where a couple minor policies may be useful but ultimately is nothing to stress about.

That wouldn't make them proglobal warming jerry. You might want to try this again. Actually wanting to do something about the environment and stop global warming would make them anti-global warming. Care to try again?
 
Nice to see you also use the same tactics when you see fit, likening me to a domestic terrorist :2wave:

And you thought you were any better than I :lol:

Same tactics? Really when did I encourage people to break the law? Now you're just backpeddling. You're trying to rationalize an illegal action to get your means. I've never advocated breaking the law. Do you want to try again Jerry?

So what else would you do to defeat what you perceive to be universal health care?
 
Jerry, would you dress up in a chicken suit to do your part to tear down the Healthcare bill?
 
Back
Top Bottom