• 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!

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

Should protesters be allowed to curb free speech in this country?

  • Yes. Protests are protected by the Constitution.

    Votes: 20 55.6%
  • No. If protesters stop free speech, they should be removed by police.

    Votes: 14 38.9%
  • If fake protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36
Does anyone really believe that all the people dissenting are paid by the insurance lobby?

This seems like a ploy to silence over all dissent and nothing else, would you hold politicians to a law against lying?
 
Does anyone really believe that all the people dissenting are paid by the insurance lobby?

This seems like a ploy to silence over all dissent and nothing else, would you hold politicians to a law against lying?

I seriously doubt that the people making the accusations that the protesters are bogus actually believe them to be fake. I agree with you that it is a merely a tactic to try to discredit the opposition to socialist medicine,just like when liars made the claim that the tax tea parties were fake. Discredit your opponents and it will make it easy for politicians to ignore them. They want this socialist medicine in the guise of healthcare reform to pass and seem to be worried that there is a huge change of this failing.
 
Last edited:
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.

& I stand behind my idea that new federal laws need to be enacted that will punish those who deliberately travel around the country for the purpose of infringing on other citizen's First Amendment rights. (If they are part of a larger conspiracy & do this for money, all the harsher the sentence they should receive)
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt that the people making the accusations that the protesters are bogus actually believe them to be fake.

So you deny conservatives have been writing memo's encouraging their readers to disrupt town hall meetings?

You deny that many of the chants of these "Protesters" are canned & taken right out of the RNC talking points?

You deny that many of these "legitimate" protesters admit that they don't live anywhere near the town that is holding this local meeting?

Anyway, we're getting off topic which is should these protests be allowed if they are shouting down their neighber's free speech & they are proven to be paid operatives of either the HC industry or the RNC, or both.
 
Last edited:
& I stand behind my idea that new federal laws need to be enacted that will punish those who deliberately travel around the country for the purpose of infringing on other citizen's First Amendment rights.

Does this apply to any protesters who shout down people speaking or just the ones you falsely deem fake? For someone I bet if the Bush Administration came out called all the anti-war protesters fake you and others like you would be condemning Bush for belittling protesters.


(If they are part of a larger conspiracy & do this for money, all the harsher the sentence they should receive)

Last time I checked the constitution doesn't banned paid protesters.
 
& I stand behind my idea that new federal laws need to be enacted that will punish those who deliberately travel around the country for the purpose of infringing on other citizen's First Amendment rights. (If they are part of a larger conspiracy & do this for money, all the harsher the sentence they should receive)




Wow. how national socialist of you....
 
I seriously doubt that the people making the accusations that the protesters are bogus actually believe them to be fake. I agree with you that it is a merely a tactic to try to discredit the opposition to socialist medicine,just like when liars made the claim that the tax tea parties were fake. Discredit your opponents and it will make it easy for politicians to ignore them. They want this socialist medicine in the guise of healthcare reform to pass and seem to be worried that there is a huge change of this failing.




Who was that democrat from missouri I think, who stated she didn't think they were fake?
 
So you deny conservatives have been writing memo's encouraging their readers to disrupt town hall meetings?

I do not know if this is true or not,but it doesn't make the protesters fake.


You deny that many of the chants of these "Protesters" are canned & taken right out of the RNC talking points?


It could be argue that anti-war protesters use DNC or perhaps even terrorist talking points. It still doesn't make the protesters fake. Many people share the same opinion.


You deny that many of these "legitimate" protesters admit that they don't live anywhere near the town that is holding this local meeting?

I do not know if this is true or not but location of residence in some other area does not make the protesters fake. Do all the code pink morons live in Sanfransicko or Berkly?
 
I do not know if this is true or not,but it doesn't make the protesters fake.





It could be argue that anti-war protesters use DNC or perhaps even terrorist talking points. It still doesn't make the protesters fake. Many people share the same opinion.




I do not know if this is true or not but location of residence in some other area does not make the protesters fake. Do all the code pink morons live in Sanfransicko or Berkly?




Devil's whole premise is a pack of lies. He tried this with another thread, and it was smacked down as it was deserved.
 
Does this apply to any protesters who shout down people speaking or just the ones you falsely deem fake?

It would apply to anyone infringing on the First Amendment rights of others.
( the flagrancy & whether or not they are paid operatives would only come into account when a decision is being made for prosecution. Paid operatives should get the book thrown at them while legitimate protesters would probably not be prosecuted, just removed from the meeting).




Last time I checked the constitution doesn't banned paid protesters.
Last time I checked, the constitution doesn't protect anyone's right to deprive others of their First Amendment rights.
 
It would apply to anyone infringing on the First Amendment rights of others.
( the flagrancy & whether or not they are paid operatives would only come into account when a decision is being made for prosecution. Paid operatives should get the book thrown at them while legitimate protesters would probably not be prosecuted, just removed from the meeting).





Last time I checked, the constitution doesn't protect anyone's right to deprive others of their First Amendment rights.




Show me in the constitution where it is illegal to pay one person to speak on the behalf of another.


Would you be for the prosecution of Moveon.org, codepink? or are you reserving your gulags to citizens you don't like?
 
Devil's whole premise is a pack of lies. He tried this with another thread, and it was smacked down as it was deserved.

You just can't debate without resorting to childish, personal attacks...can you? (meet you after school!)
 
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.

Right or wrong? Left or right? Hello? Oh wait...here it is:
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.

You know this tactic of yours is annoying, well that is the kindest way I can put it I guess. Annoying. Dishonest, I can use that one as well. Disingenuous? Yep, that would work perfectly also.

For someone who first claimed red herring, I am amazed I can still move around what with all the bleeping red herrings you have been throwing. So fine, we have established clearly what is going on. You want to make claims that the left is disrupting town hall meetings now, please do post evidence or stop lying.

p.s. If you are so consistent in your outrage over government spending, why do you seem to care so little about the fact that under two administrations the national debt has ballooned faster than anyone?
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Ronald Reagan went from $997B (09/30/1981) to $2,857B (09/29/1989)=$2.8 8 years
George H. Bush $2,857B (09/29/1989) to $4,411 (09/30/1993)=$1.5t 4 years
Clinton went from $4,411 (09/30/1993) to $5,807 (09/30/2001)= $1.4t 8 years
George W. Bush $5,807 (09/30/2001) to $10,024 (09/30/2008) $4.2t in 8 years

Not done with George W. Bush though. We still have to add up Medicare's 2003 bill, that is another $1.2 trillion - Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion
Can we ever forget Iraq? That gift to debt will end up between $3-5 trillion more -The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

So, with George W. Bush, we have a President who inherited budget surplus, took into the red almost immediately (no it was not 9/11, look at the budget, it was tax cuts that stimulated jack). Added a debt of $4.2 trillion, + $1.2 trillion more from Medicare in the years to come, and $3-5 trillion for Iraq).

So Obama has inherited a financial meltdown, a budget deficit, and an economy that some thought was on the precipice of a Great Depression. What is the state of the economy today? Well we are now 6 months in emerging from the greatest postwar recession. He has inherited a mess, but if he follows Clinton's path, you should be damn grateful we have a Democrat in office and NOT a Republican wouldn't you say? You are so strongly against government spending, debt and all right? No you are not consistent at all.
 
You just can't debate without resorting to childish, personal attacks...can you? (meet you after school!)




you made false slanderous allegations. It is not "childish" nor is it a "personal attack" to call you out on your lies.:2wave:
 
Show me in the constitution where it is illegal to pay one person to speak on the behalf of another.

It is already illegal to disturb the peace. (do you actually read any posts before you spout off?


Would you be for the prosecution of Moveon.org, codepink? or are you reserving your gulags to citizens you don't like?
If they tried to drown out the free speech of others I would.
That's the difference here: We aren't afraid for you to hear the opposition. You guys are terrified that the obvious truth of what we are saying will get through, so you try to prevent anyhone from even hearing our words.
 
You just can't debate without resorting to childish, personal attacks...can you? (meet you after school!)

As usual he does not know what he is talking about, so the next best step is to call names. Works like a charm, or so he thinks so. It's always emotional, never fact. Facts are an inconvenient truth.

Kind of like Tea-bagging governors that protest the stimulus, then run around their state bragging about stimulus money, right good Reverend? Inconvenient truth....sucks doesn't it?
 
It is already illegal to disturb the peace. (do you actually read any posts before you spout off?


So then you thought Gates was rightfully arrested? Good to know.


Also please talk about how you are for the arrest and imprisonment of anti-war protestors.


If they tried to drown out the free speech of others I would.

They did. They do. Why are you so quick to give these organizations a pass, yet you can't even NAME the imaginary organization that is controlling in your mind these protests at the town hall?

Hypocrite much?


That's the difference here: We aren't afraid for you to hear the opposition. You guys are terrified that the obvious truth of what we are saying will get through, so you try to prevent anyhone from even hearing our words.



Really?


ProtestWarrior.com - Crashing the Protests

ProtestWarrior.com - A.N.S.W.E.R. Infiltrated

especially this one:


ProtestWarrior.com - Eagle Strike


Lets see if you can be not hypocritical. :lol:
 
As usual he does not know what he is talking about, so the next best step is to call names. Works like a charm, or so he thinks so. It's always emotional, never fact. Facts are an inconvenient truth.

Kind of like Tea-bagging governors that protest the stimulus, then run around their state bragging about stimulus money, right good Reverend? Inconvenient truth....sucks doesn't it?



Are you going for Irony? Thats nice.... :lol:


Please, what "facts" have you posted?
 
So then you thought Gates was rightfully arrested? Good to know.


Also please talk about how you are for the arrest and imprisonment of anti-war protestors.




They did. They do. Why are you so quick to give these organizations a pass, yet you can't even NAME the imaginary organization that is controlling in your mind these protests at the town hall?

Hypocrite much?






Really?


ProtestWarrior.com - Crashing the Protests

ProtestWarrior.com - A.N.S.W.E.R. Infiltrated

especially this one:


ProtestWarrior.com - Eagle Strike


Lets see if you can be not hypocritical. :lol:

Eagle Strike takes you on a chilling detour to a recent anti-war protest -- a dark leftist underworld where the fifth column gathers to spew their hatred of America and Israel. And while the left aligns themselves with brutal Islamic tyrants, they're going to learn while they can protest America, we can protest them.

MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHA freaking hilarious, does not get any better than this. Question, is this the favorite website of Montana militia members reading while they are hunkered down in their bunkers?
 
MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHA freaking hilarious, does not get any better than this. Question, is this the favorite website of Montana militia members reading while they are hunkered down in their bunkers?




Still waiting for you to post your "facts".....
 
Are you going for Irony? Thats nice.... :lol:


Please, what "facts" have you posted?

Good lord, I have posted this so many times. To which you always ignore, how cute. Dear Reverend, please don't ever mention the word "facts" when you yourself find them to be such an inconvenient truth.

And really, do you honestly need facts of Jindal, Sanders, Perrys, Kingstons, Kyl's, etc... hypocrisy? Really good Reverend?
 
Good lord, I have posted this so many times. To which you always ignore, how cute. Dear Reverend, please don't ever mention the word "facts" when you yourself find them to be such an inconvenient truth.

And really, do you honestly need facts of Jindal, Sanders, Perrys, Kingstons, Kyl's, etc... hypocrisy? Really good Reverend?




Still no facts.... ***yawn***


Still waiting. Will you be posting them today? :roll:
 
Still waiting for you to post your "facts".....

Hey I know, why don't you go back to any number of the posts I have made that showed this to which YOU IGNORED. I know you are so talented at looking back at past posts....

hyp⋅o⋅crite

 /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
Use hypocrite in a Sentence
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Give you a start, just go look at any post of mine with the keyword hypocrite.
 
Hey I know, why don't you go back to any number of the posts I have made that showed this to which YOU IGNORED. I know you are so talented at looking back at past posts....

hyp⋅o⋅crite

 /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
Use hypocrite in a Sentence
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Give you a start, just go look at any post of mine with the keyword hypocrite.







mallard-duck.jpg



and


1979-heavy-weave.jpg




Still no facts, so sorry so sad... FAIL
 
Hey I know, why don't you go back to any number of the posts I have made that showed this to which YOU IGNORED. I know you are so talented at looking back at past posts....

hyp⋅o⋅crite

 /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
Use hypocrite in a Sentence
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Give you a start, just go look at any post of mine with the keyword hypocrite.

Recommendation for you Sam:

The good Rev does not debate, he just likes to see his ludicrous words in print.
He's just not worth trying to discuss anything with so I will just pay no attention to him from now on.
There are plenty of other members here that actually can debate intelligently, without the tedious "Fail" or "Duly Noted" 4th grade points he awards himself.:screwy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom