It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Protester on Fox: Pelosi 'Thugs' Came In 'Middle Of The Night,' Health Care Plan 'Sentences Our

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Whenever you can't come up with a valid argument, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Actually, the only rule is that you have to use your brain, and recognize when someone is scamming you.

You mean like the masses of tantrum throwers showing up at town halls buying what fox shovels down their throats?

That is the only rule that counts. Not everyone is a great keyboarder. That does not mean that what they say is not correct or important.

It's not their ability to spell that's in question. It's what the lack of attention to detail says about the rest of their thought processes.

You think folks who spell words incorrect on their resume get hired? There is a reason for that.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

+13 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Rule 1. You should be able to spell Constitution in order to write about it.

Rule 2. If you are not smart enough to spell, then you should be smart enough to use Spell Check.

Rule 3. If you still can't spell Constitution or lesson, then you are not tall enough to ride this ride.

Calm down man, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
Is this site or any debate only for 100% english speaking people?

Maybe he was typing in a rush, even I do that sometimes.
No big deal man
Attack the argument, not the person

You just lost an argument with the guy you quoted without him even needing to reply to you

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Where is the proof of someone showing up in the middle of the night? Hearsay doesn't count.

I assume you don't understand what hearsay means
The guy is saying they came and spoke to him, that means he was a witness to them speaking to him.

If you want to say maybe he's lying, fine. Even I included that in my opening post, hearsay is something else however.

+7 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Would you please add something to the thread on topic please? So far the only thing you have done is attack people, with a brief mention of the topic at hand in passing.

So please stay on topic.

+10 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

You think folks who spell words incorrect on their resume get hired? There is a reason for that.

This is a conspiracy board. Unless you're hiring, I don't think anyone but you cares if someone has a typo here and there. Do you think that someone who does nothing but spout the party line, and never has an idea on his own, gets hired by anyone but the party? People in business are paid to think on their own, not spout a party line, unless of course your business is pushing the party line.

+6 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

I'm still very supportive of the angry mobs. People have a right to be angry and a right to voice their displeasure with the government. What i do not condone, however is blatant strong arm tactics being employed by the government.

The angry mobs have been doing what is legal and their right. The Union thugs are suppressing the true voice of the American people and are doing it to protect Obama's political interests. It's very unbecoming of the President and his supporters in office.

+13 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

All you can do is insult me? You don't even know me. I don't agree with 99% of the stuff you post on here. I respect your right to speak your mind. I didn't spend 9.5 years in the Army defending your right to free speech for nothing. They say the freedom isn't free and I have seen that price paid several times over.

So I made a mistake in spelling, are you perfect? I doubt it. Attacking me over something so small is pathetic and does nothing to add to this discussion. I could just put you on ignore, but I'm not because I respect your opinon and no matter how much I disagree with your views I will still read them and respond appropriately. I would like the same courtesy.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Where is the proof of someone showing up in the middle of the night? Hearsay doesn't count.

Hrm, let's look at the major player in this. A former Senator from Illinois. Yeah, your right. There's no proof. After all, there's no history of use of violent union thugs by Illinois politicians.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:08 PM
All right, back on topic please, we're not discussing each other.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:12 PM
Just jumping in here with something I'm reminded of from today by this:

I flipped on the T.V. today, someone left on the Fox News Channel. So, I don't even remember specifically what the report was about other than protests or something and in the info bar at the bottom it said, verbatim to the best of my immediate recollection, "Are loud protests un-American?"

I said, "What the ....?" and flipped the channel to SyFy.

So, why are loud protests suddenly "un-American"? Is it because it no longer is exclusively Tea Partyers involved?

[edit on 8/10/2009 by EnlightenUp]

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:14 PM
The guy sounds totally nuts.. but there could be some truth to his accusations.

Where I grew up, surounded by unions, there were many cases of intimidation to vote one way or another. In some extreme cases union members assaulted and even committed arson to scare off those oposing the union.

I'm not saying the guys telling the truth, but there is the possibility he is. Who knows. The fact that it made it to msm is mildly surprising.. though it makes protesters look like morons.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

This most likely happens in the US too, so it may not be news at all. But I'll jot it in here anyway as it might be relevant.

During the last general elections in Oz, people received alarming letters delivered during mainly night time. The letter was discovered to contain complete untruths, but depending where people stood on the political divide (artificial political divide) they appeared to 'confirm' the recipients' fears, opinions, etc.

It was eventually discovered the letters had been written, printed and delivered by the spouse of an incumbent who in turn hoped to retain her seat and to help return her own party and sitting Prime Minister.

Well, the incumbent denied all knowledge of the letters (whether she was in fact lying about this has never been clarified).

And the sitting Prime Minister (fighting supposedly to retain his office) also vehemently denied any knowledge of the letters and branded them 'a disgrace'.

The party which stood most to gain had the letters swayed the vote were emphatic the letters had nothing to do with them and again, branded the letters an 'outrage'.

In the end, the spouse of the incumbent took the fall. He was regarded as a lunatic and sneak.

His wife lost her seat

The Prime Minister and his party lost the election.

Therefore, if we're to believe the news and subsequent court cases, the letters had in no way been authorised by the PM or his party. Instead, the letters had been the work of a man (and his friends) who were unhinged by political fanaticism. It could be argued that the fanatics went a long way towards swaying the election against the PM and the party then in power.

Perhaps the 'standover thugs' reported in the OP were the same ?

OR -- perhaps the 'thugs' were anti-Obamists, posing as Obama-faithful ?

Wouldn't be the first time people have hit the news and generated fear and outrage by claiming they'd been victimised -- only for it to be discovered that the 'victims' had committed the outrage themselves.

Just a thought.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:36 PM
The guy seems a little off and extremely motivated by ideology. He brings his handicapped son to the town hall and uses him as a tool to further an agenda against Obama in order to get sympathy points? What a tragedy.

Then he goes off in the interview and starts ranting about how this bill will kill old people and condemn everyone to death - isn't it obvious he isn't about constructive dialogue? What kind of message does that send his son, who has cancer and CP? Listen, son, if this bill passes you're going to die. Hope it doesn't pass!

There are ways to get your message across other than doing things like that.

For me, since he's willing to manipulate his child to further this agenda, he'd be willing to make up a story about some anonymous "Pelosi/Reid/Stoyer/Obama/Union" thug coming in "the middle of the night" and threatening him.

It makes me think that the real story might be a neighbor that saw what he did at the meeting and came to his house to tell him what a tool he was for doing it and he's using it as an excuse to blame the evil shadowy Democrats at the top.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

What is obvious is the White House and Congress brought this on themselves by trying to pitch the idea of Health Care Reform with out an actuall Health Care Bill that is finalized and ready to be voted on that spells it all out.

Sure it might seem like it's about Obama but the truth is people would be nervous about this regardless of which party was in power when it is so poorly and so unproffesionally portrayed.

The competent and responsible thing to do would be to have actually formulated a Bill finalized in all committees, publish that Bill on line at the Library of Congress and then send Congress People and Senators out to talk about it.

In large part that's how the argument ends up getting twisted to being anti-Obama because you can't be anti-the real Bill because there is no real Bill yet.

It's government at it's worse and guess who is in charge of government and wanted to be?

I will give you a hint the first initial starts with O as in what a ZERO that something as important to people as their own health can't be addressed with a real Bill in black and white for people to actually debate.

The White House and the Congress through their either deliberate planning or sheer incompetence have set this up to be another Personality War and to rely on members of the Obama personality occult to shut down critical thinkers and people with real questions about WHAT THE HECK OUR OUT OF CONTROLL GOVERNMENT IS UP TO NOW.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:48 PM
Perhaps he was trying to put a face on his concerns. It's easier to put down an idea without imagery. It seems people respond better to imagery than someone standing asking a question. As someone who takes care of special needs kids the parents/foster parents are special people in most cases and there's a very deep seated love there. I think they see this bill as a danger to their kids.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:49 PM
Can I inject a comment, that hopefully is close to topic, if only in a generalized way??

There seems to be a continuing fairly clear distinction, here on the 'boards', showing certain leanings, and I'd say there is apparently a fair majority of folks who, when it comes to US politics, seem to be coming down on the right-hand side.

Just an observation....

NOW--- since this is a conspiracy site, I'm wondering if any of those who have been railing about 'The Powers That Be" (TPTB) for very long, DO realize that for the last, oh, eight years or so 'TPTB' were the Rebulicans, correct??

Does it not seem to appear to anyone that, now that the GOP is in the 'minority' they may feel compelled to resort to ANY tactic to disparage and sabotage the current Administration, and Congress, and House??

Does it not seem to be a sort of 'conspiracy", to be lied to by the former 'PTB', who will resort to anything to rile people up, manipulate them, all in the same vein as usual, only with a lot more vitriol than when they were in "power"??

Just in this very thread, a valued member received a red tag, virtue of an "ad hom" post. Ironic, seems to me, that the very TITLE of this thread is a sort of "ad hom" directed (indirectly) at the current Speaker of the House. Mysogyny? Sour grapes? Or just simple sexism???

Those who decry 'conspiracies', and claim to be watching out constantly for them, may be easily manipulated in a larger conspiracy and be totally unaware.

Just thoughts, for discussion.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:51 PM
But does it make sense that a government would basically encourage tens of thousands (who knows, maybe millions) of non-Americans to relocate in the US

and at the same time, start killing off natural born Americans ?

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

NOW--- since this is a conspiracy site, I'm wondering if any of those who have been railing about 'The Powers That Be" (TPTB) for very long, DO realize that for the last, oh, eight years or so 'TPTB' were the Rebulicans, correct??

So why aren't TPTB the Democrats? They are in control now. Lot's and lots of people on this thread are against both parties.

The current issue at hand is did Union jackboots really try to threaten this guy or not. If it really did happen, then the Democrats are the ones that sent them to do it.

Many. many people despise both parties and feel that they are opposite sides of the same coin and neither side is working to anybodies best interest but their own.

You might feel that people are coming down on the "right side" of things, but the truth of the matter is that they are against this bill, not necessarily health care reform in general.

+2 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The Powers that Be my friend are A Political. They are not Republicans they are not Democrats. The Powers that Be select for you a slate of cantidates that are Republican and Democrats so that no matter which you ellect the same Powers that Be are in control and in charge.

They like to employ Democrats in a certain way, they like to employ Republicans in a different way, so it appears that there is a difference.

Exactly how many times did the Democratic controlled congress not let Bush get his way his last 2 years in office when he was what? 23-35% approval ratings.

They rolled over for him every time after they put on the dog and pony show with the usual name calling and sniping and accusations then they would sit down and vote yes and gave him what he wanted.

Why because almost every last one of them...brought to you by the Powers that Be.

There is such a small number of democrats and republicans in the House that are not selected and owned by the Powers that Be than to be less than a dozen.

There is never anyone in the White House not controlled by the Powers that Be, and if someone skips the leash...bang, bang, bang.

The Powers that Be aren't partisan, the Powers that Be get their power by making you be partisan.

[edit on 10/8/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I'm saying exactly that. I'm saying that just because this man alleges people came to his house in the middle of the night doesn't make it so. I think it's pretty arrogant though. Maybe if there were 30 people who said this happened. Right now this is pretty much a MIB story in my eyes.

On another note...

I never thought of the poster not being an english speaker.

And I apologize if I offended anyone. I just found it completely ironic that someone who is carrying on a conversation about the merits and interpretation of the Constitution wouldn't be able to spell it right.

You're right though. It was in bad taste. And I came off as a jerk.

That's why there is a warning tag next to my name currently.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Good post

Good post which puts it back in perspective

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in