So I set up a meeting with my Representative

[zspeed24]

The fact is that what the NBP did was ILLEGAL:

Pennsylvania statute number: 25 P.S. § 3547

Prohibiting duress and intimidation of voters and interference with the free exercise of the elective franchise

Any person or corporation who, directly or indirectly--(a) uses or threatens to use any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict any injury, damage, harm or loss, or in any other manner practices intimidation or coercion upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting at any election, or to vote or refrain from voting for or against any particular person, or for or against any question submitted to voters at such election, or to place or cause to be placed or refrain from placing or causing to be placed his name upon a register of voters, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at such election, or having voted or refrained from voting for or against any particular person or persons or for or against any question submitted to voters at such election, or having registered or refrained from registering as a voter; or (b) by abduction, duress or coercion, or any forcible or fraudulent device or contrivance, whatever, impedes, prevents, or otherwise interferes with the free exercise of the elective franchise by any voter, or compels, induces, or prevails upon any voter to give or refrain from giving his vote for or against any particular person at any election; or (c) being an employer, pays his employes the salary or wages due in "pay envelopes" upon which or in which there is written or printed any political motto, device, statement or argument containing threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of such employes, or within ninety days of any election or primary puts or otherwise exhibits in the establishment or place where his employes are engaged in labor, any handbill or placard containing any threat, notice, or information that if any particular ticket or candidate is elected or defeated work in his place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, his establishment be closed up, or the wages of his employes reduced, or other threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of his employes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. Any person or corporation, convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this section, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five thousand ($5,000) dollars, or such person or the officers, directors or agents of such corporation responsible for the violation of this section, shall be sentenced to undergo an imprisonment of not more than two (2) years, or both, in the discretion of the court.


NH case i don't think that it was the best way for him protest but he was peaceful and his sign came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and he was in fact within his constitutional rights to do so as were the others. (Have you actually read the letter seems very fitting for present day to me.)

[bu villain]

It is obviously completely possible for every single Congressman to have an open town hall meeting with his constituents once a month, with a different topic each month. Unfortunately, not one Congressman takes his job seriously enough to do it. Why would a Congressman need to listen to any lobby then?

I completely agree with everything with the last sentence. I wasn't saying that representatives shouldn't try to stay in touch with their constituents, only that I don't know what the best way to do it is (although I'm sure 1on1 meetings is not the answer). But I think you'll agree that not every constituent can fit into a town hall meeting and certainly there isn't enough time to each give their opinion. Also, there are more than 12 topics that people care about. That is why lobbies are necessary, because they can represent a large group of people who have a common interest.

Aren't these politicians in congress supposed to be our REPRESENTATIVES? I mean i understand they can't agree with every constituent but they should at least make a concerted effort to represent the people in their districts. Although some of the districts are drawn in such a way that it is nearly impossible or at least improbable that this would happen.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply they should do nothing...see my response to David above.

[bu villain]

NH case i don't think that it was the best way for him protest but he was peaceful and his sign came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and he was in fact within his constitutional rights to do so as were the others. (Have you actually read the letter seems very fitting for present day to me.)

I have no interest in defending the black panthers issue...but I am just curious since you said the quote is fitting for a health care town hall, whose blood do you think needs to be spilled over health care?

[zspeed24]

I have no interest in defending the black panthers issue...but I am just curious since you said the quote is fitting for a health care town hall, whose blood do you think needs to be spilled over health care?

I wasn't saying that it fit for health care i'm saying for the way our poloticians are headed not just obama but at least 90 percent of them. The people of this country have no idea what really goes on in DC, state capitals, and for that matter local government. If you read Jeffersons letter you will see what i mean as to it fits the present day. Google "The tree of liberty letter"

[David88vert]

Proof of what happening? I am talking about the footage of the "New Black Panthers" at the polling locations in Philly with signs and clubs. The right has been having a fit over this and it has been mentioned on this very site numerous times.

How are the actions of the New Panthers any different from the actions of these wackos on the Right? Theres those two fucknuts in NH... the one with the "we need to water the tree of liberty" sign, and the other who got busted with a knife on him and an illegal handgun in his truck. And in Pheonix there are pictures of guys with AR's on their packs and pistols on their belts. Why would you need weapons at a political debate, other than to intimidate the other side?

The right seems to think all this "open carry to the town halls" foolishness is acceptable, but if these photos and reports were of dark skinned people (Blacks, Latinos, Middle Easterners) Rep. Gingrey and all of the other wingnuts would be shitting their tightey whiteys.

Johnny Cash said it best... don't take your guns to town.

Here is the difference:

The Panthers were bandishing their weapons in their hands at an election poling place - which is illegal.

The individuals who were exercising their legal right to carry were not doing it in the venues themselves - that would have been illegal, since when it is a presidential venue it is considered federal juristiction. Since they were outside the venue, they were under state juristiction, and follow state laws, not federal. If they had crossed over into the venue, Secret Service agents would have promptly arrested them.

The difference is that they were within their legal rights.

[zspeed24]

Here is the difference:

The Panthers were bandishing their weapons in their hands at an election poling place - which is illegal.

The individuals who were exercising their legal right to carry were not doing it in the venues themselves - that would have been illegal, since when it is a presidential venue it is considered federal juristiction. Since they were outside the venue, they were under state juristiction, and follow state laws, not federal. If they had crossed over into the venue, Secret Service agents would have promptly arrested them.

The difference is that they were within their legal rights.

EXACTLY!!!

[Total_Blender]

NH case i don't think that it was the best way for him protest but he was peaceful and his sign came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, me.)

This is the T-shirt Timmy McVeigh wore the day they sent his ass to the lethal injection table.

Fun fact: Congress passed a law preventing McVeigh's remains from being dumped off on any US military cemetary.

I don't know where they dumped his ashes exactly, but I think he probably got a burial at sea.

[David88vert]

IBut I think you'll agree that not every constituent can fit into a town hall meeting and certainly there isn't enough time to each give their opinion. Also, there are more than 12 topics that people care about. That is why lobbies are necessary, because they can represent a large group of people who have a common interest.

Of course not, but they can address most of the major questions. They currently don't even attempt to make an effort though.

Lobbies typically represent special interest groups. Should special interest groups determine the governing of the majority? Do we need that?

[zspeed24]

Are you serious or do you not understand the difference between PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION and TERRORISM! Nobody here agrees with what Mcveigh did and more than likely niether did the man in new hampshire

[Total_Blender]

Are you serious or do you not understand the difference between PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION and TERRORISM! Nobody here agrees with what Mcveigh did and more than likely niether did the man in new hampshire

The NBP were also "peaceful" in their demonstration. No one was injured.

The fact that they were legally in the wrong and these armed protesters are acting within their rights immaterial. IMO the implied threats of violence from both groups, and the use of armed intimidation is the same. If anything, the right wing groups are more of a threatening presence because they are armed with GUNS and not just clubs.

If armed protesters came to a George W. Bush event... oh wait they wouldn't even be able to get near the event... they would be miles away in a "free speech zone" surrounded by armed troops, with ground-attack helicopters circling overhead.

[zspeed24]

It makes all the difference. I also believe that the protesters were probably more than 100 feet from the president just like the "free speech zone" for Bush. But your leftist media isn't gonna report it that way.

[TSiFTW]

It makes all the difference. I also believe that the protesters were probably more than 100 feet from the president just like the "free speech zone" for Bush. But your leftist media isn't gonna report it that way.

Leftish media FTL. Thats peoples problems. Take what the media tells you and look at it the way you think is right and wrong. Not what they tell you is right and wrong. If people stop looking at it as right and left, and start looking at it as right and wrong, maybe things would actually "change".

[BanginJimmy]

The NBP were also "peaceful" in their demonstration. No one was injured.

The fact that they were legally in the wrong and these armed protesters are acting within their rights immaterial. IMO the implied threats of violence from both groups, and the use of armed intimidation is the same. If anything, the right wing groups are more of a threatening presence because they are armed with GUNS and not just clubs.

If armed protesters came to a George W. Bush event... oh wait they wouldn't even be able to get near the event... they would be miles away in a "free speech zone" surrounded by armed troops, with ground-attack helicopters circling overhead.

Now, I know you will never admit a black person was wrong, but this is a stretch for ANYONE. This is like saying that if the KKK showed up at a polling place carrying weapons it is perfectly legal. Of course you will immediately call racism and intimidation though.

[Total_Blender]

Now, I know you will never admit a black person was wrong, but this is a stretch for ANYONE..

I did say that the NBP's were wrong both legally and ethically to brandish weapons near the polls. But the message of implied violence is the same with the NBP's as it is with these wannabe McVeigh scumbags. Neither group is any better than the other. They both display weapons in public for the purpose of intimidating their opposition.

As far as the "liberal" media goes... you aren't going to tell me anything I don't already know about the media. All the reports I have read (from both Fox news and legitimate sources) say that the "tree of liberty" asswipe in NH was some distance away from the school the president's town hall was held at, and that he had left hours before the president even got there. Still though, Oswald was a good distance away from JFK too.

[BanginJimmy]

I did say that the NBP's were wrong both legally and ethically to brandish weapons near the polls. But the message of implied violence is the same with the NBP's as it is with these wannabe McVeigh scumbags. Neither group is any better than the other. They both display weapons in public for the purpose of intimidating their opposition.

As far as the "liberal" media goes... you aren't going to tell me anything I don't already know about the media. All the reports I have read (from both Fox news and legitimate sources) say that the "tree of liberty" asswipe in NH was some distance away from the school the president's town hall was held at, and that he had left hours before the president even got there. Still though, Oswald was a good distance away from JFK too.

Ok, now I get it. It is wrpong but soince someone who claims to be on the right did it, that is justification for it. I'm on the blackberry so I can't check either of these other cases but were charges filed against any of these others?

[zspeed24]

Ok, now I get it. It is wrpong but soince someone who claims to be on the right did it, that is justification for it. I'm on the blackberry so I can't check either of these other cases but were charges filed against any of these others?

As far as i can tell no!

[Total_Blender]

I can't check either of these other cases but were charges filed against any of these others?

I'm going to have to check too, but as far as I know the only person who's been arrested with a weapon so far was that guy who they found a knife on at Obama's town hall (guy also had an illegal handgun in his truck).

But if I were Obama, I'd tread lightly on pressing charges against some of these wackos... lest the "OMG HE"S COMING FOR OUR GUNZZZZZ WE GOTTA BUY MORE!!!!!111!!!11!!11!11" paranoia start back up.

[David88vert]

Wow, Total Blender, you are ignoring reality.

The Pathers were charged with an illegal crime. Intimidating registered voters at the door of a polling place with weapons is highly illegal. A club in hand is considered brandishing a weapon.

Carrying a handgun in plain sight outside of a federal zone was completely legal in NH and was not remotely close to the president, or an election zone. He did not remove his gun from his holster, so it was never brandished as a weapon.

Having an assault rifle slung over your shoulder is completely legal in AZ, as long as you are not in a federal venue. That also is not brandishing a weapon.

Who exactly were these 2 "right-wingers" trying to intimidate? Obviously not people trying to vote, they were not at a polling place. Obviously not the president, as they were not even in the federal venue. Did you feel intimidated while you sat at home and watched the TV?

[Total_Blender]

Who exactly were these 2 "right-wingers" trying to intimidate? ?

They were at (or somewhat in proximity to) town hall meetings. The weapons are obviously a display of force to intimidate their political opposition.

Joe the Unlicensed Plumber was out the other day making suggestions that Congress should be "took out to the woodshed beat the livin' tar out of" or some shit. And about how he has no respect for congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVzPhW2gF2o

[zspeed24]

Again who were they intimidating not the people that are voting on health care. And obviously not the people questioning the president because the questions were still asked on both sides.

Honestly who has any respect for the crooked politicians in washington. I do respect the office but i don't have to respect the people that hold the position.

[BanginJimmy]

They were at (or somewhat in proximity to) town hall meetings. The weapons are obviously a display of force to intimidate their political opposition.

Joe the Unlicensed Plumber was out the other day making suggestions that Congress should be "took out to the woodshed beat the livin' tar out of" or some shit. And about how he has no respect for congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVzPhW2gF2o

The harder you try to find someone on the right that was allowed to do what the BP did the more ignorant you look.

As for joe the plumber, were you equally outraged when the left was saying Bush should be killed? I am guessing no.

[Total_Blender]

Again who were they intimidating not the people that are voting on health care. And obviously not the people questioning the president because the questions were still asked on both sides.
.

The aim is to intimidate. Its obvious not everyone will be intimidated, as questions are asked from both sides. But these groups assembling with weapons at the town halls are attempting to intimidate the congressmen and women who are having the town halls, as well as their constituents who are moderate or left leaning.

[David88vert]

They were at (or somewhat in proximity to) town hall meetings. The weapons are obviously a display of force to intimidate their political opposition.

Fact: The man with the rifle incident was a staged incident that police knew about ahead of time. It was about gun rights, not healthcare. There was no politcal opposition there for them to intimidate. They were outside the town hall, which is a federal venue. Weapons are not allowed at federal venues.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...fle/index.html

Fact: Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in New Hampshire, a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

These were town halls about healthcare, not gun rights. They were not intimidating anyone there. You have either a blatant disregards for facts, or a complete lack of common sense - which is it?

Joe the Unlicensed Plumber was out the other day making suggestions that Congress should be "took out to the woodshed beat the livin' tar out of" or some shit. And about how he has no respect for congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVzPhW2gF2o

What does Joe the plumber have to do with any of this discussion? That's a ridiculous tangent to throw out there.

[bu villain]

Of course not, but they can address most of the major questions. They currently don't even attempt to make an effort though.

Once again...agreed. You seem as if you are taking my uncertainty about the best way to do it as meaning that I don't think they should bother trying...that's not the case.

Lobbies typically represent special interest groups. Should special interest groups determine the governing of the majority? Do we need that?

Lobbies by definition always (not typically) represent special interest groups (NRA=gun rights, ACLU=civil liberties, etc). Should they be the only voices that politicians listen to? Of course not, but they are important in a democratic society (especially in one as large as ours).

[zspeed24]

And in Pheonix there are pictures of guys with AR's on their packs and pistols on their belts. Why would you need weapons at a political debate, other than to intimidate the other side?

The right seems to think all this "open carry to the town halls" foolishness is acceptable, but if these photos and reports were of dark skinned people (Blacks, Latinos, Middle Easterners) Rep. Gingrey and all of the other wingnuts would be shitting their tightey whiteys.

Johnny Cash said it best... don't take your guns to town.

Check out the guy in AZ MSNBC and other news sources left this out intentionally!

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blo...0504:eek::eek:

[Total_Blender]

Check out the guy in AZ MSNBC and other news sources left this out intentionally!

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PHXBeat/60504

No, on MSNBC last night they were talking all about that guy and how there was a right-wing-conspiracy talk radio host named Earnest Hancock going around and interviewing the people who were armed, including Gallegos (the black guy with the AR). Hancock and the group Freedom's Pheonix organized the people who showed up OC'ing. They got permission from local police and the event took place before the Pres. arrived.

Freedom's Pheonix is openly sympathetic to the militia movement. Hancock himself has shown public support the causes of both David Koresh and the Branch Davidians as well as Timmy McVeigh.

Hancock also has ties to several militia groups, including one called "the Vipers" who were busted by the ATF after plotting to blow up a federal building. They had 500lbs of ammonium nitrate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtZlvwNh9tw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_262559.html

[zspeed24]

Read the article i posted again...

It is extremely disturbing that you have that kind of weapon in close proximity to where the president is," said Ruben Gallego, a military veteran and Arizona Democratic Party official who observed the man.

[BanginJimmy]

Lol at using the huffington post and youtube as referneces.

[Total_Blender]

Lol at using the huffington post and youtube as referneces.

Lol at an angry minority attempting to gain influence through shouting down speakers and making veiled threats of violence because they have nothing to offer when it comes to civil debate.

Violence and the threat of violence is used by groups seeking to bypass the civic debate/government process as well as the rule of law. Lynchings, armed "guards" at election booths, etc.

The process of government is the alternative to violence. We have these debates and our democratic process of electing representatives so that society can work out its differences in a peaceful manner. An armed citizenry alone is NOT the basis of our freedoms. Free elections, open debates, free speech, and the rule of law are the basis of our freedoms.

While we are encouraging democratic processes in the Mid East, Iran, and Africa, we are witnessing these right-wing groups trying to sabatoge our own democratic process at home. Imagine how stupid we look to the rest of the world when they see these fools on TV shouting down Congressmen and packing heat at town halls.

[David88vert]

An armed citizenry alone is NOT the basis of our freedoms. Free elections, open debates, free speech, and the rule of law are the basis of our freedoms.

Wow, you must have failed American History in school. An armed citizenry fought the British in 1775 in the American Revolutionary War to establish your right to free elections, open debates, free speech, and the rule of law.
Without these militias made up of armed citizens, you would be under the Union Jack still.

[zspeed24]

Lol at an angry minority attempting to gain influence through shouting down speakers and making veiled threats of violence because they have nothing to offer when it comes to civil debate.

Violence and the threat of violence is used by groups seeking to bypass the civic debate/government process as well as the rule of law. Lynchings, armed "guards" at election booths, etc.

The process of government is the alternative to violence. We have these debates and our democratic process of electing representatives so that society can work out its differences in a peaceful manner. An armed citizenry alone is NOT the basis of our freedoms. Free elections, open debates, free speech, and the rule of law are the basis of our freedoms.

While we are encouraging democratic processes in the Mid East, Iran, and Africa, we are witnessing these right-wing groups trying to sabatoge our own democratic process at home. Imagine how stupid we look to the rest of the world when they see these fools on TV shouting down Congressmen and packing heat at town halls.

Are you for real i mean come on you wanted to say that it was all white republicans doing this you wanted to say the whites would fly off the handle if it had been a person of color. Guess what it was a person of color and guess what else he was still right for doing what he did.

Its obvious you are just blinded by your bias against the right. I assume that no matter what the right tried to accomplish it would still be wrong in your eyes. You probably think that the nineties was economically sound because of President Clinton. (Can i say Reganomics)

[BanginJimmy]

Lol at an angry minority attempting to gain influence through shouting down speakers and making veiled threats of violence because they have nothing to offer when it comes to civil debate.

If you are talking about town halls, they are simply showing frustration and showing their elected representatives their frustration. Nothing at all wrong with that.

What exactly has the angry majority offered outside of massive govt spending and no regard for public sentiment? I have yet to see anything meaningful out of Washington. Republicans have tried to offer several amendments to these bills, yet the dems wont even allow them to be voted on in committee.

Violence and the threat of violence is used by groups seeking to bypass the civic debate/government process as well as the rule of law. Lynchings, armed "guards" at election booths, etc.

Where is this happening? I have seen threats of violence and intimidation used by those on the left, none on the right.

here is a great example of an attack on private insurers by the left. Why is it in Congress's purview to have any access to this info? None of these companies accepted govt money. I would hope these companies have the spine to tell congress to goto hell.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26251.html


I guess you see this as a perfectly legit request for congress to have non-public info right? I alos bet you think this info will be used strictly for the purposes Waxman says they will be used for?

If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Iowa that you will love and I cant afford anymore.

The process of government is the alternative to violence. We have these debates and our democratic process of electing representatives so that society can work out its differences in a peaceful manner. An armed citizenry alone is NOT the basis of our freedoms. Free elections, open debates, free speech, and the rule of law are the basis of our freedoms.

Show me where the use of violence is being seriously discussed and I wont just say you are pissing in the wind.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...6251.htmlWhile we are encouraging democratic processes in the Mid East, Iran, and Africa, we are witnessing these right-wing groups trying to sabatoge our own democratic process at home. Imagine how stupid we look to the rest of the world when they see these fools on TV shouting down Congressmen and packing heat at town halls. [/QUOTE]

Show me where any of that is illegal or immoral. They are taking full advantage of their first amendment rights, why is that such a threat to liberals? I wonder why you didnt mention the dem from Douglasville shouting at one of his constituents for asking a question. Let me guess, he was right to do that because he was the congressman, and not some lowly taxpayer?

Anyone advocating the bills currently in congress is lieing to the public and everyone knows it. They are simply spouting off White House approved talking points despite the mounds of facts that say they are wrong.

Maybe it is time for you to get off this forum and actually do a little research on these bills. None of them will do anything to lower costs. All of them will actually increase costs to private insurers, therefore pushing them out of business. If you think otherwise you are smoking your own ass hairs.