Kansas town hall erupts into laughter at GOP Rep's health reform lie

And laughing at people.....

mental age of many people isn't even close to the age that they actually are.

No matter how many pretty words they use.

no age discrimination at Fox news blogs Jammer

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

Are you spaming Current with Fox News?

Are you spamming Current with J. Jammer?

Good, you stopped. Current appreciates that.

"I have not yet begun to fight"

John Paul Jones

but I'm glad you think I have

He's in the right profession for that.

Fox news blog Jammer

the right profession for anyone as profound as you are

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

What? Doctors dont make nearly enough money for the hours they put in and stress they have to deal with. These are the people that work to keep you, your friends and family healthy and ALIVE. Yet they have to get extremely expensive insurance to keep them from getting sued for doing their job. If anything Doctors should be paid MORE. Its the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that need to be paid less.

You're right, I was generalizing, I apologize.

What you say is true of E.R. doctors, at least.

disrespectful laughing isn't really intelligence at work.

I never said anything like that. In fact, your correlation had nothing to do with my above statement, so in essence it was fairly random for you to even state that remark.

You didn't denounce them. You are all about respect until it's someone you don't like.

All I stated is that they weren't buying into fabricated misinformation, and that it may lead to the election of more intelligent government officials. I did not praise or denounce; I only stated based on my opinion.

Any conclusions you have drawn from that are purely of your own projection, including my lack of civility as well as my lack of objectivity in any situation.

No it is not.

You denounce them because you enjoyed it.

Were you not one of the ones that thought someone shouting LIE in congress was rude and uncalled for? Where you specifically asked to give said opinion in any of those threads or did you do it via your own wanting?

You may silently answer those if it'll keep you from being embarrassed ....because if you defended one person because of decorum of a situation you should defend them all.

Unless you are bias then you are excused.

Given the fact that it is my opinion and not yours, I can denounce or applaud whatever I see fit, and not what you dictate. This website tells people to "Tell Us Why This Is Interesting" for every thread, for every poster, every time. That is asking for an opinion. I should not have to defend my opinion simply because you disagree.

Rather, if you brought up a valid point as to why there is something wrong with my opinion, I could defend it. However, you have yet to do so, and instead call me hypocritical based on consistency.

You would say that due to my contradictions in this situation, my views are inconsistent. However, my views are not inconsistent because you cannot view two similar situations in the same light. "Similar" is not synonymous with "Same" or "Identical". Therefore whether or not I feel the same ways on similar views is irrelevant to the topic of conversation, Strawman Fallacies and Red Herrings included.

Not only do you continue to project as to what my opinion is, you continue to undermine my argument due to a perceived lack of consistency. There is a saying for that given to us by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Perhaps you should meditate on it's meaning before responding again.

Jammer...Fox news blogs, at the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

Not consistency.

Decency, good sir.

You uphold respect in one instance because you agree with Democrats and want them to be respected no matter if they are liars. You do not hold the same for Republicans because you find them to be liars.

So in this case it's very similar (even though it doesn't matter) because you are thinking liar and then voice it rather clearly by not stating this laughter is rude. You like it because you'd laugh as well.

Which is why the entire statement that it was rude for the YOU LIE comment to come out is a joke when people like you state that and then go about your life ignoring other rudeness because you justify it as ok because you agree.

Quantify that with whatever lame quote you have next from a dead person and I'll just have to state it again....you agree.

You've yet to state you disagree with their behavior therefore you agree. Fence sitting doesn't exist. But nice try. Kudos.

I found what Mr. Wilson did to be wrong. I wouldn't have done it and if I were his friend I'd tell him so. I also found it wrong that they wanted a public apology. They were just screaming victim for a wound that was a paper cut.

This incident is still about decorum.

But you may perceive it as you wish, it's just a narrow perception because you want to be right in your need to laugh at someone you don't' agree with, which, as I stated, is fine as long as you fess up to it.

Fox news blog Jammer

they will laugh with you, not at you

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

Again, you compare two similar situations. But they are not identical. The same level of decorum demanded from politicians to other politicians in a Senate Address is not the same level of decorum expected from a Town Hall where a politician addresses a group of citizens.

Case in point: Barney Frink's town hall meeting, where Nazi accusations of the president and his health care plan were addressed to the politician with questions that were met with boos and yells of disapproval. This would not be acceptable in a Senate Address from the president because the level of decorum demanded from Senators opposed to that this forum where town hall meetings allow for the people to openly question and speak their mind.

Next Case In Point: Claire McCaskill's town hall meeting, where health care reform dissidents were allowed to voice their opposition to reform nearly to the point where it infringed on the rights of other people. When a man leaped from upper seating and ripped up a woman's poster, yet did not get removed from the area. People cheered when this happened.

This would not have been acceptable if, say, a Senator of opposing view walked up and rip up the presidents speech. Nor would the "crowd" of Senators cheer and applaud such an action.

However you decide to view it, it is the people right to voice their approval or disapproval of what a person in a town hall is saying. No one is expected to sit silently like children. These people are adults listening to the people who are deciding what laws the people should have and are doing it based on lies and misinformation. Whether I approve or disapprove of the reaction of the crowd is not the most relevant, rather acknowledging the crowd's freedom to do so.

You want to censor the crowd because you find them disrespectful. I say it is the people's right to be disrespectful in a town hall meeting because of the first amendment.

For the record, I don't find lying Senators and Congressman to be a laughing matter.

I didn't ask if it was legal, that's apparent. I didn't ask if it's ok for the area. I didn't ask anything but whether or not you found it to be rude.

Justifying that you found it to be ok isn't ok if you can't admit to it. Why is that so hard? Why must you make sure you lookk good and reasonable first? Afraid such a double standard would make you look terrible? And if it's not a double standard then why has it taken you SO LONG to just state that you found it amusing what's the big deal it's just a town hall meeting not Congress?

Political people lie, cheat, steal and for the most part are corruptible persons no matter if they are democrat or republican and to suggest that they have respect in a place where they BOO people is so laughable.

They are not respectable there and it's a farce to state otherwise. Booing isn't respectable if saying YOU LIE isn't.

I personally already stated what I thought on that. You should try being more straight forward. Beating around the BUSH...well...we see where that got people for 8 years.

No, expressing your first amendment rights in the correct arena is not rude. It's patriotic.

In addition, the double standard rule only applies to situations that a nearly identical, not similar. There is a difference. A town hall meeting is not a senate address, no matter how many senators are there. They are still subject to the jeers and boos or cheer and applause of the free people attending.

I've thoroughly explained my stance to you, and done so clearly and easily. I've given examples and compared apples to oranges for you. However, it's not good enough for you for some reason. You cannot demand complete silence from a meeting that allows free expression, or condemn it based on the outbursts of someone who is supposed to give respectful silence in a professional meeting.

It's as if you comparing a children's birthday party to a corporate board meeting.

Children tell the truth far more than a board room.

You could just state it, but you won't because you did think it was right to laugh at him.

Why that's so hard to just say...is because you don't want to seem so petty. But apparently you have that ability do you not?

Thank you Kansas is right! Oh this comforts me so much. Lets not just believe the whatever spew of lies is laid out for the mobs.

that has to include laughing mobs.

laughing blogs

Fox news blogs Jammer

they want you
they need you

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

And Obama reads the bible and yet does exactly that.

Fox news blogs Jammer

they will lie for you too

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

I hope my ignore list is sky high.

you are ignoring the Fox news blogs

they want you
they need you

What's sad is the fact you have to state who you are smarter than.

Who exactly is he stating he's smarter than? As far as I can tell he's calling reactionary and unintelligent people unintelligent. That seems to follow as far as I can tell. What's really sad J_Jammer is how hard you had to try to find something wrong with noxidereus' comment.

We are slipping further and further from being an intelligent, advanced civilization into something that looks more like the middle east. We now live in a country where facts don't matter.

-----------------------------------

We is only used to pretend to include himself when in fact he is trying to suggest that everyone who isn't him and a democrat isn't intelligent enough to make America Different from the middle east.

The reason I can state it that way is because he doesn't complain, nor has he in any post, about democrats or Obama so it's right to suggest that he's solely speaking of only one side more so than the other.

It's not that hard to see.

I don't to strain as hard as you did to ignore that.

Well J_Jammer, I guess since for the most part the reactionary comments about healthcare have been coming from conservatives, that would indicate that. But observing something doesn't make you biased.

WOW..

that's not a negative. That's a negative about Republicans masked with your idea of what Obama is doing wrong by not denouncing him.

That's like getting mad at a parent for not disciplining their children the way YOU want.

Such a cop out.

That's why threads like this are a joke and people agree a joke....

....they should almost just stand and look in the mirror and laugh because they really are doing nothing to make anything better and therefore are part of the problem.

HE SCREAMED LIE IN CONGRESS HOW RUDE.

Stupid republicans in town hall meetings it's great that these donkey heads laughed at those elephant headed senator because he deserved it! Respect is only given if it's earned.

Wawawa double standards up the yahoo and out the google.

Ignore me if I'm not making any valid points.

See if that keeps me from having an opinion. Do it.

quixotic12,

Observing is a bit of a stretch.

But nice try.

I am an Independent. I am not a Democrat. I have my own views. I will not treat Dems v Republicans as equally sided because right now the Republicans are outright crazy. That doesn't mean Democrats are great, but at least they are sane. It would be asinine for one to take the position that I should treat both parties equally, even though that would be an inaccurate representation of my actual view point. They certainly are not equal.

Since someone flagged my comment I am pasting the meat of it back in:

---

Here's just one example that proves you wrong about me (a negative quote about Obama):

"How come Obama doesn't even have the nads to call out the obvious (and I mean O-B-V-I-O-U-S) lies coming from the Republicans and corporate lobbyists? One must wonder what Obama's intentions really were all along. He isn't putting up much of a fight, and he is allowing ignorance to drive this debate. Obama has been wholly ineffective in representing the rational side of this debate. I am extremely disappointed in him. FAIL!"

---

Here's another:

"No actually what Obama does is still Obama's fault. I might agree with you more, if not for the reality of who the choices were. My heart wanted to vote independent. My mind told me we were either going to get McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Although I am disappointed in Obama, it would be so much worse if we ended up with McCain/Palin."

---

Obama has been weak and has not stood strongly for what I stand for. The Republicans, of course, have been much worse since they are actively trying to defeat reform. I do not think the 2 parties are equal and I am going to be more critical of the Republicans because they are actively attempting to mislead people into standing against their own best interest by telling lies. They are also attempting to make Obama seem foreign... an "other". I think this can lead to unstable people wanting to kill our president and I think that the Republican leaders know this -- I think it is the point, actually. That is my opinion.

I don't flag comments. I flag spam. I also flagged only one comment of a regular person just to see if something would happen to it....nothing. So I don't see the reason to bother...that one was blatantly wrong and against the site rules.

But no matter....

I think it is weak to use the way a President stands up for himself as a reason to dislike him. That's like trying to make him more you than actually being mad at him for not stating he'd do something he's yet to do or, for that matter, doing something you don't agree with.

How he conducts himself isn't something that one should use as proof to show how they don't always agree. it's a cop out and this is why: You state that you don't like how he won't stand up to crazy accusations. That's not a disappointment in him as much as it's an attack on Republicans. And that's why it's not good enough and that's why I find when people use that that they are just trying to pacify instead of give an answer.

I get enough of that kind of answer from Obama, why should an "independent" citizen be allowed to do the same when they have no political reason to do so (or so they state)?

The reason Independents don't win is because they don't think they can. They lack confidence and it bleeds publicly and therefore they succeed at failure.

You tend to rationalize your position (twist words around to fit what you want to believe) rather than objectively evaluating the facts. Obviously it is not about how he conducts himself, but rather how effective he is in getting things done. That is one of the most, if not the most, important evaluation of his quality as president. His inability to handle this effectively has real consequences. We could get really crappy reform because of his weakness.

Nope I am disappointed in Obama because I stand for principles, not people. If Obama fails to stand strong for what I want, I am going to be disappointed. That is what is happening right now. I think his attempts at bipartisanship are devoid of any grasp of reality. I wonder if he's not trying as hard because he really doesn't want the public option. I have no way of substantiating that, and I could be wrong. He could be doing things much better, but I haven't given up on him altogether yet. Too soon for that. Let's see how things play out.

He has also disappointed me in his handling of Afghanistan, how he laughed at people wanting to legalize marijuana even though it was the number one question posed on his website, his continuation of the faith-based initiative, etc. I've criticized Obama here on current for most, if not all, of these things.

Time to scrap the idea that I am all for the Democrats. That premise is false. I am a liberal/progressive independent. I side with Democrats more often, why? Well let me put it another way. Democrats side with me more often than Republicans do, meaning I agree with Democrats more often. I do not let either party dictate to me what I should stand for. I stand for what I stand for and even though it's obvious and redundant to state so, I agree more often with those who agree with me more often, and less often with those who agree with me less often.

To insinuate that I am a one-sided party-line democrat as a means of discrediting me is silly, and a poor debating tactic.

You've yet to show how you are as "even" as you suggest. You say you don't agree with Democrats and Republicans in totality but on different issues.

That's now how you post, though. Not at all. It's always siding with the democrats. So me stating what did is not silly when that's all you show.

So what is it that you side with Republicans on...RIGHT NOW. I don't want past thinkings. Because that's done and gone. What do you agree with right now?

And if you are hard press to find something, then your silly comment was totally wrong.

Your position assumes there are only 2 possible positions to take. The Republican line or the Democrat line. Is that really true?

I am not even. I agree with the Democrats MUCH more, my point was that my views are my own. I do not just automatically agree with the Democrats on everything as a party-liner would. My silly comment about how I am not a party-liner holds true.

Here's one Republican I agree with on one issue that I can think of right off the bat:
Ron Paul is for legalization of marijuana. I stand with Ron Paul on that issue, but against his libertarian views. I thought he was the best Republican candidate.

I am also for the right to bear arms, which seems to be a Republican type of view, moreso than Democrat.

Jammer...Fox news blog...
they want you
they need you

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

noxidereus,

That pot one was going to another pandering issue....but you did much better with adding the arms one.

Now you backed up what you state about yourself and now I believe you. Honesty was nice, for a change.

IncredulousBastard,

You bookmarked that?

tsk tsk....you go against everything you claim to believe in, but Fox news blog won't mind that at all

http://www.foxnews.com/blogs/

While I appreciate your serious consideration of what I said, I sort of resent the insinuation that I am not typically honest. I have no reason to misrepresent my own views. I have always been forthcoming. Regardless of differing opinions, I have always been true to myself here.

True to yourself would be backing when you agree no matter if it's in the minority.

I have not seen that when there are issues that you state you back Republicans in---when they are posted here at Current.

Maybe I missed it. But it seems you're more into bashing than anything else. That could be perception. Maybe you have backed them with the things you stated you agree with....I haven't seen it. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No. But it does mean it's not a frequent thing and as far as I see (aside from you answering my post) you've never sided with them which makes you 100% siding with democrats and the assumptions made from that are fair if that's all you give.

"True to yourself would be backing when you agree no matter if it's in the minority."

I am almost always in the minority when I defend my atheism. Here on current there are many people on my side, but elsewhere I am the minority. I defend the billboards put up by FFRF (freedom from religion foundation) all over the place, including local news web sites based in the south where I am told to go to hell and they think I am an evil bad person. I also support removing "In God We Trust" from our currency and "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. While I'm sure I can find, with no difficulty at all, people on current who agree with that, on other sites I am viewed as like the antichrist.

This is not only true on the Web. My family consists mostly of born-again Christians. It is not easy to be open about my atheism, but I do it anyway, even though it alienates me. It's not easy to defend myself against some people in my own family who think the devil deceived me. I recently connected with a cousin of mine I haven't seen in forever and when she learned I was atheist and progressive, she stopped talking to me again.

I have always been true to myself. I do not feel right about lying. I don't even like greeting cards because I think paying money to give someone else's words to a loved one on a special day is insincere. Sure it's the thought that counts, but I am weird like that. I tell the truth even when I know people are going to get mad at me. I have always been that way. My dad tells me to pretend I believe in God and stop telling my mom reasons why I am atheist because it will make my mom happy, but I can't, because it doesn't feel right to misrepresent myself, even if the reason is altruistic.

I have defended Ron Paul here on current, not just today, when there was a story here about his position on Marijuana law reform. I defended Glenn Beck today, even though I hate him, because he didn't really kill a frog as some had alleged.

I will not say any more on this matter. I am true to myself. I know it, and that's all that matters to me. You are free to your own opinion. There is no reason for you to take my word for it.

There certainly isn't any reason why I should take your word for it, doesn't mean I can't choose to take your word for it.

Telling the truth at all times gets you what you know you'll get and hopefully you don't complain about it, because that's an easy fix. Don't open your mouth and keep it to yourself. If you are not prepared to take the storm that comes with being "truthful" then you shouldn't open your mouth.

"To insinuate that I am a one-sided party-line democrat as a means of discrediting me is silly, and a poor debating tactic."

noxidereus

There's plenty more where that came from.

Fox news...they write for Fox news

and Fox news wants you

Shhhhh....before Current sends you an email stating you need to stop spaming for Fox.

And yet no one showed any respect.

kind of like Joe Wilson, eh?

Exactly.

Duh...which is why it's so terrible.