• 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

It's indecent, that's the problem. Shouting down people at town halls is rude and childish. Shouting down a disabled woman talking about how her medical bills are the point of her being at risk of losing her home is indecent. Video is here:

Wheelchair-Bound Woman Shouted Down At New Jersey Health Care Town Hall (VIDEO)

I guess this kind of shameless behavior is perfectly acceptable in New Jersey, but it's the lowest of low where I am from. I don't even agree with what the woman was obviously implying should be the solution (some kind of single payer system), but that is neither here nor there. When are people from either side going to start condemning and shaming this kind of shameless garbage.

I've seen the video, it doesn't need to be reposted. Again, this doesn't appear like genuine concern coming from most of the left. The huffington post and other left wing "news" groups are using this woman as a poster child to further their own partisan agenda. That's it. Your attacks don't sound like genuine concern to me, but more of the same that everyone has been getting from these agenda-driven organizations. Personally, I find that more appalling than shouting over her during a town hall meeting.
 
I've seen the video, it doesn't need to be reposted. Again, this doesn't appear like genuine concern coming from most of the left. The huffington post and other left wing "news" groups are using this woman as a poster child to further their own partisan agenda. That's it. Your attacks don't sound like genuine concern to me, but more of the same that everyone has been getting from these agenda-driven organizations. Personally, I find that more appalling than shouting over her during a town hall meeting.

It is not fake concern on my part. For personal reasons I just particularly don't like people that shout down the sick, disabled, and handicapped at health care town halls.

If you align yourself with the right, or you are against the Democratic health care proposals for whatever reason, then fine. Why excuse that kind of behavior. It's not left wing groups like The Huffington Post that are making right wingers and Democrat healthcare reform opponents look bad, its that fact that those opponents and right wingers refuse to condemn that kind of shameless behavior that makes them look bad.
 
Being a wheelchair is irrelevant, shouting someone down simply trying to ask a question is deplorable no matter who it is. However, heckling people who ramble endlessly without coming to a point or who make an ass of themselves with ridiculous accusations is perfectly valid in my mind, wheelchair or no wheelchair.

She made no "ridiculous accusations" in the clip.

The link showed only a brief clip of the woman, but it seemed to me she was rambling and the crowd was mostly heckling her by asking "what's your question?" Who knows how long she had been going on before the clip we saw. No one wants to hear someone go on a diatribe about their personal problems.
They played a longer clip on Morning Joe this morning. What you saw is just about the entirety of it. I can't see how a couple of minutes at most is "rambling". Moreover, if you don't want to hear about the problems people have had with our current health care system, then don't go to a town hall on health care reform. That's like turning on a Saint Jude Telethon and bitching about it being depressing.

Being that our health care system is so expensive right now that health care costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy filings, its kind of a given that you are going to hear such stories at a town hall on health care reform.
 
Last edited:
Inciting violence is walking through to reach your side? Wow that's ridiculous. I'd say you have little self control if you believe something as stupid as that. How exactly did this man incite violence?

He walked into the opposing crowd. It's obvious that he was looking for trouble. A little common sense goes alot farther than self control. If the tables were turned, you would say the same thing and you damn well know it.
 
She made no "ridiculous accusations" in the clip.

I wasn't trying to say she did. I apologize if it came out that way. I just meant if someone is rambling endlessly without coming to a point or a question or is just making a fool of themselves with bizzaro accusations, I have no problem with them being shouted down.

I was at a townhall for Obama in '07 and we had two numbskulls get up and start. One rambled on endlessly about his fight with to get his social security check and the other was just flat out insane talking about aliens and some other whacked out stuff. Thankfully both times Obama cut them short, answered them as diplomatically as possible, and moved on to people who were not utterly insane.

They played a longer clip on Morning Joe this morning. What you saw is just about the entirety of it. I can't see how a couple of minutes at most is "rambling". Moreover, if you don't want to hear about the problems people have had with our current health care system, then don't go to a town hall on health care reform. That's like turning on a Saint Jude Telethon and bitching about it being depressing.

Being that our health care system is so expensive right now that health care costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy filings, its kind of a given that you are going to hear such stories at a town hall on health care reform.

I don't want to hear an indepth personal sob story. The clip I saw the woman didn't seem anywhere near arriving at a point or a question. When I come to townhall I want to hear people ask questions and voice concerns and then have those questions answered and concerns addressed. I don't want to hear a detailed account everyone's personal tale of woe. She could've simply said, "I have numerous health issues that have put me in a serious financial bind ..." and then moved on to whatever her question was going to be. People's time is valuable and being concise is a lost art to far too many people.

That said, if the clip is all she said and there is no , then the crowd jumped on her a too early. She was getting to the point where my inner monologue was saying "get to the point" but I also know I can be impatient with folks and certainly wouldn't have jumped up and yelled that out loud. Shouting someone down should be reserved for people who are excrutiatiningly idiotic and refuse to shut up. Townhall meetings and meetings in general are only productive if people can be civil.

I must say though, that she seemed to fishing for sympathy for her situation, which I find annoying as hell. I can be very sympathetic, but the minute I sense someone is actively trying to get my sympathy, they won't get a drop from me. I just find manipulative and annoying.
 
I wasn't trying to say she did. I apologize if it came out that way. I just meant if someone is rambling endlessly without coming to a point or a question or is just making a fool of themselves with bizzaro accusations, I have no problem with them being shouted down.

I was at a townhall for Obama in '07 and we had two numbskulls get up and start. One rambled on endlessly about his fight with to get his social security check and the other was just flat out insane talking about aliens and some other whacked out stuff. Thankfully both times Obama cut them short, answered them as diplomatically as possible, and moved on to people who were not utterly insane.



I don't want to hear an indepth personal sob story. The clip I saw the woman didn't seem anywhere near arriving at a point or a question. When I come to townhall I want to hear people ask questions and voice concerns and then have those questions answered and concerns addressed. I don't want to hear a detailed account everyone's personal tale of woe. She could've simply said, "I have numerous health issues that have put me in a serious financial bind ..." and then moved on to whatever her question was going to be. People's time is valuable and being concise is a lost art to far too many people.

That said, if the clip is all she said and there is no , then the crowd jumped on her a too early. She was getting to the point where my inner monologue was saying "get to the point" but I also know I can be impatient with folks and certainly wouldn't have jumped up and yelled that out loud. Shouting someone down should be reserved for people who are excrutiatiningly idiotic and refuse to shut up. Townhall meetings and meetings in general are only productive if people can be civil.

I must say though, that she seemed to fishing for sympathy for her situation, which I find annoying as hell. I can be very sympathetic, but the minute I sense someone is actively trying to get my sympathy, they won't get a drop from me. I just find manipulative and annoying.

My faith in humanity is restored. :)
 
So now you're comparing someone in a wheelchair to someone with mental disability. You're just so kind. We should all be so lucky to have someone like you looking out for us.

No. He is comparing a disabled person to another disabled person. They deserve the same respect we afford people without disabilities and maybe even more considering this bill and the outcome of this debate will affect them more than people who are perfectly healthy. You're being intentionally obtuse. Try some reading comprehension sometime and actually understanding what the person is saying instead of making up your own version of what they are saying.

None of the people here would heckle a person with down syndrome in 'real life'. It's a simple matter. And yes. We do treat people who have disabilities with kid gloves. ALL THE TIME. We make our schools more accessible to them, we help them across the street, we create special places that cater to their every need. If somebody got into a fight with a guy in a wheel chair or a kid with down syndrome you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who wouldn't step up for them. The same goes for people in wheelchairs. Why? Because of their disabilities. All this bull**** talk about not treating people with disabilities with kid gloves like society doesn't already do it.
 
Last edited:
It is not fake concern on my part. For personal reasons I just particularly don't like people that shout down the sick, disabled, and handicapped at health care town halls.

I tend to agree with you, for the very same personal reasons (or, rather, close to the same).
 
I could give a crap if the person is in a wheelchair, etc. She was on the wrong side of the issue, and that's all we need to know.

Pro UHC should be shut down at every opportunity.
 
I could give a crap if the person is in a wheelchair, etc. She was on the wrong side of the issue, and that's all we need to know.

Pro UHC should be shut down at every opportunity.

Are you saying that because you disagree with an issue that there should be no further debate on it?

Would it be accurate for me to say that your participation in a discussion group called Debate Politics is ironic?
 
I could give a crap if the person is in a wheelchair, etc. She was on the wrong side of the issue, and that's all we need to know.

Pro UHC should be shut down at every opportunity.

Partisan hackery at its best.

If you have to rely on "shutting down" your opponents rather than your own well reasoned arguments for why your side is correct, you're probably on the wrong side of the argument.

And I'm saying this as someone opposed to UHC. But spreading lies, misinformation, and working to "shut down" your opponents are the tactics of someone who doesn't have anything better to offer. If you believe your opponents are wrong, why must you prevent them from speaking? Let them speak and then happily point out their inaccuracies and errors in thinking.
 
He walked into the opposing crowd. It's obvious that he was looking for trouble. A little common sense goes alot farther than self control. If the tables were turned, you would say the same thing and you damn well know it.

Again ridiculous assertion. So if I walk through a line of people waiting for food at a stadium and I'm trying to get to my seats then that's me going looking for trouble? He walked through to get over to the other side. Yes I would say the same if the tables were turned. Just walking through a crowd does not give the crowd the right to assault the guy. What you're talking about isn't common sense and just shows how little restraint your side seems to have
 
Again ridiculous assertion. So if I walk through a line of people waiting for food at a stadium and I'm trying to get to my seats then that's me going looking for trouble? He walked through to get over to the other side. Yes I would say the same if the tables were turned. Just walking through a crowd does not give the crowd the right to assault the guy. What you're talking about isn't common sense and just shows how little restraint your side seems to have




At the Wachovia center in Philly, that is exactly what you are doing. Especallily if you are wearing a Devils Jersey...


Poor example.
 
Are you saying that because you disagree with an issue that there should be no further debate on it?

Would it be accurate for me to say that your participation in a discussion group called Debate Politics is ironic?

No less ironic than the pro global warming folks :2wave:

Fight fire with fire imo.
 
At the Wachovia center in Philly, that is exactly what you are doing. Especallily if you are wearing a Devils Jersey...


Poor example.

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
 
Partisan hackery at its best.

If you have to rely on "shutting down" your opponents rather than your own well reasoned arguments for why your side is correct, you're probably on the wrong side of the argument.

And I'm saying this as someone opposed to UHC. But spreading lies, misinformation, and working to "shut down" your opponents are the tactics of someone who doesn't have anything better to offer. If you believe your opponents are wrong, why must you prevent them from speaking? Let them speak and then happily point out their inaccuracies and errors in thinking.

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.

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.
 
No less ironic than the pro global warming folks :2wave:

Fight fire with fire imo.

Pro global warming folks? Are those the people who want global warming to happen? Usually if you're pro something you're for it.
 
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.

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 is dangerous rhetoric. This is the same kind of rhetoric clinic bombers use to justify their actions. That breaking the law is okay if your result is the way you want it.
 
Pro global warming folks? Are those the people who want global warming to happen? Usually if you're pro something you're for it.

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.
 
This is dangerous rhetoric. This is the same kind of rhetoric clinic bombers use to justify their actions. That breaking the law is okay if your result is the way you want it.

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:
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I was wondering if he was wearing a brown shirt
 
Nice to see you also use the same tactics when you see fit, likening me to a domestic terrorist :2wave:

When you are justifying breaking the laws and spreading fear against people that disagree with you, that is domestic terrorism. If the shoe fits......
 
Question . . .

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