Please, give me a break!

yeah men in uniform love SF!

What exactly are San Francxisco values?

Ask ANY MAN who served in the Pacific Theatre in WWII and you’ll be hard pressed to find any thing but praise for the City, it’s people and it’s genrousity.

I know it’s not the haven that Rancho Santa Margarita is or Dana Point, but I gotta believe, you’d be more likely to see someone come to your defense in a street fight there than in Irvine.

I agree with everything you said. Then if I am an idiot , so are you.

The point of the thread is disruptive vehavior that results in everything opposit of what you wrote.

Jim Benson stated the point perfectly – MUTUAL RESPECT.

The actions of some at these meetings are preventing free speech. Statements by extremists on both the left and the right also hamper free speech.

That is exactly what the insurance companies and the supporters of a government takeover want.

If we do not get some reasonable reform soon then in the short term the comapnies get more profits.

Long term there becomes no other solution other than a government take over.

I am not particularly interested in either outcome, but I do support finding a way to insure those who currently do not have insurance. A public option may need to be part of the solution, but private options muast be protected.

But you being an idiot is pretty relevant here.

Its pretty clear that a) you dont like that these townhalls are angry about having their health care hijacked and b) you would like them to just sit down all back of the bus like and be quiet.

Core Political Speech is not treated like any other speech. This is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional democracy. Most simply, core political speech is interactive communications about political ideas or issues that are not motivated by profit. Restrictions placed upon core political speech must weather strict scrutiny analysis or they will be struck down.

So you have to put up with it…

However, fighting words, like being called names, that is something else. The Chaplinsky decision still is law.

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching “You are a God-damned racketeer” and “a damned fascist” and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

See? Other people can copy wikipedia too. duh.

So, to sum up, you advocate fighting words without social value as a step to truth, while advocating silencing those who would choose to exercise their political speech.

Nice. Typical leftist goon squad thought.

And yes, I would be happy to see Pelosi arrested for her “fighting words”.

The issue is freedom of speech.

Politics is full of politicians of every party with personal problems, character flaws and elitists.

#10 wants to stay on subject – “Because the discussion was about what Pelosi and the Democrats say about Americans who oppose their scheme.”

I believe that the Pelosi’s of the world are the very rich, that have no clue about what it is to be a member of the working class and have the mentality of the working class, ie.. work ethic,honesty,self reliance.

She is an advocate of the poor, because she only see’s two types of classes, The rich and the needy. And their is nothing more the rich love to do, than go to charity events, “what else would they do?”.

“YOU are distortion. You are intellectually lazy and dishonest. You are worthless.”

You are a nut case.

“I talked about what Pelosi and Obama said. The article and discussion are NOT about what was said about the President. You want to talk about that, do that on another post. I dont have to talk about whether or not I justify ANYTHING.

Because the discussion was about what Pelosi and the Democrats say about Americans who oppose their scheme.

OKAY # 10, lets talk about what Pelosi said.

What did Pelosi say in the video that has you concerned? Obama was not mentioned in the clip so he did not say anything.

This is what Pelosi said:

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted “Just say no!” drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

Let the facts be heard

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Those that disrupt the meetings say their freedom of speech is being violated by Pelosi as a result of her comment.

From Wilkipedia:

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[21] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the “harm principle” or the “offense principle”, for example in the case of pornography or “hate speech”.[22] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[23]

The right to freedom of speech and expression

Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.[3]

The freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents, such as the British Magna Carta (1215) and The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), a key document of the French Revolution.[4] Based on John Stuart Mill’s arguments, freedom of speech today is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

* the right to seek information and ideas;
* the right to receive information and ideas;
* the right to impart information and ideas.[3]

International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[3]

Town hall meetings are used by political leaders to present information to the public.

Based on the above, disruption of town hall meetings is a violation of others freedom of speech. There are limitations (disruption)to freedom of speech.

Disrupting the dissemination of information to your neighbor is what is un-American and possibly against the law.

What is it with you assholes? Pick your battles carefully man. You are tools for the big red machine.

“Notice, this is in response to Pelosi and Obama smearing those standing up for their rights.”

You support calling the President A Nazi? Your above quote is your justification for the Nazi label on Obama?

—————

I talked about what Pelosi and Obama said. The article and discussion are NOT about what was said about the President. You want to talk about that, do that on another post. I dont have to talk about whether or not I justify ANYTHING.

Because the discussion was about what Pelosi and the Democrats say about Americans who oppose their scheme. And YOU sir, simply moved right on with some moral equivalence argument. That is NOT elevating the argument. You didnt dismiss the first point. All you did was try to muddy the waters. THAT is acceptance. THAT is endorsement.

This is because people like you have NO morals or standards by which to guide them. If you did, you’d be a hypocrite for trying to impose them on others.

YOU are distortion. You are intellectually lazy and dishonest. You are worthless.

Your endorsement of comparing those protesting socialized medicine to nazis is gross and sickening. None of what was in that stupid little clip that represents the level of your intellect were in context. Not that that bothers people like you.

Where in my post did I endorse what you claim? Quote my post.

What is out of context in the clip. Clearify and put it into context.

Do the same for the Pelosi clip Crowley posted.

Demostrate your superior intellect. NOT.

“It IS about what you can or cant take, since your distortion of what happened by talking about something else is intellectualy boring and dishonest.”

Correct the distortion and make it intellectualy exciting and honest for us. I am open to learning something new every day.