Absolute human filth.... Specter faces hostile audience at health care forum

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
60
#1
Specter faces hostile audience at health care forum - CNN.com

"We're not going to tolerate any demonstrations or any booing," he said after one audience member shoved another making an unsolicited speech. "So it's up to you."
Click to expand...

One woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: "I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. ... I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"
Click to expand...

Specter responded by noting his support for the Constitution as a past chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on issues such as warrantless wiretaps.
"When you ask me to defend the Constitution, that's what I've been doing," Specter said.
Specter said that overhauling the health care system is about America taking care of all of its people.
"In our social contract, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help," he said.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of BS, it still baffles me why democrats hate freedom.

This pretty much sums it up...

"You and your cronies in government do this kind of stuff all the time," the protester shouted before leaving the hall. "I'm not a lobbyist with all kinds of money to stuff in your pockets. I'll leave you so you can do whatever the hell you do."
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#2
#2
"You and your cronies in government do this kind of stuff all the time," the protester shouted before leaving the hall. "I'm not a lobbyist with all kinds of money to stuff in your pockets. I'll leave you so you can do whatever the hell you do
Click to expand...


and that my friend is the truth of the matter.
 
#5
#5
if Arlen Specter truly respected the Constitution he'd know that Article 1 Section 8 specifically tells him that he and his new party cannot enact socialized medicine.
 
#6
#6
MG1968 said:
if Arlen Specter truly respected the Constitution he'd know that Article 1 Section 8 specifically tells him that he and his new party cannot enact socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

obama-says-02.jpg
 
#10
#10
The elected are in office now BUT 2010 is coming and the silent majority will be heard then. I am voting against everyone that is in office from my district and one is a friend of mine. We need change alright, wholesale change in Washington!
 
#11
#11
Let me get this straight.

You are miffed that a Senator had a meeting to discuss health care. When people stood up to shout him down and prevent him or others in the audience from doing just that, you are 1) angry that the Senator said that he would not tolerate the effort of these people to prevent free speech; and 2) you think that means that the Senator is the one trying to hide the truth?

If these folks were really interested in playing any sort of constructive role in these meetings or our democracy in general, they would stop hijacking them for their own purpsoes and let people ask questions and offer answers, then debate them, instead of preventing the entire discussion in the first place.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
you think that means that the Senator is the one trying to hide the truth?
Click to expand...
absolutely. Volume of the commentary doesn't change the point or the worthlessness of the answer. The bottom line is that Americans, from both sides, want no part of a government mandated healthcare boondoggle.

Most would probably be fine with gov't sponsored / hosted brainstorming sessions and government mediated solutions, but very, very few want a government run system. Too much empirical evidence of failure and no evidence of success.
 
#13
#13
you are making the ridiculous assumption that people with different opinions than obama are being allowed to ask their questions.
 
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
absolutely. Volume of the commentary doesn't change the point or the worthlessness of the answer.
Click to expand...


If the Senator, who is there to take and answer questions from his consituency, cannot be heard because people are being intentionally disruptive, then he is not the one to blame.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
If the Senator, who is there to take and answer questions from his consituency, cannot be heard because people are being intentionally disruptive, then he is not the one to blame.
Click to expand...
sure he is. He can escort the volatile ones out. It's not like it's going any better with the remainder of John Q. I thought you knew that, being all tight with Q and such.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Let me get this straight.

You are miffed that a Senator had a meeting to discuss health care. When people stood up to shout him down and prevent him or others in the audience from doing just that, you are 1) angry that the Senator said that he would not tolerate the effort of these people to prevent free speech; and 2) you think that means that the Senator is the one trying to hide the truth?

If these folks were really interested in playing any sort of constructive role in these meetings or our democracy in general, they would stop hijacking them for their own purpsoes and let people ask questions and offer answers, then debate them, instead of preventing the entire discussion in the first place.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't see it as fighting fire with fire?

If not then that would mean you also don't believe many of these senators are stacking the deck by having union members come to the gatherings to counter upset citizens. Further I guess you don't buy for one minute that many of the people they call upon to speak their piece are decided on beforehand?

Both sides are guilty here, you just choose to see the people upset here as republican plants instead of concerned citizens.

And last time I checked booing was free speach as is protest.
 
#17
#17
droski said:
you are making the ridiculous assumption that people with different opinions than obama are being allowed to ask their questions.
Click to expand...


I guess we will never know who wants to ask what since very few people are managing to get a word in edge wise.
 
#18
#18
KB5252 said:
I take it you don't see it as fighting fire with fire?

If not then that would mean you also don't believe many of these senators are stacking the deck by having union members come to the gatherings to counter upset citizens. Further I guess you don't buy for one minute that many of the people they call upon to speak their piece are decided on beforehand?

Both sides are guilty here, you just choose to see the people upset here as republican plants instead of concerned citizens.

And last time I checked booing was free speach as is protest.
Click to expand...


The protestors do not have the right to come in and intentionally disrupt these meetings just because they do not happen to believe either in the program or the speaker.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
I guess we will never know who wants to ask what since very few people are managing to get a word in edge wise.
Click to expand...

bs a simple look at his prior half a dozen or so town halls where not a single dissenting question was asked tells you all you need to know about how our facist president runs these events.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
I guess we will never know who wants to ask what since very few people are managing to get a word in edge wise.
Click to expand...
that's simple convenience for you. Plenty of words are getting in and left media folks are using your stand to try and point to the broad national disdain for this idea as extreme.

All polling suggests they are dead freaking wrong too, even though the biases to the polling gibberish are almost always left.
 
#21
#21
And when I say "right," I mean in the more abstract sense, not the nominal one.

They have the legal right to protest, of course. Whether the manner in which they are doing it is Constitutional or could be limited in some fashion, is complicated.

But they do not have the moral high ground here, claiming to be the ones standing up for the country when their means of doing so is to squelch free speech and debate.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
The protestors do not have the right to come in and intentionally disrupt these meetings just because they do not happen to believe either in the program or the speaker.
Click to expand...

Sure they do, if they are being disruptive they can be asked to leave but they have every right to tell their representatives what they think, it is the beauty of our system.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
that's simple convenience for you. Plenty of words are getting in and left media folks are using your stand to try and point to the broad national disdain for this idea as extreme.

All polling suggests they are dead freaking wrong too, even though the biases to the polling gibberish are almost always left.
Click to expand...


Much of that has to do with the fact that the disinformation campaign is working. Death panels? Really?
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
And when I say "right," I mean in the more abstract sense, not the nominal one.

They have the legal right to protest, of course. Whether the manner in which they are doing it is Constitutional or could be limited in some fashion, is complicated.

But they do not have the moral high ground here, claiming to be the ones standing up for the country when their means of doing so is to squelch free speech and debate.
Click to expand...

These same congressmen and women are the ones trying to ram this down the countries throat when that majority of Americans are against this bill. Sure they are going to be shrill about it, it is the last recourse they have left to try and stop what most Americans believe will be a disaster for the country.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top