View Full Version : Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly Calls Free Speech "Terrorism"
Crazed Rabbit
07-03-2009, 04:45
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
From a LA Times interview. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrisonbass27-2009jun27,0,4807376.story) Boy, stuff like this just makes me want to give more power to the government, especially those who think they know what's bes for everyone!
:wall:
CR
Lord Winter
07-03-2009, 04:55
I'll admit her word choice was poor. But you don't see anything wrong with a few people forcing the entire party to stick to the party line?
^:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: If you don't have a westminstrian style government that won't be funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)
Crazed Rabbit
07-03-2009, 05:21
I'll admit her word choice was poor. But you don't see anything wrong with a few people forcing the entire party to stick to the party line?
No "forcing" of any type is occurring. What is happening is what anyone should desire - participation in the democratic process. They're saying they won't vote for people who support certain bills. That's a fundamental part of democracies.
And this representative called it terrorism, even while acknowledging it as free speech.
CR
Lord Winter
07-03-2009, 05:31
I thought the talk show hosts of the right were basically lauching a massive smear campign against anyone who didn't stick to the party line. Then again I'm not from California. Would someone clarify?
Reverend Joe
07-03-2009, 05:39
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
From a LA Times interview. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrisonbass27-2009jun27,0,4807376.story) Boy, stuff like this just makes me want to give more power to the government, especially those who think they know what's bes for everyone!
:wall:
CR
Wait... Rabbit, I don't get it. She's saying that the Republicans, who you support, are being bullied into voting against fiscal responsibility, which you support.
I fail to understand your rage.
Crazed Rabbit
07-03-2009, 06:01
:inquisitive:
Because she said people calling their representatives and threatening not to vote for them in the future was terrorism - you know, what's normally thought of as blowing up civilians. She ponders why such communication is allowed to exist.
She doesn't want people to be able to do such things. That is a very frightening and disturbing view.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
07-03-2009, 07:17
:inquisitive:
Because she said people calling their representatives and threatening not to vote for them in the future was terrorism - you know, what's normally thought of as blowing up civilians. She ponders why such communication is allowed to exist.
She doesn't want people to be able to do such things. That is a very frightening and disturbing view.
CR
I think the point is the people are not calling on their own individual account but are being rallied by a select few conservative radio talk show hosts, essentially turning them into lobbyists, disrupting the true feeling of the population by their populist measures and at the same time manipulating politicians who will not follow what is best for the state but will remain stubbornly tied to Republican doctrine because of their frighteningly ability to be challenged and ousted by these ultra conservative radio hosts with the power to condemn them and cost them re-election or even their career as conservatives.
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 07:53
But you don't see anything wrong with a few people forcing the entire party to stick to the party line?
That's the proper way for a political party to function.
I vote for my party, and what they've stated as their values, ideology, what they will do, etc etc in their party program and principle program. I wish to see them doing exactly that, exactly what I gave them my vote to do. I do not want some retard to screw that up. If "Party A" said they'd do "Thing B" if they got elected, then I want to see that done if they get elected, I don't want "Retard Member C" to screw it up, thus making a mockery of my vote.
a completely inoffensive name
07-03-2009, 08:10
That's the proper way for a political party to function.
I vote for my party, and what they've stated as their values, ideology, what they will do, etc etc in their party program and principle program. I wish to see them doing exactly that, exactly what I gave them my vote to do. I do not want some retard to screw that up. If "Party A" said they'd do "Thing B" if they got elected, then I want to see that done if they get elected, I don't want "Retard Member C" to screw it up, thus making a mockery of my vote.
The goal of a political party is to unite those of similar political opinions in order to have greater impact in the political process. It is not to promote and enforce a rigid dogma for all to follow without consideration of any and all outside thinking.
You choose the representative (your so called Retard Member C) to act on his own to make policy choices on your behalf, you nor the party has any control over his views, only whether or not to accept him as your representative. He was accepted, his actions were frowned upon by the party, deal with it by not accepting him for another term, don't attempt to enslave his mind to your will or the will of the party.
Lord Winter
07-03-2009, 08:15
A party platform can not perfectly fit the needs and desires of a whole nation. Often they are warped to the point where they merely reflect one region which a party needs to apease to gather votes, for example the GOP and the south. I want my repersentive to argue for my needs and not what some guy in a smokey back room wants.
Also what the repersentive promised and what the party promised can often be different things.
Furunculus
07-03-2009, 08:36
I think the point is the people are not calling on their own individual account but are being rallied by a select few conservative radio talk show hosts, essentially turning them into lobbyists, disrupting the true feeling of the population by their populist measures and at the same time manipulating politicians who will not follow what is best for the state but will remain stubbornly tied to Republican doctrine because of their frighteningly ability to be challenged and ousted by these ultra conservative radio hosts with the power to condemn them and cost them re-election or even their career as conservatives.
mot really an excuse, your electorate are considered to be responsible adults, you either trust them, or you don't and you remove pesky things like voting from government process.
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 08:42
The goal of a political party is to unite those of similar political opinions in order to have greater impact in the political process. It is not to promote and enforce a rigid dogma for all to follow without consideration of any and all outside thinking.
You choose the representative (your so called Retard Member C) to act on his own to make policy choices on your behalf, you nor the party has any control over his views, only whether or not to accept him as your representative. He was accepted, his actions were frowned upon by the party, deal with it by not accepting him for another term, don't attempt to enslave his mind to your will or the will of the party.
Nonsense!
I have never in my life had the opportunity to "elect my representative"(no such thing exists), but I have had the chance to vote for my party. I've never voted on a single person, I've always voted on that body of people called the Socialist Left-party. Hence, I want the MP's to act on behalf of Socialist Left's party platform for the period 2005-2009(and the government platform it resulted in), I do not want them to act on their own whims.
a completely inoffensive name
07-03-2009, 08:49
mot really an excuse, your electorate are considered to be responsible adults, you either trust them, or you don't and you remove pesky things like voting from government process.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the system of government somewhere. The people are to be in control of their government, but mostly through indirect means because of their ability to be easily manipulated. The trust is actually put in those that are elected, not the general public. If the people are to be considered to be responsible adults, you should wonder why the Founding Fathers did not instead establish a direct democracy?
Lord Winter
07-03-2009, 08:50
Two different systems. While it may make sense for you, it doesn't in a federation style state like the U.S.
EDIT: Once again ACIN posts before I can hit the submit button.
a completely inoffensive name
07-03-2009, 08:53
Nonsense!
I have never in my life had the opportunity to "elect my representative"(no such thing exists), but I have had the chance to vote for my party. I've never voted on a single person, I've always voted on that body of people called the Socialist Left-party. Hence, I want the MP's to act on behalf of Socialist Left's party platform for the period 2005-2009(and the government platform it resulted in), I do not want them to act on their own whims.
Well you must forgive me, the OP was about the California and the United States government, which I am sure has a different process then in your country of Norway. I seem to have assumed that we were both talking about the way things are done in America or more specifically the State of California, I am sure parties work much differently in your country then in mine.
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 08:54
Two different systems. While it may make sense for you, it doesn't in a federation style state like the U.S.
....Which is why you heathen yanks should realize that we europeans are superior beings of extraordinary intelligence and ability, and you should submit to our rule immediately. :smash:
a completely inoffensive name
07-03-2009, 08:59
....Which is why you heathen yanks should realize that we europeans are superior beings of extraordinary intelligence and ability, and you should submit to our rule immediately. :smash:
Of course, it will only be a matter of time before the United States wakes up and stops personally choosing who will fill what position and instead chooses which idealistic group to make the decisions for us.
I feel the need to label this as sarcasm here as I worry of the consequences if even one person were to take this seriously
Could be worse, our vice president who can't be bothered to work on sundays even when the roof is falling down actually managed to point out that some secular elements in society are just as dangerous as terrorism.
click for a-ha, yes...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/rouvoet_721694b.jpg
....Which is why you heathen yanks should realize that we europeans are superior beings of extraordinary intelligence and ability, and you should submit to our rule immediately. :smash:
PR system is fundamentally stupid and only such government needs improving.
Systems in Europe are the United Kingdom and I believe that Ireland has the same system, except they have alternative vote and RON implemented as well. MP is in a sense, is a local administrator, who oversees the area you are voting in.
(Comment about UK doesn't refer to the House of Lords or Monarchy)
As for comments against Direct Democracy, I recommend looking at the Switzerland system. The combination of the above processes along side direct democracy as counter-balances is indeed, a superior system. This prevents the government from getting away without consulting the people and this stops the people doing spur of the moment which would bring great reprecussions.
Hosakawa Tito
07-03-2009, 11:53
Hah, the terror part kicks in when the incumbent realizes he might get kicked off the gravy train and have to actually work for a living...
Louis VI the Fat
07-03-2009, 14:08
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
From a LA Times interview. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrisonbass27-2009jun27,0,4807376.story) Boy, stuff like this just makes me want to give more power to the government, especially those who think they know what's bes for everyone!
:wall:
CRWhy, America is a country at war. These unpatriotic Republicans ought to quit supporting terrorism and instead support their leadership in these times of war. Country First!
I am dismayed at your unpattriotic behaviour, Rabbit. Put that flagpin back on! :tongue:
Tribesman
07-03-2009, 20:36
Put that flagpin back on!
Is that the one with "made in China" on the back?
KukriKhan
07-04-2009, 04:50
Put that flagpin back on!
Is that the one with "made in China" on the back?
Don't get me started.
ICantSpellDawg
07-04-2009, 12:41
Why, America is a country at war. These unpatriotic Republicans ought to quit supporting terrorism and instead support their leadership in these times of war. Country First!
I am dismayed at your unpattriotic behaviour, Rabbit. Put that flagpin back on! :tongue:
Seconded. Rabbit should be ashamed that he is mocking one of our nations Mullahs. He didn't even request a license to post this topic! What Gall.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.