It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The best step to take at TownHall Meetings.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
It is my view that the best course of action that the so called angry mobs could take would be to appoint a spokesperson at each meeting. This person would take questions from the angry mob and then he alone would speak for them.

The current method of chanting and yelling is going to get them no where. While I also oppose the policies of Obama especially the healthcare reform, I cannot advocatate the mannor in which this opposition is being handled. They are setting themselves up to be discredited.

The use of a representative would make things go much more smoothly. Now, if the representative gets ignored or trampled over, then by all means, revert back to the protesting chants. Then it is warrented. By taking that initial step of courtesy, the mob puts the ball in thier court so to speak. They can then take the high road claiming, "Hey, we tried to talk about things, they would not hear us out." Instead, they are the ones seeming like the side that will not hear anything or let anything even be said.

What do others think?




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 


Ever try and quell an angry mob?

Even if they have a spokesperson . . . if they get riled, chaos will break loose.

The congressmen need to grow some balls and own up. Then they need to do what their constituents tell them to do. Period.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I think with the inclusion of Acorn and the SEIU we're way past your idea. Town halls are going to go from being a place to exchange questions/answers with your "reps" to being flashpoints between people who want to keep the Constituional republic that is America to people who want the Obamanation and all the perks they'll get.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I agree with both of you, but, at the same time, by taking this step they have that much more ground to stand on. It eliminates the argument from the other side that the group of people against thier agenda are just an unruly mob unwilling to listen. That would be the best reason to follow through with such a plan.

I think every citizen, wether for or against healthcare reform, should be against ramming it through hastily. No matter what we change in our healthcare system, something of this magnitude should be reviewed and considered very carefully.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
That' just it. Obama and his ilk are trying to ram this stuff down the American people's throat. About 90% of Obama's speeches can be summed up as "Let me be clear blah blah, now is the time to act, blah blah if we don't act then it'll be a disastor". While I do admire his desire to take on so many big things, he's bitten off a lot more than he or our country can chew.

I personally don't believe he has the country's interest at heart. After reading the thread on "The Apollo alliance" I even more sure that there's a bigger agenda at stake here than just healthcare. It doesn't help when he makes statements that the unions will push back against the protestors twice as hard and they shouls shut up and get out of the way. That tells me that he's not a President that cares about all the people, he only cares about certain special interests and furthuring his own agenda.

This country is in trouble and even if there were another "terrorist" attack I don't think you would see the rally around Obama that you saw with Bush after 9/11. Obama has spent all of his "capital" and he's not helping his case any by sending his union thugs to rough up people who I think for the most part are genuinely expressing them anger over what's going on right now.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 


I'm just going to point out that these idiot representatives have pretty much said they haven't read the bills, so what exactly is there to discuss?

Think of it this way, when you screw up and work and the boss calls you into his office and you know you screwed up and your going to get your butt reamed, what do you do? You shut up and take it smile and grit your teeth and tell them what they want to hear.

Now the difference between that in this situation is that the reps have constantly lied and nobody believes a word that comes out of their mouths. So how exactly can there be civilized discourse when the people that are supposed to represent us don't even know what is in the bill?

They say they want to "talk about it" well people have sent e-mail after e-mail, snail mail after snail mail. They still do what they want.

They are getting reamed by their bosses and instead of sitting their gritting their teeth and taking it they run and bus in the Union jackboots.

There can be no discourse when the "bill" that now doesn't exist was supposed to be passed before they went on recess. People have tried to be civil, but they payed no attention, now people are getting riled up.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Exactly. With all the complaining from rightie about being shut off over having a say over this healthcare plan, with all the talk of "Obamas brownshirts shutting out opposition" the rightwing sure have no issue coming to townhalls, insulting and shutting out any chance of a fair debate for anybody.

If you hate the plan, you dont want any form of socialize medicine (excepting for medicare ofcourse) by all means go there, express your concerns and say why, but dont shut off those who have the right to express their support and express their take on the matter, and to explain the plan. Your freedoms should be protected, but so should theirs. Your no different from the labels you use.

SG



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
This mob mentality is just not the way.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 

I've commuted between two states, primarily, the past few years.

The constituent meetings I've attended in Texas were more like "here's what I've done for you," than "look what you're doing to my country." But that was a while back.

In Indiana, they are more confrontational, but not accusatory or 'shouting matches.'

I don't see that the current recess demands that health care be the only focus, nor has it been. We've had a stimulus bill, bailouts, car talk, jobs/unemployment, cap and trade, education and financial aid, and smaller, more local, issues to address.

Given the abundance of issues, a single spokeperson seems far too restrictive.

It has always been my representatives' staff that tried to at least set a format, if not an agenda. As a practical matter, the rep and staff are completely responsible for the conduct, good or bad, of a constituents' meeting.

They set them up, they present the rep., they set the tone.

A "representative" has to be able to state what they've done, why they've done it and how this compares to their election promises/mandates.

If they don't enjoy the meetings, it's their own faults, not those of the citizens motivated enough to attend and speak out.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Aaron_Justin
 


Ever try and quell an angry mob?

Even if they have a spokesperson . . . if they get riled, chaos will break loose.

The congressmen need to grow some balls and own up. Then they need to do what their constituents tell them to do. Period.



It is very hard to do what their constituents tell them to do when one half of the constituents can't even speak or be heard over the chants and jeers.




top topics



 
0

log in

join