Birthers

@mysteryman,

Amazing how much drivel you can produce because of a turn of phrase i used. You were referring to the freedom of speech in a public meeting. In a public meeting, people do have a right to be heard--but not to the exclusion of others. This right is continually recognized in venues such as town meetings, zoning board meetings, school district meetings--in a variety of venues.

As for what you do or don't remember me having said about events which occurred during the Shrub's administration--are you really so dull-witted as to think that's conclusive evidence of anything other than a snide attitude on your part?

This is well below your already low standards, Mysteryman. But i'm not surprised.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is well below your already low standards, Mysteryman. But i'm not surprised.

At least mysteryman is polite and civil.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

In a public meeting, people do have a right to be heard

Again, not true.

If the meeting is to talk about A, and you insist on bringing up B, then you do not have the "right to be heard"
If you insist on talking about things outside of the agreed upon agenda, you dont have a "right to be heard".

BUT, if as you say such a right exists, then you should be able to point to it in the Constitution, OR any federal court case that has been decided.

So, since you say the "right" exists, prove it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

As American citizens, they have the right to do what they are doing.
Its called democracy.
Now, the people holding the town hall meetings also have the right to have these people removed from the meetings, but they dont have the right to tell them that they cany protest or demand that their voices be heard at these meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They had a complete right to be hear not a right to stop others from being hear in a civil manner and that what is going on here.

They are similar to the brown shirts of the 1930s who would go to meetings with the purpose of breaking them up.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

It was inevitable that you would bring this up, and i suspected that you would. Are you, then, alleging that people only possess those rights which are specifically granted to them by the constitution? Even the constitution itself does not agree with that. The ninth amendment to the constitution reads, in its entirety: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

However, let me play your witless game: if as you say no right exists to discuss matters not on the agenda of a meeting, then you should be able to point to it in the Constitution, OR any federal court case that has been decided.

So, since you say no such right exists, prove it.

0 Replies

I have the right to barge into this thread, and possibly annoy a few people, because there is no law against this behavior. As a nation of laws, people do what they choose to do, until a law is made to make it illegal. Unethical behavior is not always illegal behavior, and one does not have to have a right to act unethically. The discussion about rights may be a red-herring. Ethics may just be the correct concern here, not rights.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Being on a thread online is much different from attempting to intimidate and shout down people at a meeting.

In person, they can be breaking the law if they shout and don't let others speak. Disorderly conduct is against the law.

This from Wiki's Indiana version of "disorderly conduct"

Quote:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

Disrupting the meeting by shouting even after being asked to stop is a crime. While most will be given some leeway with their actions because people do have some rights to speak their mind, when it gets to the point that there is no order and they won't let others speak then they should be arrested. The video they decide to take can be seized and used against them. The likelihood of a jury letting them off is small because they clearly broke the law as written.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Now things are heating up. Two democratic congressmen have received actionable death threats in NCand WA.

2 Replies

@engineer,

sounds a lot like domestic terrorism.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Now things are heating up. Two democratic congressmen have received actionable death threats in NCand WA.

Then that is illegal, since there are laws against death threats.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

engineer wrote:

Now things are heating up. Two democratic congressmen have received actionable death threats in NCand WA.

Then that is illegal, since there are laws against death threats.

but these are more than "simple" death threats (if they have in fact occured). the motivation for them is of a socio/political as opposed to somebody steppin' out or whatever.

hence, domestic terrorism. sounds like it's time to call in the department of homeland security.

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Exactly. The difference between run of the mill crime and terrorism is organization and intent. Here, the intent is clearly to use fear to induce changes (or lack of change) in our political system. Organization is the other question. Is this a fringe response to a normal political movement or a natural extension of using intimidation in public meetings to stiffle debate? I think any leader asking his followers to go into meetings with the intent of disrupting it should expect this kind of response over time as the population in general starts to take action to limit the impact of the initial strategy.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foofie wrote:

engineer wrote:

Now things are heating up. Two democratic congressmen have received actionable death threats in NCand WA.

Then that is illegal, since there are laws against death threats.

but these are more than "simple" death threats (if they have in fact occured). the motivation for them is of a socio/political as opposed to somebody steppin' out or whatever.

hence, domestic terrorism. sounds like it's time to call in the department of homeland security.

I do not know the criteria for domestic terrorism, in context of such threats, so I have no opinion.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Here, the intent is clearly to use fear to induce changes (or lack of change) in our political system.

This criteria is a bit loose, by this reasoning if a politician says we need to pass stimulus or go off the economic cliff it's terrorism.

For me, these threats need to at least be credible, this stuff is more empty threat than "terrorism", which is in danger of losing all meaning after 9/11.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

True, fear must be induced by violence or the threat of such. Whipping up fear by standing on a soap box does not qualify. But whipping up fear then organizing a violent action does.

0 Replies

All terror is fear, but not all fear is terror. You haven't met the standard of demonstrating that a credible threat of murderous violence exists, and that it has precipitately altered people's behavior as a consequence. I consider such crap to be deplorable, but it hardly qualifies as terrorism.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

getting death threats qualifies as credible in my book, robert. we don't like to believe it about america, but we have our share of full on crazy bastards here, too.

main point for me is how after all of the right wing gnashing of teeth about william ayers and domestic terrorism, they say not a word about the stuff that is beginning to come up, and what the implications are.

this is the kind of **** that can get out of control and get innocent people killed.

2 Replies

Thousands of people in the United States get death threats all the time. Does that make the United States a hotbed of terrorism? You need to grow a sense of proportion . . .

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

well, hell. Let's just lock up the crazy bastards for interrupting democratic town hall meetings on fear that they might, someday, maybe become terrorists! We wouldn't want them getting out of control and get anyone killed now would we.

Then, you can drive around in your government owned car, on your way to your government controlled bank while listening to your government controlled radio station to get a check to cover your government controlled healthcare.

4 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

well, hell. Let's just lock up the crazy bastards for interrupting democratic town hall meetings on fear that they might, someday, maybe become terrorists! We wouldn't want them getting out of control and get anyone killed now would we.

Then, you can drive around in your government owned car, on your way to your government controlled bank while listening to your government controlled radio station to get a check to cover your government controlled healthcare.

While that does sound nice, I think I must disagree; Terrorism is something more than what we have seen here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know