Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

sam_w said:

I see, another who did not bother to read. Henceforth you have no argument.

Either read my post fully or admit you have failed. P/N you can admit to yourself throwing in a red herring. It's all there for you, already posted.

Click to expand...

You've already been debunked, concede that you are recycling the white house line that falsely accuses others of loading the town halls, prove it with something real, or dissappear.

sam_w said:

Already posted. I can't help you if you can't bother to read.

I see, another who did not bother to read. Henceforth you have no argument.

Either read my post fully or admit you have failed. P/N you can admit to yourself throwing in a red herring. It's all there for you, already posted.

Click to expand...

You mean these links?

sam_w said:

Yeah I suppose to you it wouldn;t matter that some of these people do not even live in the districts now would it?
Local Fox Reporter Attends Town Hall And Finds ‘Some Attendees Admit They Don’t Live In The District’

Click to expand...

A link to the hard hitting, journalistic bastion of integrity, Think Progress? :roll:

The MyFoxHouston story the article links to shows no mention of "out of district" people showing up. Could it be that Think Progress is making it up? As far as proof goes - FAIL

sam_w said:

Nor would Rep. Steve Kagen, whose town hall was targeted by the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity matter at all.

Golly jeepers, now you do know who Americans for Prosperity are right?

Click to expand...

Do you really think that liberal groups don't do this already? Who do you think the conservative groups are taking their lead from? Care for me to post links to liberal groups organizing the disruption of protests and rallies? As far as proof goes, this is acceptable, but your faux outrage over one side doing it and completely ignoring the other side doing it further proves your blind partisanship, but we already knew that.

I'll admit it's not a total red herring on your part, but your blatant ignoring of liberal groups doing the same thing in far greater numbers does discredit your take on this issue.

P/N said:

You mean these links?

Click to expand...

Yeah, just pick the one link you think you can argue against, ignore the others now. Real good job there buddy. Just ignore :38 in where the reporter says quote:

Some attendees admit they don't live in the Congressman's district, so why attend the meeting...

Click to expand...

My guess, you either did NOT watch the video, or you boldy lie. So which is it? Which will you take personal responsibility to? You are caught right now, right here...so own up.

But wait, you never addressed this:
Anti-Reform Group Takes Credit For Helping Gin Up Town Hall Rallies

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, the operation that’s running a national campaign against a public health care option, is now publicly taking credit for helping gin up the sometimes-rowdy outbursts targeting House Dems at town hall meetings around the country, raising questions about their spontaneity.

CPR is the group headed by controversial former hospitals exec Rick Scott that’s spending millions on ads attacking reform in all sorts of lurid ways, a campaign that’s being handled by the same P.R. mavens behind the Swift Boat Vets.

Click to expand...

Well how bloody convenient for you. I suppose if you did address this, you would also have to address the issue of Bob MacGuffie. Yeah, that would be kind of hard since his leaked memo is available "Rocking the Town Halls: Best Practices"

The rest of what I posted would take logic and understanding...best left ignored here I guess.

P/N said:

Do you really think that liberal groups don't do this already? Who do you think the conservative groups are taking their lead from? Care for me to post links to liberal groups organizing the disruption of protests and rallies? As far as proof goes, this is acceptable, but your faux outrage over one side doing it and completely ignoring the other side doing it further proves your blind partisanship, but we already knew that.

I'll admit it's not a total red herring on your part, but your blatant ignoring of liberal groups doing the same thing in far greater numbers does discredit your take on this issue.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I am not talking, nor have I talked about Liberal groups doing or not doing what you say...have I? The argument I entered was whether these so called B.S. disruptions were genuine or astroturfing. Are liberals doing the SAME thing? How the hell should I know, to date there has been nothing presented. Do you know of some town halls being disrupted by liberal groups? Do you know of Congressmen being prevented from speaking with their constituencies by liberal groups right now? I mean now, do not post some bit about something that happened 5 years ago with Bush, I could care less as I would not have been involved then.

Do I seem partisan? Damn straight, but it is not partisanship that gets me going, it is the consistent, and almost only, tactic of dishonesty that conservatives make time and time again. Let me put this way, if the tables were turned, and liberal groups were doing this, and someone presented me with this argument, I would not be so dishonest as to claim it does not exist. I would maybe counter with something more believable or honest, or truth be told...and this is the real secret; I would just not pay any attention to it.

LaMidRighter said:

You've already been debunked, concede that you are recycling the white house line that falsely accuses others of loading the town halls, prove it with something real, or dissappear.

Click to expand...

Maybe you might want to actually bother to read my post, have watched the actual video, heard the presenter's own words, and read the bleeping memo that was leaked, or the article linked. No, the only people that have been debunked are those that have quite disingenuously been caught, like you have now. Care to watch the actual video and try and tell me nobody at all says anything about people that do not even live in that district? I would welcome that counter-argument for a good laugh.

sam_w said:

Maybe you might want to actually bother to read my post, have watched the actual video, heard the presenter's own words, and read the bleeping memo that was leaked, or the article linked. No, the only people that have been debunked are those that have quite disingenuously been caught, like you have now. Care to watch the actual video and try and tell me nobody at all says anything about people that do not even live in that district? I would welcome that counter-argument for a good laugh.

Click to expand...

What's to read, these are the same sources that pass along talking points as fact, and as far as memos go, I never trust "leaked memos" from any source without some concrete validation, if you want to know why it's very simple, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to throw out fake documentation so that the idea becomes ingrained in people's heads that something took place, even after the trick has been dismissed, Dan Rathers forged memo in '04 ring a bell?

LaMidRighter said:

What's to read, these are the same sources that pass along talking points as fact, and as far as memos go, I never trust "leaked memos" from any source without some concrete validation, if you want to know why it's very simple, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to throw out fake documentation so that the idea becomes ingrained in people's heads that something took place, even after the trick has been dismissed, Dan Rathers forged memo in '04 ring a bell?

Click to expand...

Well the only problem you have there is good old Bill did not refute this memo. I am not going to hold your hand on this, you need to be the one to start doing your own homework at this point. I will give you a hint at best to start with. Bob MacGuffie did a radio interview...look that up. One other hint, his interview was with a "liberal" which is suprising because this person is on record as saying he is a centrist. But FOX needed a liberal at the time..oops, did I say too much? Well this should be enough to start you on your journey.

sam_w said:

Yeah, just pick the one link you think you can argue against, ignore the others now. Real good job there buddy. Just ignore :38 in where the reporter says quote:



My guess, you either did NOT watch the video, or you boldy lie. So which is it? Which will you take personal responsibility to? You are caught right now, right here...so own up.

But wait, you never addressed this:
Anti-Reform Group Takes Credit For Helping Gin Up Town Hall Rallies


Well how bloody convenient for you. I suppose if you did address this, you would also have to address the issue of Bob MacGuffie. Yeah, that would be kind of hard since his leaked memo is available "Rocking the Town Halls: Best Practices"

The rest of what I posted would take logic and understanding...best left ignored here I guess.



Excuse me, but I am not talking, nor have I talked about Liberal groups doing or not doing what you say...have I? The argument I entered was whether these so called B.S. disruptions were genuine or astroturfing. Are liberals doing the SAME thing? How the hell should I know, to date there has been nothing presented. Do you know of some town halls being disrupted by liberal groups? Do you know of Congressmen being prevented from speaking with their constituencies by liberal groups right now? I mean now, do not post some bit about something that happened 5 years ago with Bush, I could care less as I would not have been involved then.

Do I seem partisan? Damn straight, but it is not partisanship that gets me going, it is the consistent, and almost only, tactic of dishonesty that conservatives make time and time again. Let me put this way, if the tables were turned, and liberal groups were doing this, and someone presented me with this argument, I would not be so dishonest as to claim it does not exist. I would maybe counter with something more believable or honest, or truth be told...and this is the real secret; I would just not pay any attention to it.



Maybe you might want to actually bother to read my post, have watched the actual video, heard the presenter's own words, and read the bleeping memo that was leaked, or the article linked. No, the only people that have been debunked are those that have quite disingenuously been caught, like you have now. Care to watch the actual video and try and tell me nobody at all says anything about people that do not even live in that district? I would welcome that counter-argument for a good laugh.

Click to expand...

So you're basically proving that you only get outraged when the right does it - noted.

:roll:

Devil505 said:

Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.

The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

As long as politicians lie and misrepresent the truth I have no problem with others do so in order to counter act the original untruths.

sam_w said:

Well the only problem you have there is good old Bill did not refute this memo. I am not going to hold your hand on this, you need to be the one to start doing your own homework at this point.

Click to expand...

Okay,
1) they got people there according to the source, it did not say they were paid to have an opinion, so that is irrelevant.
2) If unprovable that the opinions expressed were invalid then you have no point.
3) there was real anger in the audio I heard.
4) opinion polls are backing up the opinions expressed verbatim at the town halls.
5) This pathetic attempt to silence people is getting more comedic by people like yourself trying to invalidate it with half-facts and non-analysis. Face it, you lose.

Orius said:

There are such a thing as agents provocateurs who are hired by government to make protests turn violent so that they can be shut down. It's no conspiracy, it has happened all over the world, including places like Canada, the U.S., the U.K., etc.

I think it is more likely that if organizations or government wanted protests shut down that they wouldn't hire a large group, they'd just hire one person who discredits the protest and causes riot police to descend upon the masses.

Click to expand...

Where does this happen? China or Canada? :lol:

P/N said:

So you're basically proving that you only get outraged when the right does it - noted.

:roll:

Click to expand...

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH

First off, I am not arguing this case. Do you not understand this? I am arguing the case, now proven, that the right wing lobbyist are pushing people to fake outrage..blah blah blah. That is the only point I have entered into this discussion, do you understand?

Good

Now, would you like to bring up the red herring again? Because I hope you do appreciate the irony. Do you see the irony? Do you need me to explain it? You have used a red herring, how cute. I am arguing point A, and you bring in point B to distract from point A.

Now, if you wish to bring up a separate issue of liberals disrupting town halls this week, please do post. But before you do, allow me to say this for the record. I do not accept this tactic to be used PERIOD. This is NOT discussion, but rather a suppression of discussion. Thus, I am against it. So if you do have some evidence of Liberals doing this, then please do post.

LaMidRighter said:

1) they got people there according to the source, it did not say they were paid to have an opinion, so that is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Huh? Hello...have you not bothered to read anything? Did I say the nutjobs showing up are paid? No, I did not make that claim. What I did say however that is right in front of your eyes is that lobbying firms (obviously being paid) are organizing the disruptions.

LaMidRighter said:

2) If unprovable that the opinions expressed were invalid then you have no point.

Click to expand...

Look bud, I have given you everything you need to know. If you will not bother to educate yourself, then just end it ok. You had your opportunity to dispute, was it you who said something about people just accepting an argument because they said so? Well, go learn about the players involved and then come back.

LaMidRighter said:

3) there was real anger in the audio I heard.

Click to expand...

What you say? Conservatives angry? That is shocking....when are they not angry about something? Isn't anger a core requirement to become one? Seriously, I am not arguing that some may or may not genuinely be angry. Do read the argument please.

LaMidRighter said:

4) opinion polls are backing up the opinions expressed verbatim at the town halls.

Click to expand...

And there are opinion polls that show the opposite. There are opinion polls that show a good portion of the American population need to be put into insane asylums, or at the very least redo grades 1 through 12. There is a Gallup poll that shows Democrats having the strongest lead in states identifying by party, same one that shows Republicans with only a couple of states left solidly red. At this point polls mean nothing, absolutely nothing, and this is NOT part of the discussion is it? Do I hear a red herring again?

LaMidRighter said:

5) This pathetic attempt to silence people is getting more comedic by people like yourself trying to invalidate it with half-facts and non-analysis. Face it, you lose.

Click to expand...

Dat der is sum funny math you have. Ok, what exactly have YOU shown to refute? Besides the whole "Because I says so.." (sound familiar} you have done zero research. You did not even bother to watch the video, read any of the links, or look into the people involved. What exactly is the most of your counter-argument? The video is hosted at Think Progress, hence it is .....what exactly? You don't even have to read the website, WATCH THE VIDEO. But you did not, just like a certain other person.

sam_w said:

Huh? Hello...have you not bothered to read anything? Did I say the nutjobs showing up are paid? No, I did not make that claim. What I did say however that is right in front of your eyes is that lobbying firms (obviously being paid) are organizing the disruptions.

Click to expand...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

So what was your point? Did these people NOT petition for a redress of grievances, so what if it was a lobbyist planned "assembly" if the people were truly aggrieved.

Look bud, I have given you everything you need to know. If you will not bother to educate yourself, then just end it ok. You had your opportunity to dispute, was it you who said something about people just accepting an argument because they said so? Well, go learn about the players involved and then come back.

Click to expand...

You haven't given anything credible, and again, the onus is on you to prove that somehow these protests were "illegitimate" because they were organized, so far you have failed miserably in that responsibility.

What you say? Conservatives angry? That is shocking....when are they not angry about something? Isn't anger a core requirement to become one? Seriously, I am not arguing that some may or may not genuinely be angry. Do read the argument please.

Click to expand...

Wow, what an uninformed generalization, I guess you missed the sociological study that showed conservatives to generally be happier, feel more empowered, etc., and you say others need to get educated.:roll:

Dat der is sum funny math you have. Ok, what exactly have YOU shown to refute? Besides the whole "Because I says so.." (sound familiar} you have done zero research.

Click to expand...

Kid, I've done plenty of research, which is why I am being so hard on you. You're coming at this from a position of trying to mold the reality to your side in the debate, and the fact is there is nothing there for you, so far I've seen from you: Biased sources, flawed anaysis from those sources, and anger. Seriously chill and absorb for once.

sam_w said:

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH

Click to expand...

Don't let these guys upset you Sam. They represent the big time losers who brought our country to the verge of another depression & made the United States a bastion of torture in the world.
They are angry because now they are all politically impotent, & will remain so for the foreseeable future.

You & I & the vast majority of Americans see them for what they are & we are determined to not let them ruin our country again.

The obvious point of this topic is not what they want to talk about (What if) so they try to obfuscate, confuse & derail us with tactics right out of the RNC playbook.....but it won't work this time.

To the Republican Party ....all I have to say is this......Cya fellas & yes, I would like fries with my Big Mack.:2wave::2wave:

I wonder if the Bush administration ever made false accusations of anti-war protesters being fake or the product or sore losers.

Devil505 said:

Don't let these guys upset you Sam. They represent the big time losers who brought our country to the verge of another depression & made the United States a bastion of torture in the world.
They are angry because now they are all politically impotent, & will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

Guess you haven't seen the latest polling data huh? The Republicans are leading in favorability ratings going into 2010, that would be an election year.

You & I & the vast majority of Americans see them for what they are & we are determined to not let them ruin our country again.

Click to expand...

See above.

The obvious point of this topic is not what they want to talk about (What if) so they try to obfuscate, confuse & derail us with tactics right out of the RNC playbook.....but it won't work this time.

Click to expand...

Yes, because these tactics you are complaining about didn't come right from statist leaning Saul Alinski and his book "Rules for Radicals" and haven't been in use since the 1960's by lunatic leftists on the fringe.:roll:

To the Republican Party ....all I have to say is this......Cya fellas & yes, I would like fries with my Big Mack.:2wave::2wave:

Click to expand...

Don't make fun of fast food employees, they had good jobs until the Pelosi/Reid/Obama crowd started to get power in 2006.

Devil505 said:

Don't let these guys upset you Sam. They represent the big time losers who brought our country to the verge of another depression & made the United States a bastion of torture in the world.

Click to expand...

I would rather have another Great Depression than to have my rights taken away or have my great great great grandchildren be paying for a few bills that was created 50-60-100 years into their past.

Kal'Stang said:

I would rather have another Great Depression than to have my rights taken away or have my great great great grandchildren be paying for a few bills that was created 50-60-100 years into their past.

Click to expand...

This current D.C. bunch is hitting us so hard our great granchildren's great grandchilren will feel it.

One thing I would like to note is that in this thread there has been talk of people coming to town hall meetings that do not live within that district.

So what?

Is there a law against it? Does it have to be because they were "paid" to do so? Does it even have to be because they just want to disrupt the proceedings?

Could it not be because they wanted to come because they were not having any such proceedings where they lived? With no such town hall meetings in the foreseeable future? Could they not just want to be heard?

If the town hall meetings was for something that was for a local law or ordinance then yeah I could see it as wrong. But if it is for something national...like Obama's UHCP then I see nothing wrong with it. Personally I would encourage anyone from anywhere to go to where ever they can in order to be heard. Even if it's 5 states away. Why? Because it affects everyone in the US no matter where you live in the US.

You see, with sam w and others, it's not about right or wrong, it's about left or right. They and their ilk showed no anger when the dems do this very same thing, but are outraged when the right does it. It's either wrong all the time, or it's OK all the time. You don't get to be selective in your outrage if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I was pissed when Bush signed TARP. I was pissed when Obama signed the Stimulus bill. I've been angry about government bailouts no matter who is doing it, and I'm far from alone in this. I was pissed when the repubs spent like sailors in a whorehouse. I am pissed that the dems are spending at a rate far greater than sailors in a whorehouse. I am consistent in my outrage. Others are not.

So for all of you on the Left where was your oytrage when your fellow folk son the left shout at Republican Congress Member who were doing Town Hall meetings if I recall I hear well it's free Speach and what are they tryiong ot hide form.

Whats Good for the Goose is good for the Gander welcome to America and this thing called the 1st Adm. don't like I suggest you go and live in any of the following Countries, China,Cuba,Iran,Syria.

I really think that Devil505 doesn't know how chilling it it that he suggests that the courts should be able to determine whether you are being real with your speech and what sort of punishment you get if they determine if you are not.

Devil505 said:

Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.

The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

I take issue with this, because if it were Liberal anti-war, or anti-whatever protestors, none of you would have a bit of a problem with it.

If we had seen this kind of opposition to Leftist protestor's actions over the past 8 years, then I might agree. Seeing how we didn't, "free speech, being the defense, I couldn't disagree more.

Shadow Serious said:

I really think that Devil505 doesn't know how chilling it it that he suggests that the courts should be able to determine whether you are being real with your speech and what sort of punishment you get if they determine if you are not.

Click to expand...

Police have had the authority to arrest people for disturbing the peace, creating a public nuisance, etc.... for many years. Nothing new or "Chilling" there.
( & the courts would not care if you were a real or fake protester..... they would only care about you using your speech for the purpose of denying others THEIR First Amendment rights)
If I was an AUSA, I would be very reluctant to prosecute any individual for exercising his speech righst....BUT I would have no problem prosecuting someone which the evidence can prove is being paid to deny others their rights.

apdst said:

I take issue with this, because if it were Liberal anti-war, or anti-whatever protestors, none of you would have a bit of a problem with it.

If we had seen this kind of opposition to Leftist protestor's actions over the past 8 years, then I might agree. Seeing how we didn't, "free speech, being the defense, I couldn't disagree more.

Click to expand...

I disagree, but can appreciate your point. I have a very similar problem with Republican "New Found" fiscal responsibility which all but disappeared during the last eight years & only seems to come up when a Democrat is in the White House.
(a fair helping of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, no?)

Devil505 said:

Police have had the authority to arrest people for disturbing the peace, creating a public nuisance, etc.... for many years. Nothing new or "Chilling" there.

Click to expand...

The issue is not that that a person can be arrested for "disturbing the peace,creating a public nuisance,etc...." The issue is that you suggested that there should be a new law that determine whether or not a person is faking what they believe and proceuting them under said law. And that it would not be a local misdemeanor offence but a Federal Felony offence. There is a big difference in spending a few days or perhaps weeks in the local jail and spending several years in a federal penitentiary which you are no doubt aware doesn't have any parole except for the last 15% of the sentence.

hazlnut said:

And with that you also get a copy of the leaked conservative memo instructing folks on how to crash and ruin a Townhall meeting by being disruptive assholes.

Way to make a fake spontaneous uprising feel more...real?:2razz:

Click to expand...

If this was organized it was taken right out of the liberal handbook.