The Opposition is Heard

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Folks,

The Republic is not quite dead yet. Here is an

at which health care was discussed.

Here are

getting booed for suggesting that health care needs to be done fast and that Specter shouldn't be booed for not having read a bill that hasn't been written yet (!).

I think Obama has managed to energize the opposition to big government. I hope we have a ground swell of opposition.

Darrell

[Selene]

Darrell:

We heard "Stretch" Pelosi state that there were swastikas at these manufactured protests.

We heard the little dwarf Senator from California, who was an annoying Jewish girl in Brooklyn during the '60's, tell us this was the "Brooks

Brothers brigades of wealthy conservative Republicans.

We heard, the day before, that the Insurance and K street lobbyists were behind these protesters and that these protesters were paid by those evil

capitalists.

Now we even have a web site to inform on each other.

The following is from a town hall meeting in the community I lived in for 11 years - Setauket L.I., NY. It is a well to do community. Our daughter went to one

of the best grammar schools in the district and the district is one of the top two on Long Island.

There are at least 5 of the people in this video that were either friends or neighbors.

There is no manufactured outburst. O'biwan is in serious trouble and as I have mentioned, he wants to rule not persuade.

I say the following says it all in defense of protesters at town hall meetings.

The time is now!

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

If these protesters are the Brooks Brothers Brigades, they must also be masters of disguise.

Robert Campbell

[Christopher]

Rather amusing in the first video clip that the senator, as he was being boo'ed, was setting up his statement as follows:

1. These bills can be 1000 pages long

2. We have to make decisions quickly

Then the booing gets really loud for a moment, settles down, and he says (contrary to what his first two assertions were leading up to):

3. I read every bill

Say what they want to hear when they don't agree with what you do. This is politics at its best and captured on video.

[Selene]

Rather amusing in the first video clip that the senator, as he was being boo'ed, was setting up his statement as follows:

1. These bills can be 1000 pages long

2. We have to make decisions quickly

Then the booing gets really loud for a moment, settles down, and he says (contrary to what his first two assertions were leading up to):

3. I read every bill

Say what they want to hear when they don't agree with what you do. This is politics at its best and captured on video.

Yes except that he is a Congressman and he controls the spending of money.

The fact that he sneers at the well informed crowd's laugh at his global warming statement just illustrates the distance these imperial scum seem

to believe they possess.

Once again, if you mute the sound, and just watch his face, he gives off facial kinesics of complete disdain for the ignorant peasants who could not possibly understand things as they really are.

He was expecting the traditional Kabuki dance with the constituents and he was caught totally unprepared and flatfooted.

I would not let this jerk be the attendant at a small parking lot I owned. I know of this guy from friends of mine who still live in that well healed community.

He is stupider than he appears in this video, so you can imagine how dumb he really is.

Adam

Edited August 7, 2009 by Selene

[Philip Coates]

> If these protesters are the Brooks Brothers Brigades, they must also be masters of disguise.

Yeah, they all look like paid Washington Republican K Street lobbyists to me.

Especially the seventy or eighty year old man whose father died under government care in a VA Hospital.

[Selene]

Ok - step two - slamming doors in voters faces and roughing up voters at the public meeting of Congressscum Nancy Castor of Florida.

Sniff, sniff hmmm is that smoke from the Reichstag I smell?

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

The loud opposition is really wonderful. Let's hope it continues.

[Philip Coates]

> The loud opposition is really wonderful. Let's hope it continues.

Except for the -kind- of "loudness" that seems to be taking over.

Here's the flavor of many events: "...began to loudly chant and scuffle with organizers..A freelance videographer was roughed up in an altercation, which damaged his camera equipment and glasses...This seems to be ratcheting up to a new level...protesters are pushing back and these town hall meetings are getting rough...And this could be just the start. Two labor groups including the AFL-CIO are now asking their members to show up at these town hall meetings as well..."

And the protestors shout down the speakers and chant and won't listen to their answers.

You may say, hooray, the public is angry at socialism. But a crucial line is being crossed: Shouting and shoving instead of letting the liberal speak and then using reason to refute him.

Remember Weimar?

Do you have any doubt that the other side will do this too?

[Selene]

Ahh ok Phil:

A Constitutional flashback, I just can't find the damn u-tube of it...

Excuse me Ben. John, put down that pen, Tom the rest of you, listen up, we have some new rules

you guys can't shout out to the British at meetings and you can't push anyone.

What behavior is permissible to at an open public town hall meeting Phil?

What is the approved decibel level? Or do we need the local EPA?

Can you provide some rules for freedom of speech please Phil?

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Can you provide some rules for freedom of speech please Phil?

Adam, yes I can for those of the audience who grew up as bully boys in New Yaaahhhk. First, you can't tear the shirts off a cameraman. Second, when someone on your own side wants to ask a question and point out that the invisible hand works better than socialism, you don't start chanting like a mindless savage any time anyone tries to string more than three words together.

Thirdly, [and this is where this is leading as it did in Weimar] you don't use physical force, starting with pushing and then beatings and ending up in shootings to intimidate or silence or humiliate your opponents or prevent them from making their case. Adam, I'll make it even simpler for a former? present? Noooow Yukker: Reason, arguments, refutation, clever wit. Not "Hey no, we won't go" or trying to shout down your opponents, like in the Vietnam era...or, as I pointed out, in Weimar Germany, leading to Hitler's brownshirts.

You mentioned Ben and Tom. They used calm persuasion, the force of eloquence, learned workds, complete sentences. And better than the third grade education displayed by some of these screamers. They realized they were more persuasive when they picked up the pen and the thoughtful reply. Not pushing and shoving.

Or MOST STUPIDLY OF ALL ..and showing the least intellectual self-confidence... trying to drown out answers.

Got it straight now????

[Jonathan]

Adam, yes I can for those of the audience who grew up as bully boys in New Yaaahhhk. First, you can't tear the shirts off a cameraman. Second, when someone on your own side wants to ask a question and point out that the invisible hand works better than socialism, you don't start chanting like a mindless savage any time anyone tries to string more than three words together.

From what I've seen of these events, the questioners/protesters have been very intelligent and well-behaved. Here in Minnesota, some of them have asked great questions of their representatives, and the reps haven't answered. There was no need for the protesters to shout them down. And, of course, I've seen or heard no reports in the local mainstream media about the intelligent questions asked, but only the chanting. I think that regardless of how reasonable most of the people behave at events like this, the press is going to sensationalize it or distort it to reflect their own political agendas.

You mentioned Ben and Tom. They used calm persuasion, the force of eloquence, learned workds, complete sentences. And better than the third grade education displayed by some of these screamers. They realized they were more persuasive when they picked up the pen and the thoughtful reply. Not pushing and shoving.

There was no pushing and shoving during the American Revolution? Wow, that's news to me. I had heard -- apparently incorrectly, if Phil's right -- that there was even quite a lot of shooting and bayonetting to go along with the pushing and shoving.

J

[Selene]

Thank you Jonathan:

I really enjoy the way you analyze things. Even when we don't agree which is rare to non existent.

<h1 class="tb22" style="margin: 0px;">Desperately Seeking Swastikas </h1> What’s behind Nancy Pelosi’s despicable slur against Americans who oppose ObamaCare. By JAMES TARANTO

Best of the Tube Tonight

We’re scheduled to appear this evening on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” as part of a political round-table. The hourlong program starts at 7 p.m. ET, with a repeat showing at 4 a.m. ET. We’re told we’ll be making two appearances, first at the top of the show and then in the second half-hour.

Desperately Seeking Swastikas

Sam Stein of the Puffington Host believes he has found a photo that vindicates Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose comment vilifying ObamaCare opponents we noted yesterday. The actual photo is at the link; here is Stein’s description and argument:

A woman protesting Democratic plans for health care reform was captured holding up a sign of a Swastika, with the president’s name below it, encircled and crossed out by a red line. The implication is that Obama is a Nazi--though the culprit, in this case, added a question mark next to his name, as some sort of caveat.

Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that the protests at these events were illegitimate, in part because the protesters were carrying signs with “swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.” She was ridiculed by right-wing media for making an unsubstantiated charge in an effort to defame these grassroots demonstrators.

The photo was shot in Fort Collins, Colo., at a protest outside the office of Rep. Betsy Markey, a Democrat. Just in case it isn’t clear from the description, the poster looks like a symbolic no-smoking sign, with a swastika in place of a cigarette.

Reader Sam Sorrentino reports on another swastika sighting:

I went to the Philadelphia Town Hall and enjoyed the opportunity to tell Benedict Arlen [specter (R2D2., Pa.)] exactly how I felt about this unprecedented power grab. In the famous

of the Bible-waving lady used in the latest Democratic Party video you can see me just behind and to the left of the Bible lady [at 0:16]. I’m in a red shirt with a backpack and a ponytail. (Strange for a lifelong Republican, but even so . . .)

You can see that Barbara Boxer is correct about the well-dressed part as well. I changed out of my normal cargo pants and put on slacks. I wore leather shoes rather than my normal “urban hiker” boots. I took a shower and brushed my hair. I also left my gun, pepper spray and knife at home. (Pennsylvania is a right-to-carry state, and I have a license to carry.) I did all of these things out of respect for the process. Maybe it has something to do with the way I was raised, but I think that if you are going to “peaceably assemble,” you should at least dress nicely and take a shower out of respect for your fellow citizens. Who knew that was a bad thing?

There were in fact swastikas displayed on several of the signs outside. Signs were not permitted inside the hall. Apparently they were willing to let the “Tell the Government NO!” bumper stickers go, but my “ObamaCare is bad medicine” sign was not permitted. On the walkway in front of the building on Arch Street, there were some antiabortion/antieuthanasia protesters. There was at least one sign that protested “Obama’s Nazi healthcare” bill. Apparently the contention was that the bill would fund abortions and would lead to euthanasia of senior citizens, and that this was basically Nazi territory.

This, I believe, is where the swastikas were spotted. You can be the judge of whether or not this is effective or even reasonable debate. I personally don’t see how it helps to compare Obama to Nazis, but then I couldn’t see what the left was getting at with the whole Bush-Hitler thing either, so maybe my fascism meter is broken.

Sorrentino tells us that the signs he saw were hand-lettered, nor preprinted, as was the one in the Stein photo. Or, as IowaHawk puts it:

Note that their signs are scrawled, fiendishly tricking cameramen into closeups. All are expertly handmade, an expensive graphic design luxury only affordable to their puppet masters in the drug and insurance cartels.

Now, let us say that we disapprove, on both rhetorical and moral grounds, of comparisons between Obama and Hitler or ObamaCare and Nazism. (It should go without saying that such expression is fully protected by the First Amendment.) One should never in earnest liken a political opponent to the Nazis if that opponent does not practice or advocate genocide or totalitarianism.

To do so is a rhetorical error because it calls attention away from the speaker’s message and toward his lack of perspective. It is a moral error because of that lack of perspective. There may be plausible arguments that ObamaCare is evil in intent or would be evil in effect, but it is insane to equate it to the singular evil of Nazism. The easy recourse to Nazi analogies--far more common on the left than the right--debases the currency of moral outrage and can only diminish moral clarity.

So was Nancy Pelosi right? Not a chance.

Let’s review her words again: “I think they’re AstroTurf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.” Who carries swastikas? Nazis. Pelosi did not complain that the protesters were comparing ObamaCare to Nazism; she insinuated that they are Nazis.

The most charitable thing that can be said about the speaker’s comment is that it was no better than the speech she was criticizing. She likened her political opponents to Nazis, just as a handful of them had done to their opponents.

But it is one thing for a citizen to say vile things about an elected official, quite something else for an elected official to say vile things about a citizen. As speaker of the House, Pelosi is not only the representative of her San Francisco constituents but a leader of her party and the leader of a branch of the federal government.

It is despicable for someone in her position to liken private citizens to Nazis. Nancy Pelosi owes America an apology.

It makes me almost insane to realize that this piece of marxist femininity [which is an oxymoron] is 3rd in line to the O'biwan with "plugs" in between. I know it is a novel, but can anyone deny that this society has crested the hill and teetering on the verge of the decline that is displayed in Atlas.

According to a Reuters report yesterday, 48% of the mortgages in the US will be underwater...so I guess the criminal from Tennessee was right.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> the press is going to sensationalize it or distort it to reflect their own political agendas.

That would be possible - and sometimes I'm sure they have been civil, except for the actual videos posted ***right here on this thread*** and this site which -show- people shouting down the speakers. On multiple occasions - Philadephia, Tampa, St. Louis. Did you watch the videos or are you just going to evade that the thing I'm criticizing actually happened with some frequency?

> There was no pushing and shoving during the American Revolution?...there was even quite a lot of shooting and bayonetting..

That's a disingenuous and deliberate piece of sophistry, Jonathan, you "clever dick", as the British would say:

You are blurring the distinction between a shooting war and an attempt to persuade in peacetime through rational debate.

-----------------------

(On a personal note ==> Your "American Revolution" analogy -- after I clearly pointed out the difference between a case of FORCE and a case of REASON -- is one of the reasons why even answering you leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Along with one or two other people on this site, I feel you are easily intelligent enough to know better and that you repeatedly use trickery and twisting of arguments - like the ancient Greek sophists did or modern Leftists - to try to "win". And I'm fairly sure, based on past encounters with you, you will not acknowledge the point I just made but will use some sort of slipperiness to get out of it. If I ignore your points and don't answer - silence does not constitute assent. It's instead that I sense that your arguments are not in good faith.)

[Selene]

> the press is going to sensationalize it or distort it to reflect their own political agendas.

That would be possible - and sometimes I'm sure they have been civil, except for the actual videos posted ***right here on this thread*** and this site which -show- people shouting down the speakers. On multiple occasions - Philadephia, Tampa, St. Louis. Did you watch the videos or are you just going to evade that the thing I'm criticizing actually happened with some frequency?

> There was no pushing and shoving during the American Revolution?...there was even quite a lot of shooting and bayonetting..

That's a disingenuous and deliberate piece of sophistry, Jonathan, you "clever dick", as the British would say:

You are blurring the distinction between a shooting war and an attempt to persuade in peacetime through rational debate.

-----------------------

(On a personal note ==> Your "American Revolution" analogy -- after I clearly pointed out the difference between a case of FORCE and a case of REASON -- is one of the reasons why even answering you leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Along with one or two other people on this site, I feel you are easily intelligent enough to know better and that you repeatedly use trickery and twisting of arguments - like the ancient Greek sophists did or modern Leftists - to try to "win". And I'm fairly sure, based on past encounters with you, you will not acknowledge the point I just made but will use some sort of slipperiness to get out of it. If I ignore your points and don't answer - silence does not constitute assent. It's instead that I sense that your arguments are not in good faith.)

OK

You heard very upset people who have been misrepresented by their Congressional representation both republican and democratic for decades in certain cases. These fine folks are angry because they have been informed by their networks, the internet and the shift in information acquisition brought about by technology.

They go to "town-hall meetings and they hear that there will be no questions from the audience:

1) a la Setauket NY where I heard first hand from some of the folks in the room

2) a la the Florida town hall;

3) a la Dingle who is 83 from Michigan;

4) a la Carnahan in St. Louis where the only shoving was from the goons.

I have looked at all the videos that I posted here regarding the recent town halls and there is not one example of pushing or shoving by the citizens.

If you have not been to a real political meeting, that is the way they always are. Passionate free citizens express themselves passionately.

You can make whatever assumptions you wish about the way I chose to post and my motivation behind my post, it is still a semi-free country.

I love this country and I will fight for it with every weapon that I can muster.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> they hear that there will be no questions from the audience

That's not true either of the majority of "town meetings" - whole purpose is not to lecture but to answer constituuent questions. Nor is it true of several videos posted - where we see the people in the room chanting and drowning out.

> there is not one example of pushing or shoving by the citizens.

Looked that way in the Tampa one - pushing and scuffling to force way inside, pushing by a cop? to keep them out. Disagreement as to whether or not room was already full. Shaky and distant cellphone video. Hard to be sure. Could be wrong.

Nor am I talking of only pushing and shoving...You read my posts? I spoke about chanting to drown out the speaker. Right?

Bottom line: Why are you even arguing with me about the need for ***rational discourse*** to change people's minds? We both agree that showing up at these events to challenge and questions the socialists is a good idea.

> I love this country and I will fight for it with every weapon that I can muster.

Well that's very nice. So will I, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

At this point, I think I'll probably exit the thread. I get **really pissed off** when I have to keep finding new ways to repeat myself on an Objectivism 101 type point about how one persuades and changes minds.

[Brant Gaede]

Engage your scumbag Congressman in "rational debate"?

Hang him by his heels! Make him shit in his pants for doing the wrong thing!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Fascism, Nazism, socialism, communism: WRONG THINGS! If you don't know these things are WRONG where in the hell have you been all these years (decades)? You let your elected representatives know what you expect of them or they are GONE! Debate? Fuck! They aren't about debating. They are about screwing us over unless we stick it right to them! If they don't fuck us we won't fuck them! That's the deal. That's their education! They don't have to be politicians! RESIGN!!!

--Brant

OL is where we have "rational debate." Pass the cookies and tea, please.

[Brant Gaede]

Now there is a third way. You organize and brief your troops and you go into these meetings with your specific agenda and you have a "rational debate" by letting the representative know what you want from him one speaker after the other. No shouting down, no chanting, but no room for any bs from him.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

It's a pleasure to see Americans getting angry at their "representatives" at long last.

If, as the Administration tells us, there are 40 million people who are uninsured, how in the name of sanity can they simultaneously tell us that no one will have to wait for life-saving treatment when those 40 million are added to those seeking care from the same number of doctors we have now and the same number of hospitals and the same amount of medical l equipment. I cannot remember a time when our politicians, never models of honesty, ever looked us in the eye and told us such preposterous, blatant, flagrant, barefaced, impudent, shameless, unmitigated, unabashed, brazen, stupid, transparent and insolent lies.

I only hope, if any of the proposed bills goes through, that the Congress will be requred to accept the same health care as the rest of us -- except, of course, if that were so, none of the bills would go through.

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

> I cannot remember a time when our politicians, never models of honesty, ever looked us in the eye and told us such preposterous, blatant, flagrant, barefaced, impudent, shameless, unmitigated, unabashed, brazen, stupid, transparent and insolent lies.

I agree - how dumb do they think we are?

But after your above sentence you are going to have to take a fire extinguisher and hose down the smoke coming out of your thesaurus.

[Robert Campbell]

Nancy Pelosi's allegation about swastikas reminds us that one of the best ways to undermine the entire Obamian agenda is...

to keep Nancy Pelosi in front of the TV cameras.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

> I cannot remember a time when our politicians, never models of honesty, ever looked us in the eye and told us such preposterous, blatant, flagrant, barefaced, impudent, shameless, unmitigated, unabashed, brazen, stupid, transparent and insolent lies.

I agree - how dumb do they think we are?

But after your above sentence you are going to have to take a fire extinguisher and hose down the smoke coming out of your thesaurus.

Phil:

"That's not true either of the majority of "town meetings" - whole purpose is not to lecture but to answer constituuent questions."

Phil you make a statement that it is not true of a majority of the "town" hall "meetings". First of all, neither of us know how a majority of the meetings are run.

The ones that I posted here were specifically from meetings where:

1) the audience was told that no questions would be taken; or

2) only three questions were taken, as it Florida; or

3) patently false answers were given, as in the Sibelius Spectre meeting in Pennsylvania;

4) the room was much to small by 80% to the number of persons who showed up; and

5) a combination of the above factors led to frustration or outright violence as in the St. Louis Carnahan meeting.

I was going to use these three You Tube tapes to start another thread about perception of events, but this fits quite well here are the first two:

I have heard live interviews from the wife and husband who was crushed up against the wall. He has a number of serious medical problems. He was a union member and

has talked to his union rep about the abuse that was meted out by the "literal goons" that were sent out.

Additionally, the man whose shirt was torn and chest cut was trying to help the man with the internal medical problem from being seriously hurt BECAUSE his wife was pleading with

the goon that her husband had medical problems.

This is also the meeting where the tax paying citizens were banging on the door.

I want to call your attention to a little grey haired gnome of a seasoned citizen with a stylish walking stick with a silver handle futilely banging on the door.

From one of the other views from inside the room you hear banging on the doors. Would it effect your perception of the event to know that that banging

was a little old lady and not a swastika carrying "right" winger?

Finally, the room was much to small as almost two thirds of the taxpaying citizens, and we are all taxpayers, could not even gain access to hear what the Congressscum was going

to say.

Adam

[Jonathan]

That would be possible - and sometimes I'm sure they have been civil, except for the actual videos posted ***right here on this thread*** and this site which -show- people shouting down the speakers. On multiple occasions - Philadephia, Tampa, St. Louis. Did you watch the videos or are you just going to evade that the thing I'm criticizing actually happened with some frequency?

I haven't denied that some of the things you're criticizing happened. They may even being happening frequently, but the point is that there's often a lot of context missing from a two-minute clip. I've heard from people who attended certain events that shouting began only after representatives avoided answering intelligent questions which were put to them repeatedly. Does that matter to you? Are there conditions under which you think that a crowd might be right to shout, boo or chant?

Looked that way in the Tampa one - pushing and scuffling to force way inside, pushing by a cop? to keep them out. Disagreement as to whether or not room was already full. Shaky and distant cellphone video. Hard to be sure. Could be wrong.

Here's an interesting view of one side of the story from Tampa.

> There was no pushing and shoving during the American Revolution?...there was even quite a lot of shooting and bayonetting..

That's a disingenuous and deliberate piece of sophistry, Jonathan, you "clever dick", as the British would say:

You are blurring the distinction between a shooting war and an attempt to persuade in peacetime through rational debate.

No, my comment wasn't disingenuous, Phil, you "asshole," as red blooded Americans would say. Ben and Tom and the boys used a variety of tactics, including pushing and shoving, bayonetting and shooting, and dumping tea into harbors. Which tactics they used depended on what they were trying to accomplish, as well as which tactics their opponents were using. Sometimes shouting, booing, chanting, pushing and shoving are very effective, and sometimes they're the most appropriate options in a given context.

(On a personal note ==> Your "American Revolution" analogy -- after I clearly pointed out the difference between a case of FORCE and a case of REASON -- is one of the reasons why even answering you leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Along with one or two other people on this site, I feel you are easily intelligent enough to know better and that you repeatedly use trickery and twisting of arguments - like the ancient Greek sophists did or modern Leftists - to try to "win". And I'm fairly sure, based on past encounters with you, you will not acknowledge the point I just made but will use some sort of slipperiness to get out of it. If I ignore your points and don't answer - silence does not constitute assent. It's instead that I sense that your arguments are not in good faith.)

I often get that impression of you, Phil. I don't know how many times I've seen you appear in a discussion here, make some sort of unsupported assertion and imply that others would agree with you if they had only studied Objectivism 101 as properly as you have, and then, when they answer you with information that you weren't aware of, or when they try to open your eyes to a perspective that you hadn't considered, you offer no acknowledgement or your errors, and no apology for having inappropriately behaved as a condescending schoolmarm.

It brings out smart ass in me. If you'd like to have polite, reasonable discussions in which I avoid making "clever dick" comments, you might consider dropping the whole Objectivist Jedi Master/schoolmarm routine.

J

[Selene]

Here is the third view:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ts5siyBYddM

I am sure it is mere sophistry. People should know the denotative definition as well as the "modern" usage.

But, for the record, my argumentation is the ancient form of sophistry.

Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.

Adam

The posts crossed Jonathan, but that will allow the real paranoia to creep in that we are a conspiracy! ;) B)

Edited August 8, 2009 by Selene