prev <-> next
[2009-08-11 10:02:46] - and yeah an even smaller difference between a republican going to a town hall meeting and barking out "we hate health care", and between republicans telling other republicans to go to a town hall meeting and bark out "we hate health care"... but, they're all differences, and they make this story more important than the other stories you guys are trying to compare - aaron
[2009-08-11 10:01:43] - i also agree that there's a small difference between barking out "we hate health care" at a town hall meeting, and barking out "we hate health care" at a speech - aaron
[2009-08-11 10:01:14] - i agree with pierce that there's a pretty big difference between protesting outside a town hall meeting, and interrupting/drowning out a town hall meeting. - aaron
[2009-08-11 08:57:44] - a: I generally don't watch the Daily Show. -Paul
[2009-08-10 23:20:03] - i hope you guys are watching the daily show. ~a
[2009-08-10 22:58:15] - Pierce; Either way, I was never trying to show that the democrats lied about who they were, only that organizing protests from the top is routine. -Paul
[2009-08-10 22:52:26] - Pierce: As you've pointed out numerous times, one example doesn't make it a rule. -Paul
[2009-08-10 22:49:56] - Pierce: Is it misleading? Maybe, but I hesitate to call it deceptive. The GOP official who said he was an ordinary Joe was more deceptive, but he's just one man. -Paul
[2009-08-10 22:40:28] - Pierce: Maybe I just overlooked it, but I can't find anything in your link where it tells people to lie about who they are. As far as I can tell, it just tells them to be loud and sound like there are a lot of them. -Paul
[2009-08-10 22:34:25] - a: iunno. can't remember. - pierce
[2009-08-10 19:05:03] - pierce: also, why didn't you go? ~a
[2009-08-10 19:03:11] - as another note, after reading the memo in its entirity, I am finding the thinkprogress "summary" of it to be quite dishonest. - mig
[2009-08-10 18:55:20] - mig: you're ashamed because that's your catholic upbringing peeking out. ~a
[2009-08-10 18:54:25] - pierce: you should have seen it. we were like: "you guys suck!" and "how dare you suck so much!!" and actually no we were very reserved about our views and honest about everything. ~a
[2009-08-10 18:35:37] - I didn't go to god and pizza. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:34:03] - a: true dat. now that you do bring it up, I do feel a bit ashamed about doing that. - mig
[2009-08-10 18:31:09] - how about when we went to god and pizza? we were clearly there to rain on their parade. and we were pretending to be regular concerned citizens. it's exactly the same thing. exactly. ~a
[2009-08-10 18:29:01] - http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/think_progress_msnbc_manufactu.asp rather interesting stuff, particularly the video at the end. - mig
[2009-08-10 18:27:29] - if it's true that, for example, people were holding spanish language signs who didn't speak spanish, I agree that that's slightly unethical but it doesn't "squelch dissent" so it's also not really relevant. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:25:48] - mig: as for your links, the email asking people to attend a town hall with obama signs is wrong for the same reason the republican version is wrong. the people standing on the street aren't likely to be mistaken for unorganized folks who just happened to have printed signs and were walking by, so I don't see how that compares. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:25:29] - yeah being upfront about your affiliation is very different from "insisting [you're] just a regular concerned citizen" ~a
[2009-08-10 18:23:20] - which, as I think I said before, means that town halls are essentially undermined now as a forum. it was just too idealized a thing, that you could have a political debate divorced from insider politics. but just because it was doomed to fail doesn't absolve anybody of helping it fail. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:21:00] - the "authenticity" of a town hall meeting is supposedly based on it being "real people" instead of political insiders doing it. people who are not otherwise significantly politically engaged, that is. but if you take orders from a lobbying group, you can no longer claim that "real person" status. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:19:33] - the sheehan stuff isn't the same thing, organizing protests is not the same as disrupting a discussion. maybe I just overlooked it, but I can't find anything in those two links where people are pretending to be anything other than organized protestors. they even sell a kit to make you look more organized. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:19:17] - paul: pbuy. ~a
[2009-08-10 18:16:46] - Anyway, I gotta run now. I should've left a half hour ago. -Paul
[2009-08-10 18:16:22] - mig: Damn, I wish it were that easy. I thought a reference to it happening now would be dismissed as "they started it, so it's ok". I had an article talking about how all the liberal organizations were organizing their own astro-turf to fight the Republicans. -Paul
[2009-08-10 18:15:15] - a: I know, that's the question mark I was talking about. -Paul
[2009-08-10 18:14:43] - http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cindy's+movement%3a+is+this+what+the+antiwar+people+really+want%3f(Cindy...-a0135565397 -Paul
[2009-08-10 18:11:10] - i meant the question-mark on "i kid because i love?". at least pierce was willing to tell you that he loved you.
~a[2009-08-10 18:10:20] - Pierce: http://www.laborstandard.org/Iraq2/Cindy_Sheehan_UFPJ_Sept_24.htm I seriously can't believe you're asking for proof of this. I feel like this is something mind-numblingly obvious. -Paul
[2009-08-10 18:10:07] - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/08/media-ignore-democrat-astroturfing-pelosi-event - mig
[2009-08-10 18:09:11] - ahh fudgeknuckles. stupid smiley. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:08:58] - (and now where I stop joking and blow your mind
yep, that's wrong too. - pierce[2009-08-10 18:08:28] - mig: well that's obviously different somehow. that's more of a 5.1 instead of a pure 5. I see no problem with it. - pierce
[2009-08-10 18:04:32] - http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/06/say-isnt-this-astroturfing/ - mig
[2009-08-10 18:03:37] - a: Well, because supposedly you can say that and it excuses anything you say (kind of like saying "with all due respect"), except I wasn't 100% sure that's how it worked. -Paul
[2009-08-10 18:01:12] - http://imgur.com/5RkJK.png - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:57:05] - "insisting she's just a regular concerned citizen" ok that sounds like blatant lying to me. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:56:45] - paul: why did you have to add the "?"? ~a
[2009-08-10 17:51:41] - (I kid because I love?) -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:51:19] - Pierce: And I'm still waitng on you to stop being a self-righteous prick, but we don't always get what we want, do we? -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:50:13] - a: I think I've also read some stuff from libertarian campaigns about the best way to make yourself heard, or good talking points. I wouldn't consider any of it deceptive, just informative. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:49:23] - a: I remember reading some articles talking about anarchist groups protesting the WTO and they were surprisingly organized for anarchists (not the ones that just go there to riot). -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:48:25] - and i'm still waiting on your mom. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:46:09] - still waiting on those citations if you're continuing to make that assertion. - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:45:53] - paul: "you don't think they did it too?" is not the same as "here is the memo they sent out." "here is a gop official pretending to be a regular citizen" - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:43:22] - which other groups? ~a
[2009-08-10 17:42:32] - a: Again, I have no proof they did, and I'll fully admit I could be wrong, but I've seen evidence of that from other groups and I fully expect it from an organized protest. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:42:18] - paul: did they? i thought they just funded tv advertisements and internet campaigns. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:41:35] - unless you consider the astro-turfing to be deceptive. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:41:33] - a: You don't think groups like MoveOn didn't send out similar (but maybe not exactly the same) memos to their protesters about the best places to be seen on CNN or what talking points to present? -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:41:09] - paul: yeah i guess. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:40:22] - a: I'm assuming if there were some real evidence of deception on the part of the republicans, we would be hearing about it instead of hearing about how it's "astro-turf" and by "tea baggers" and whatnot. -paul
[2009-08-10 17:39:06] - are they blatantly lying? hmmm. that's a great question. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:38:35] - paul: the radical new actions they are taking is deception to a level we haven't seen before (regarding the memos). i guess maybe we have different views on what "radically different" means. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:37:51] - a: Are they blatantly lying or anything? Maybe they are, I actually have no idea. All I've heard is that they are being "organized", which I think is silly because practically all protests of all types are organized some way. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:36:55] - a: Um... depends on what B represents. I think a big deal is being made out of how "deceptive" the Republicans are being, but I'm just not sure what radical new actions they are taking. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:36:37] - (or more specifically, I don't object to their unamericanness on a solely partisan basis!) - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:35:37] - paul: okay, well I don't think being in favor of tax cuts for the very wealthy makes you unamerican. so obviously I don't object to things on a solely partisan basis! - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:33:14] - paul: but who was being deceptive in b? ~a
[2009-08-10 17:32:43] - Pierce: Except it doesn't, because the two examples you gave were things that both parties do (burn effigies and protest). That's like saying you can't be partisan because you're also against murder. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:31:29] - a: I'm not completely up to date on my polling, but I know it was pretty even when I last checked between people who supported the health care reform and those against it, so they might not be that much of a minority. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:30:49] - paul: it disputes your implication that my objection to it is partisan in nature. you didn't technically say that, but I find your use of "very... interesting" and "VERY specific" to be VERY... unambiguous. - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:30:34] - a: So I might say that A!=B if you want to say A is 5 and B is 6, but I don't think they're completely different animals or magnitudes of difference off. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:29:11] - and i recant my civility comment. i really don't think protesting in a speech is any different. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:28:48] - a: Obviously they're not exactly the same, and if you say they're being more deceptive or more uncivil, I don't have a problem with that, but I think it's just differences in degrees as opposed to being something totally different. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:27:44] - paul: by "deception" i mean that they're trying to make a vocal minority look like a vocal majority (i reference: fox news, and the leaked memos). also, like pierce said, they're trying to come across as joe public when they're organized instead of being honest about their affiliations. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:27:10] - Pierce: Ok... I'm not sure if that disputes anything that I said, but thanks.
-Paul[2009-08-10 17:23:13] - paul: yes, that VERY specific thing seems really shady until you realize I said effigies were bad regardless of party, and that protests are okay regardless of party, so maybe it's that I actually think THIS thing is bad. - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:22:13] - a: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by deception (I assume you mean that they are being organized?), but I disagree with the civility being different. I haven't heard of much that the Republicans have been doing that the Democrats didn't do before. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:19:25] - paul: as i've said before: the level of deception (a!=b) and the level of civility taken in the context of the forum (a!=b). ~a
[2009-08-10 17:18:26] - Pierce: I just think it's very... interesting that you find the one VERY specific thing that the Republicans have been accused of doing to be unamerican while the other very similar things that democrats have been found to do are a-ok by you. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:16:25] - a: Fair enough, why do you think it's different? -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:15:20] - Pierce: I could be wrong, but I don't think I accused you of being hypocritical. I was just trying to understand why you thought that protesting in a town hall (and seemingly only a town hall) was unamerican while protesting in other forums were not. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:11:22] - paul: a = town hall meetings: "spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half". b = protests that were happening during the bush administration. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:11:02] - ...and so, it doesn't matter how arbritrary you think my opinion is for the purposes of determining whether I'm using "unamerican" hypocritically. you can say I'm using it wrong, and that's fine (though equally subjective) but accusing it of being hypocritical is a very different thing. - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:09:40] - I guess that's worth following-up on. This really comes down to my opinion and whether it makes sense from my perspective, or Pelosi's opinion and her perspective. "Unamerican" is not an objective term and I'm not saying it's unassailable fact (and I don't think Pelosi is either). - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:09:27] - Pierce: I'm not calling you a bastard (for this reason), I'm just saying your opinions make no sense and are based on seemingly arbitrary rules. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:08:30] - paul: either. both. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:07:27] - errr, strike out "only". there are other (off-topic) ways for protesting to be unamerican. - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:06:56] - yes, protesting is only un-american [in Pierce's opinion] if it is against a site of public discourse [in Pierce's opinion]. pierce has an opinion and bases that opinion on his beliefs! that bastard! - pierce
[2009-08-10 17:06:30] - a: What is A and what is B? -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:06:03] - a: For Congress or for my house? -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:05:53] - i have to agree with neither of you. pierce's "rules" mostly seem like they're made up. and paul is saying that a==b when clearly a!=b. ~a
[2009-08-10 17:05:15] - Pierce: How am I divorcing the American part from anything? I'm an American. I live in America. My house is in America. Where exactly am I divorcing it? -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:04:28] - paul: are the rules difficult to change? ~a
[2009-08-10 17:04:10] - Pierce: So... protesting is only un-american if it gets the Pierce stamp of approval as asite of public discourse. Got it. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:03:40] - paul: oh it was an analogy?
~a[2009-08-10 17:03:06] - a: The current members of congress didn't have any say on how it works. -Paul
[2009-08-10 17:00:56] - my point is, "unamerican" is only a term we're debating because of its emotional implications (related in part to its misapplication during the bush administration). if you create an analogy that divorces the "american" part then you've eliminated the emotional implications and it's no longer really something that merits debate. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:59:25] - a: you put the "anal" in "analogy". - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:58:02] - pierce: analogy. ~a
[2009-08-10 16:52:47] - paul: your example divorces itself from the "american" part of "unamerican", not the "un" part. your home is not a recognized part of the public discourse for this country. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:51:48] - paul: that depends on how the rules were created. if you got all of your friends to agree to the rules, and the rules weren't too difficult to change, then yeah that's a reasonable system. ~a
[2009-08-10 16:51:24] - "correct" referring to how congress is not a venue for civil discourse. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:50:53] - paul: correct. congress is a legislative body. I think I went over that. if they have civil debates that's great, but nothing about the operation of the body suggests it except tradition. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:49:05] - a: Put another way, if I had specific rules in my home that only libertarians were allowed to voice political opinions... that's not unamerican because I have specific rules? -Paul
[2009-08-10 16:42:57] - a: Does that mean it as long as they follow the rules, it can't be unamerican? -Paul
[2009-08-10 16:39:33] - wait, poopie isn't more specific, my bad. ~a
[2009-08-10 16:39:09] - pierce: really you have to stop using the word "unamerican". it's ambiguous/overly-general at best and inflammatory at worst. use something more specific like "un-civil" or "poopie" ~a
[2009-08-10 16:38:07] - Pierce: So congress is not a venue for civil discourse? Good to know. -Paul
[2009-08-10 16:36:23] - but none of this has fiddlysquat to do with the logistical operations of congress as a legislative body. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:34:53] - It's unamerican to protest within Town Hall meetings because they're a venue for civil discourse and protesting makes it not that. Speeches are not a venue for civil discourse (specifically discourse) so it's not unamerican to protest there. The imbalance of power establishes why there's a difference between speaking at a town hall and speaking at a speech. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:31:56] - pierce said that congress has nothing to do with anything because they have specific rules. ~a
[2009-08-10 16:31:13] - "So would it be unamerican, for instance, if the Senate or House voted to end discussion on a bill and just pass it instead of listening to the concerns of the people without power?" I seriously don't see any connection between that question and what we've been talking about. - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:29:53] - Pierce: "It's unamerican to protest Town Hall meetings because it creates an imbalance in power. Speeches can be protested because there's an imbalance of power. Congress has nothing to do with anything because there is no discussion there, no speeches are given, and there is no power." -paul
[2009-08-10 16:28:33] - Pierce: You seriously don't see any connection between what we've been talking about? Other than the fact that you have wildly different and seemingly random standards for all of them? -Paul
[2009-08-10 16:26:53] - (I kid, because I love) - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:23:49] - fortunately I understand Paul's thought process completely. me: "oranges are orange!" paul: "but pierce, aren't tigers both orange and black?" me: "yeah, so?" paul: "I give up." - pierce
[2009-08-10 16:15:27] - a: I'm not conceding the point, I'm just giving up trying to make sense of Pierce's thought process.
-paul[2009-08-10 15:59:42] - though it might be lame depending on the circumstances. ~a
[2009-08-10 15:58:15] - Everyone fights, everyone drops. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 15:57:47] - paul: to answer your question, no that would not be un-american. ~a
[2009-08-10 15:54:29] - never give up. never surrender. ~a
[2009-08-10 15:54:18] - a: *you're* an analogy! - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:53:53] - Pierce: I give up, then.
-Paul[2009-08-10 15:52:39] - it's an analogy. ~a
[2009-08-10 15:50:54] - paul: uh, no... why would it be? the senate and house are not general discussion forums. they're legislative bodies with very specific rules governing their behavior. I don't see how it's remotely comparable to my point. seriously. - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:45:59] - Pierce: So would it be unamerican, for instance, if the Senate or House voted to end discussion on a bill and just pass it instead of listening to the concerns of the people without power? -Paul
[2009-08-10 15:44:33] - pierce: Don't taze me, bro. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 15:42:11] - maybe you think my concern here is that poor democratic officials aren't getting to explain why they think health care reform is a good thing. my actual concern is that they aren't getting to hear any constructive viewpoints (either in support of it or to the contrary). - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:40:46] - but protesting at a town hall is effective at squelching viewpoints of people without power. the people who might have had their reasonable criticisms heard, now have it drowned out by a bunch of shouting. that seems obviously different and much more wrong, in my opinion. - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:39:17] - paul: I guess you're missing my point. there's an imbalance of discourse at a speech. it's not a discussion, to use my point before. it's a one-way communication, and the person speaking tends to have the power to make it more so (with mic volume and security removing dissenters). protesting there is usually fruitless since the speech continues anyway. - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:35:48] - Pierce: So if there were microphones and security at town hall meetings it would be ok? I don't think the existence of security makes unruly behavior ok. -Paul
[2009-08-10 15:31:40] - paul: if there's a long precedent of speeches being canceled because of protests then I'd love to see it, but that seems overwhelmingly the exception and not the rule. - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:30:44] - paul: because at speeches, the person you're trying to drown out has a microphone and usually security personnel, and the speech can continue despite your behavior? - pierce
[2009-08-10 15:30:05] - Pierce: They're both wrong, and the one that I think is probably more wrong is the one you seem to think isn't wrong at all. -Paul
[2009-08-10 15:29:29] - Pierce: To me, that's like saying you're allowed to yell and scream in a standard classroom with a teacher but not at group discussion. -Paul
[2009-08-10 15:27:55] - Pierce: I understand what you're saying, but still don't see the dramatic difference. Town hall meetings are for discussion only? Fine, speeches aren't for any kind of discussion at all. Why are protests fine at speeches but unamerican at town hall meetings? -Paul
[2009-08-10 15:16:33] - http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html having fun with people who steal your wireless internet - aaron
[2009-08-10 15:09:22] - a: My bad. I'll try again. "Comes the revolution, everyone will be eating strawberries and cream." -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 15:08:16] - a: and you were supposed to carry it even further, drawing a comparison between china's current form of government and obama's ideal socialist america - aaron
[2009-08-10 14:59:55] - like . . . say describe how well it works in china where everybody is happy. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:59:00] - but you were supposed to try to further your satirical point. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:58:21] - i was playing along. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:58:02] - it's ok. i got the joke. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:55:21] - a: Yeah, that's the problem with satire, it's sometimes blindlingly unobvious. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 14:49:53] - xpovos: except everybody. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:48:02] - gurkie: Of course we can. We just need to kill all the dangerously insane people, and then everyone has to live by everyone else's most strict set of rules imaginable. It's constrictive, oppressive, and annoying, but no one gets offended or hurt. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 14:46:37] - gurkie: there's different degrees of getting along. i think according to some countries/eras we do all just get along. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:45:18] - I'm going to let you think about that question for a while, gurkie. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:45:11] - i don't think a town hall is sacred. but i do think that loud people need to look at the context. if i'm loud where everybody is trying to be civil (be it at the opera, at work, in a courtroom, or in a debate) then it's a lot more lame than if i'm loud outdoors. the deceptiveness of the ruse doesn't help your point either. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:43:05] - cant we all just get along? ~gurkie
[2009-08-10 14:41:26] - hopefully that's a clearer way to present it. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:41:17] - if all we have is protest venues then I think we've lost a great deal as a country. thus, this behavior is unamerican. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:40:46] - I see protesting and discussion as mutually exclusive. they're both valuable, but they can't coexist in the same venue. the town hall meetings are supposed to be a discussion venue, and these people are specifically trying to shut down the discussion by turning it into a protest venue. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:38:29] - paul: all I said is that it's different. I'm not sacrificing goats there or anything. my concern is not with the town hall as a format, but the organized, intentional interference in what is supposed to be an open, rational forum for ideas of every persuasion. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:36:09] - Pierce: And hopefully that ends our debate, because I'm off to take my lunch break now.
-Paul[2009-08-10 14:35:31] - Pierce: Wow, I had no idea the Town Hall was such sacred ground. Protest all you like outside of it, but make sure you squelch any protesting inside or else you're unamerican? I strongly disagree, but acknowledge that I'm not changing your mind. -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:33:29] - paul: I actually read it that way... it may have been poorly constructed, but I think it was obvious what you meant from context. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:32:44] - paul: no, I don't think it's hypocritical to say that one use of a term is inappropriate and another different use of the term is acceptable. yes, I think these protests happening in a town hall (among the other variables) makes it a different use of the term. therefore, I don't think it's hypocritical based on what we know right now. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:32:01] - Hmmm, "you" = Pierce but "yourself" = Pelosi and "YOUR" = Pelosi. That sentence was poorly constructed. -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:28:19] - Pierce: You don't think that criticizing Bush's use of "un-american" while also using the term yourself to describe YOUR critics is hypocritical? The fact that these protests are happening in a town hall make that much of a difference? -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:27:40] - otherwise, it's fine to think bush's use was inappropriate but your (different, in your mind) use is acceptable. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:24:00] - paul: I disagree. going back to the beginning of the argument, you'd have to believe that criticizing bush's misuse of the term was also an argument that the term is meaningless for all future purposes. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:21:00] - Pierce: I think all it would take is for Pelosi to have condemned Bush's use of the term "unamerican" when dealing with protesters for her to seem hypocritical here. -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:19:31] - assuming she may share my distinction between forums and speeches, and that she may share my definition of "unamerican", and all the other caveats we've established. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:18:27] - paul: I know you don't, but I disagree for the reasons I've already stated. you don't have to agree with my opinion, but if you think it's at least a valid alternative viewpoint then pelosi's statement isn't necessarily hypocritical. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:15:08] - Pierce: Either way, should they be drowning out other people? Probably not. But I don't see it as much different as shouting down somebody giving a speech. -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:13:20] - paul: and I see a difference between these disruptions and "participation". this isn't participation, it's efforts to prevent other people from participating. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:12:39] - a: but so now you have to assert not only that democrats did this, but that pelosi encouraged it (or, to a lesser extent, knew about it but didn't object). that's a lot of "ifs" compared to what we see happening now (prominent republicans encouraging this behavior pretty shamelessly) - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:11:38] - Pierce: I can see your point, but town hall meetings are supposed to encourage audience participation. Speeches often are not. -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:10:56] - damn. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:10:45] - ... or ... or if you're a democrat who looked the other way before. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:10:43] - or I guess, to a lesser extent, if you knew it was happening and said nothing but now you're upset about it. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:09:16] - a: only if you're a democrat who encouraged it before, if it did indeed happen before. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:08:36] - but a town hall is supposed to be open to people of both sides, so I value its contribution to the discourse more, and am more concerned about people trying to undermine it. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:08:20] - pierce: even if we agree it's shitty and counterproductive . . . if the dems were doing it a few years ago, then it's hypocritical to make a big deal about it just now. ~a
[2009-08-10 14:08:03] - paul: I guess I see a difference between a forum and a speech. protesting a speech doesn't seem to be as big a deal, since the person giving the speech has a mic (and it's often a private event so they can just kick you out because they don't like your t-shirt or something). - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:07:37] - Paul: Probably has more to do with the caliber of the people rather than the number. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 14:05:32] - condone another. -Paul
[2009-08-10 14:05:29] - but I think we can all agree that, even if democrats have been disruptive in the past, and even if these are individual unaffiliated folks choosing to be disruptive of their own volition, it's still shitty behavior and counterproductive. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:05:27] - Pierce: Assuming we even do know of the Republicans doing this (wow, a liberal blog is asserting a vast right-wing conspiracy is organizing this? shocking!), I maintain this isn't all that different from the Bush years. The fact that it's happening in a town hall might be a huge deal to you guys, but I don't see it as so radically different that we condemn one and...
[2009-08-10 14:04:02] - now of course, it's possible to believe that this memo went around internally but that none of the town hall disruptors saw it or are following it. that would be virtually impossible to prove unless they were dumb enough to confess that they were obeying it. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:01:50] - paul: that's fine, and I understand that even if such citations exist they'd be hard to find at the moment. but your assertion doesn't stand, as a result. at the moment, we only know of republicans doing this. - pierce
[2009-08-10 14:01:28] - "Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: 'Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.'" yeah that's the quote i heard on tv. ~a
[2009-08-10 13:59:44] - Pierce: So in the interest of getting some work done, I'll just say I can't provide any citations to you. Sorry.
-Paul[2009-08-10 13:59:19] - here's a more specific link: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/ - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:58:41] - paul: how have we backtracked this much? the specific "unamerican" activity that I (and I believe pelosi) was referring to is the disruptive behavior in the town hall, and I've not seen any reason to believe democrats did that. however, as I pointed out, there is evidence that republican groups are trying to organize that behavior now. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:58:40] - wait i thought there was proof. ~a
[2009-08-10 13:58:37] - Pierce: Even searches for "anti-war" or "moveon" or "Bush" still just return links to liberal blogs about tea-baggers and astro-turf. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:57:57] - Pierce: I think I could find the same "rumors" and whatnot that you did if I had enough time, but like I mentioned before, the recent news has drowned out anything more than a few days old. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:56:02] - mig: nope. ~a
[2009-08-10 13:55:19] - Pierce: Do I have proof that the Democratic party was "officially" organizing town hall protests? No, just like you don't have any that the Republicans are doing it now. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:54:04] - Pierce: I can't tell if you're talking to me or not.
I was just saying (to nobody in particular at the time), that a lot of these "un-american" activities seem to be things the other side was guilty of before. -Paul[2009-08-10 13:53:25] - a: don't both sides always try to depcit themselves as the "majority" view, by deception if necessary. - mig
[2009-08-10 13:51:29] - none of this has happened in the past. the shoe is on the other foot, but it's a different shoe. ~a
[2009-08-10 13:51:21] - i think they're different: here is how. the dems that were holding protests were not trying to deceptively organize a minority that showed on tv to be coming out as the majority (see the fox news coverage of these town hall to see how this is framed as a only-now vocal majority). ~a
[2009-08-10 13:50:47] - I also think effigies are bad, and unamerican by the same logic I used before, but I think it's a separate issue and I do believe both sides are obviously guilty of it. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:49:53] - I would've hoped I'd have clarified that with my position on effigies in general but I guess I didn't. to be clear: I am only saying that the organized town hall disruptions are unamerican and (apparently, absent a citation) unprecedented. the rest of it is a separate issue. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:48:11] - okay, I'm rereading it and I can kinda see how you got there. you were including the effigy when you said democrats did the same thing, and then I came later and said it was different, but I was only referring to the town hall disruptions. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:46:44] - ... like an old married couple. ~a
[2009-08-10 13:46:43] - oh, I guess I see what you're saying. you think I was saying the bush effigies and the maryland guy effigy were different for some reason? I'm not sure why, but that's how I'm reading this now... - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:46:19] - you guys are so cute. ~a
[2009-08-10 13:45:15] - "Pierce: I think burning Bush in effigy and hanging a Maryland congressman in effigy is pretty similar, unless you are redefining 'similar' to mean 'completely different'. -Paul" - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:44:23] - pierce: the comment by paul that you cited seems (to me at least) to just be a general observation than actually addressing anyone specifically. - mig
[2009-08-10 13:43:59] - Pierce: I don't see it being addressed to you. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:43:49] - [2009-08-10 12:54:58] - Just like people burned Bush in effigy and shouted anti-war slogans during various public events during his administration. It's all the same, just with the shoe on the other foot. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:43:13] - Xpovos: I've been to a few HOA meetings with less than 100 people debating a topic which should have a lot less passion involved, and I was surprised by how heated the discussion got and how quickly it got there. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:43:07] - pierce: I didn't mean the participants, but the general discourse. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 13:42:15] - paul: are you joking? if you are it's not coming through. you addressed that comment to me. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:41:08] - Pierce: And if I had been talking to you, then that might have been relevant, but I wasn't, so it's not. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:40:18] - xpovos: and I think the limitations of speech make it unlikely we'll find one as long as debates primarily happen on TV. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:39:33] - xpovos: if we had a dozen people actively participating in the debates here, let alone a hundred or a thousand or 300 million, it would be pretty useless in its current format. I don't think we've come across a good format for that style of discourse. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:37:49] - for the record, I'm anti-effigy whether it's bush or obama or whoever. but that's not what we're talking about here. I am specifically objecting to disruptive (and probably organized, imo based on the evidence) behavior *in* the town hall meetings. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:36:26] - Despite the canker that sometimes even gets here, I think we probably have more effective actually debates on the topics. If we can do it, why can't society at large? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 13:36:19] - paul: and if I had brought up either effigy then that might be relevant, but I didn't so it's not. nobody was burning effigies inside the town hall meetings AFAIK. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:35:21] - mig: fair enough, although I do believe there's a dealbreaking threshold between simply having a public protest, and going in and disrupting a civil discourse. if republicans want to have anti-reform protests then I encourage them to do so (and I think pelosi would agree in principle). town halls are supposed to be a forum for open communication, though. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:33:26] - Pierce: I think burning Bush in effigy and hanging a Maryland congressman in effigy is pretty similar, unless you are redefining "similar" to mean "completely different". -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:31:03] - it's not 100% identical, but it's certainly along the same vein: being loud and obnoxious and "drowning out the other side" if you will. - mig
[2009-08-10 13:29:20] - paul: that's not the same thing. that is a different thing, but you are saying it's the same thing. therefore, you are acting as if "same" means "different". - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:28:45] - paul: "democrats did the same thing when Bush was in office."/"Just like people burned Bush in effigy and shouted anti-war slogans during various public events during his administration. It's all the same, just with the shoe on the other foot." - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:27:35] - paul: fair enough. but so while you and miguel can put this in a "who's to say the democrats didn't do the same thing", it's hardly an established fact that they did. in the meantime, here's what is going on now, it's pretty shitty, some (including myself) would say "unamerican", and balking that "the other guy did it too" (esp. without evidence) isn't helpful. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:26:38] - Pierce: Do you have any citations of me redefining "same" to mean "different"? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I would like some proof. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:25:28] - Pierce: I might try looking for your "citations" later. I did a very quick search and the entire first page was just about the most recent debate about the "astro-turf" and "teabaggers", so I suspect that's going to drown out a lot of the older stuff. -paul
[2009-08-10 13:22:42] - paul: you made the assertion that this same thing happened during the bush administration. if you're asserting it, you should be able to show that the same thing happened instead of just redefining "same" to mean "different" - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:21:18] - Pierce: It just seems a little silly to me. I demand you find me proof that the moon landing actually happened, although I'm not saying it didn't! -paul
[2009-08-10 13:21:04] - paul: well as I pointed out, there are citations, circumstatial though they may be, that republican groups intentionally designed these disruptions to be as disruptive as possible. not evidence in a court of law, but I'm looking for something comparable if you're going to say the democrats did "the same thing" during the bush administration. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:20:28] - Pierce: Which is all good and fine, except that I don't have time to go looking for whatever you would consider "proof" for something that you're not saying didn't happen. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:19:50] - paul: I guess I need to clarify. I'm sure democrats have intentionally tried to be disruptive at republican events. I'm not sure (but can easily believe) that they were intentionally disruptive specifically to shut down the public discourse on an issue. I'm also not sure (but could be convinced) that they were told how to do so by democratic lobbying groups. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:19:31] - Pierce: Except it certainly seems like you ARE saying it didn't happen or else what is the point of all of this? I said this is just the same thing that happened during the Bush administration and you asked me for citations. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:16:38] - paul: you believe I am saying the democrats have never done this? what about when I said "I'm not saying it didn't happen" in regards to that exact thing? - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:16:11] - paul: well, i don't remember a news story where democrats went to a republican town hall meeting and yelled anti-war rhetoric or anything... there's a lot of reasons why i might have missed that sort of thing happening though - aaron
[2009-08-10 13:15:30] - the leaked memos are as close to "evidence" as you can get without being omniscient, and I'd be interested if anything comparable came out against the democrats during the bush administration. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:15:13] - pierce: and does jon stewart's speech at bush's magical dinner thingy count? or did he not disrupt that. also doesn't stephen colbert does that kind of stuff all the time? - aaron
[2009-08-10 13:15:03] - aaron: I'm not sure myself. I think Pierce believes that there are Republican organizations organizing these protests and I believe he is saying the Democrats have never done this. -paul
[2009-08-10 13:14:39] - the first is virtually impossible to prove for any given protestor (unless they're dumb enough to be a recognizable party official, which has happened), but there are leaked memos from republican groups that act as a playbook for implementing the second with maximum effect. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:14:03] - paul: i'm confused, what's under contention? the fact that the meetings were disrupted or the fact that the participants were republican? - aaron
[2009-08-10 13:12:57] - mig: it'd be okay, but still not constructive. keep in mind that there are two offenses here: one, pretending to be unaffiliated when you're taking orders from the party. two, disrupting the meetings instead of arguing your point reasonably. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:11:42] - Pierce: Fine, that's your opinion, my point is that the Democrats had been doing the exact same thing for the past 8 years. I'll show you proof once you show me proof that the Republicans are doing it here. -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:11:26] - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=town+hall+astroturfing - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:10:44] - pierce: would it be ok then if they really were just a loud and obnoxious random republican? - mig
[2009-08-10 13:10:02] - Pierce: Correct, although I'm still not sure what kind of proof you are looking for. Are you seriously looking for proof that organizations like MoveOn were organizing protests? -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:08:37] - paul: how are you that confused? of course republicans are allowed. what isn't "allowed" (in the sense that it's not in good faith) is to pretend you're just some random republican with concerns and a loud voice when in fact you're operating on a playbook instructing you on how to disrupt others' viewpoints. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:08:17] - xpovos: and even if it is true, who's to say the democrats aren't placing their own astroturfers at these meetings as well. - mig
[2009-08-10 13:07:15] - I'm still not convinced that these are organized. Pelosi believes them to be astroturf, fine. But I don't see her presenting any evidence for it. She just says to look at the evidence and decide for yourself. I'm not seeing any evidence. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 13:05:35] - paul: should I assume you didn't refresh and see the comment starting with "what I'm looking for"? - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:05:28] - Pierce: Wait, wait, I'm confused now. Republicans aren't allowed in Town Hall meetings? -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:05:10] - it's ironic, because the republicans were the ones shouting about how great town halls were during the election (when Obama hadn't done any/many and McCain had done a lot), talking about their authenticity as a political forum. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:04:09] - Pierce: Citation for what thing happening? Democrats being angry at Bush? Sure, check out this link: http://aporter.org/msg/ -Paul
[2009-08-10 13:03:41] - Mostly I think this undermines the Town Hall format, which is kinda sad because, flawed as it was, it was one of the few ways to actually get people in power to address your concerns. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:01:57] - what I'm looking for is persons planted by the democratic party pretending to just be Joe the Concerned Citizen without being up-front about their formal affiliation. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but you are painting this issue with a broader brush than applies. - pierce
[2009-08-10 13:00:38] - paul: do you have a citation for this same thing happening? having a protest in the streets where you're wearing your party affiliation on your sleeve is very different from what people are complaining about here. - pierce
[2009-08-10 12:59:28] - paul: no one thinks it's dirty simply to be organized, but it's absolutely dirty to go into a town hall meeting (which is supposed to be a forum for allowing individuals to be heard) and pretend to be an unaffiliated individual or ad-hoc group of like-minded folks when you're not. - pierce
[2009-08-10 12:56:16] - Seems like the Democrats don't like angry disagreement any more than the Republicans did. -Paul
[2009-08-10 12:55:07] - and keep in mind, pelosi also gave the full, non-ad-hominem explanation so it's not like she's relying on "you're unamerican, therefore your opinion doesn't matter" as the foundation of her argument. - pierce
[2009-08-10 12:54:58] - Just like people burned Bush in effigy and shouted anti-war slogans during various public events during his administration. It's all the same, just with the shoe on the other foot. -Paul
[2009-08-10 12:52:50] - pierce: i brought it up because I found it to be a little ironic and hypocritical as democratic leaders have complained about their protests of bush administration policies as "unamerican", and here we have a democratic leader doing the same thing to other side. - mig
[2009-08-10 12:51:55] - I'm more amused by the claims that the opposition is being "organized", as if that's some sort of dirty thing. Of course they are being organized and the Democrats did the same thing when Bush was in office. -Paul
prev <-> next