Bush to American Citizens: Git Out of Our Townhall Meeting!

Really? Is that what happened? Do you have a link to verify this assertion?

If you have such a link, please provide the same.

If you do not have such a link… well, you know… thanks for playing anyway. :slight_smile:

I bet the meeting was televised, on the radio, and I’ll even bet the transcript of the meeting was printed in public newspapers.

I don’t think that is a problem.

[quote=“smerf”]Wouldn

Really? Is that what happened? Do you have a link to verify this assertion?

If you have such a link, please provide the same.

If you do not have such a link… well, you know… thanks for playing anyway. :slight_smile:[/quote]

Glad to help you understand the terms used in my post! :smiley:

There was an election last year. When a U.S. president is elected to a second term, he may sometime be referred to as a “second-term U.S. president”.

Bush attended as a U.S. president, not as a private citizen. To help you understand the difference, if you are a private citizen attending a taxpayer funded event you can be thrown out because you “might” disagree with the president.

This is not an election year, at least for the U.S. president or the Congress.

According to the Washington Post article I linked to at the start of this thread, Secret Service agent Lon Garner said they had done an investigation and found that it was a “Republican staffer” who had done the ejection of the three citizens. “GOP” is a commonly used term for the Republican party.

I think “goon” is a fair way to describe people who force American citizens out of a meeting “in a physical, forcible way”. (See the Washington Post article link again, unless you prefer the Hal Turner version of events.) I guess “might makes right” in the GOP world.

These three participants were eliminated.

This was the topic of the meeting.

The event was billed as a “town hall” meeting.

So far, not a single unclear term within the post.

[quote=“Tigerman”]Really? Is that what happened? Do you have a link to verify this assertion?

If you have such a link, please provide the same.

If you do not have such a link… well, you know… thanks for playing anyway. :slight_smile:[/quote]

Then why have you not been able to answer my question?

You asserted that “Bush has GOP goons eliminating participants”.

Now, can you verify that President Bush instructed anyone to eliminate participants?

Its really a simple question.

Please try again. :slight_smile:

That may be the way things are done, but that doesn’t make it right. These people had tickets and had done nothing inappropriate. Excluding them from a public meeting on the basis of a bumper sticker that states an opposition to one part of the President’s foreign policy violates the spirit of free speech, IMO. The social security issue is very important to the average American. I

smerf,

I’m not arguing that what was done was “right”.

I am only saying that those folks who assert in response to this incident that 1) Bush himself ordered such people out and 2) that free speech does not exist in the US and 3) that the Republicans do not permit or want free speech are incorrect in their assertions.

smerf,

I’m not arguing that what was done was “right”.

I am only saying that those folks who assert in response to this incident that 1) Bush himself ordered such people out and 2) that free speech does not exist in the US and 3) that the Republicans do not permit or want free speech are incorrect in their assertions.[/quote]

Understood. It is quite possible that the fault lies solely with the over-eagerness of the volunteer in question (who, perhaps, is an individual dreaming of a secret service job and thought he could impress the Feds with his use of the “bumper sticker” standard :laughing: ).

For me, I would hope that steps are taken to insure that future events such as this are not marred by similar mishaps.

Erm … actually can stand for Schutzstaffel. First Hitler’s bodyguard, then after winning over the S.A. during the 'R

Starting with Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign in 1976, “town meeting” has also been used as a label for any moderated discussion group in which a large audience is invited. I like this quote about the current political atmosphere:

It seems kind of ironic that even the carefully scripted attempts at town-hall “style” meetings are being avoided. It occurs to me that there’d be no need for “re-education missions” if the GOP didn’t feel it was necessary to force unpopular laws/reorganizations through.

How does the GOP “force” unpopular laws and reorganizations “through”?

And “through” what does the GOP “force” these things?

[quote=“Tigerman”]Really? Is that what happened? Do you have a link to verify this assertion?

If you have such a link, please provide the same.

If you do not have such a link… well, you know… thanks for playing anyway. :slight_smile:[/quote]

Then why have you not been able to answer my question?

You asserted that “Bush has GOP goons eliminating participants”.

Now, can you verify that President Bush instructed anyone to eliminate participants?

Its really a simple question.

Please try again. :slight_smile:[/quote]

In answer to your question, the buck stops with Bush. He’s been holding these events for some time. This Denver “town hall” meeting is not merely an isolated event in this current, post-election tour of cities. It just happens to be one of the more clearly documented ones. Kudos to the reporters for researching it more thoroughly this time around. If he encourages, allows/tolerates this within his Administration, then he is still responsible. Now, I have to ask you: What part of that sentence are you having trouble with understanding?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Please cite where I stated that Clinton “had done the same thing” or drop this stupidity.

That’s an idiotic notion, IMO. So, in your mind, everytime any volunteer democratic staffer in any little town does something wrong the head of the DNC is responsible. That’s idiotic. :unamused:

Clinton did the same thing? How so? :slight_smile: Do you have any links, or is this just a completely fabricated bit of nonsense? :laughing: I would like to understand your arguments better. I think that the other forumosans have adequately dealt with the latter part of your sentence regarding how the Democratic Convention (and the GOP Convention, etc.) are different from a public meeting held at taxpayer expense. :wink: However, it would be nice to see if there are any examples of how under Clinton’s presidency there were DNC staffers kicking out American citizens from “town hall” meetings because they “might” disagree with Clinton. Can you provide some links? :slight_smile:

Clinton did the same thing? How so? :slight_smile: Do you have any links, or is this just a completely fabricated bit of nonsense? :laughing: I would like to understand your arguments better. I think that the other forumosans have adequately dealt with the latter part of your sentence regarding how the Democratic Convention (and the GOP Convention, etc.) are different from a public meeting held at taxpayer expense. :wink: However, it would be nice to see if there are any examples of how under Clinton’s presidency there were DNC staffers kicking out American citizens from “town hall” meetings because they “might” disagree with Clinton. Can you provide some links? :slight_smile:[/quote]

You do have a problem with reading comprehension.

Here is my entire statement:

My first point was that these “townhall meetings” are nothing more than staged events and then I said, in response to the allegation that the GOP seeks to restrict hecklers, that the DNC also has restricted hecklers.

Try reading more carefully next time. :slight_smile:

Not at all. I also do not have a memory problem as some people may have.

Already done. This “stupidity” has been dropped squarely in your lap, where it belonged all along.

President Truman was willing to let the buck stop with himself. I guess when it comes to Bush and the GOP, they simply cannot stand to take even the mildest bits of accountability. Bush tours the country holding these highly staged events in which these sorts of ejections have become routine (the Denver case being simply a well documented, recent example), and you want us to believe in some sort of “lone staffer” theory on this? You’ve drawn the comparison to “volunteer democratic staffer” situations, and so I have to ask the following questions:

  1. Do you believe it is only one GOP staffer who did this?

  2. Do you believe it has only happened one time?

  3. Do you believe the staffer was only a volunteer?

If you have information that the GOP staffer in the Denver situation was a volunteer and that this was only an isolated incident, please post it up. It would be great for all who are participating in this discussion.

Please show an example of how Clinton held a “townhall meeting” during his presidency in an non-election year in which he had people thrown out because they “might” disagree.

[quote=“mofangongren”]

  1. Do you believe it is only one GOP staffer who did this?

  2. Do you believe it has only happened one time?

  3. Do you believe the staffer was only a volunteer?

If you have information that the GOP staffer in the Denver situation was a volunteer and that this was only an isolated incident, please post it up. It would be great for all who are participating in this discussion.[/quote]

I have only the article which you cited.

Now, here’s a novel idea… you accuse Bush of ordering potential hecklers out.

As the accuser, it is only right that you provide the proof. :smiley:

Please show where I said Bush personally ordered the hecklers out. “Had” is the word used, which also can be used to indicate a wider amount of passivity and tolerance for a situation that could be under one’s control or “on one’s watch”. It indicates an ownership or possession of a situation. He “had” a bunch of moles in his garden but he did nothing about it. He “had” a bad case of fleas but chose not to bathe regularly to get rid of them.

‘While serving as principal of Rydell High School, he had a major fire that destroyed the gym and cafeteria.’ Did the principal in that sentence command the lighting of the fire? Of course not. A more reasonable interpretation is that these events occured “on his watch”, i.e., during a time in which he was an official in charge of the school.

It’s more than fair to say that this sort of ejection has happened on Bush’s watch repeatedly on this current Social Security “town hall” tour. “Had” is a pefectly adequate verb. To all appearances, Bush tolerates this sort of abuse of average American citizens.

[quote=“mofangongren”]Please show where I said Bush personally ordered the hecklers out. “Had” is the word used, which also can be used to indicate a wider amount of passivity and tolerance for a situation that could be under one’s control or “on one’s watch”. It indicates an ownership or possession of a situation. He “had” a bunch of moles in his garden but he did nothing about it. He “had” a bad case of fleas but chose not to bathe regularly to get rid of them.

‘While serving as principal of Rydell High School, he had a major fire that destroyed the gym and cafeteria.’ Did the principal in that sentence command the lighting of the fire? Of course not. A more reasonable interpretation is that these events occured “on his watch”, i.e., during a time in which he was an official in charge of the school. [/quote]

You’ve got to reeeeeaaaallly stretch to reach your conclusion… and even still its nonsense.

The better analogy would be the following:

The boss had all the workers fired.

In that usage, “had” obviously means that the boss is personally responsible for the decision to fire the workers.

You stated that Bush had potential hecklers removed. That means that Bush is personally responsible for the decision to remove the hecklers.

Now, if you cannot prove that Bush is personally responsible for that decision, then your argument is lost.

Try again?