Secret Service investigating removal of three from Bush visit

[Arles]

What do you expect a town hall meeting with the president to be? A chance for any guy off the street to come in and spout off anti-war venom against him?

I guess we just have a difference of an opinion on what a town hall meeting involving the president is. Perhaps you've been watching a little too much of "the West Wing" and not enough of real presidential town hall meetings

[Arles]

In hopes of clearing up this thread, it appears that people like Flasch are not comfortable with their tax dollars being used on "Town Hall" style meetings. I certainly can understand this sentiment and think that is a very fair (and consistent) stance. The best thing to do would be to email your congressmen and ask that they either change the title of these events to "Issue advocacy" meetings or not allow public funding.

Outside of that, this process will probably continue on well past Bush and the next president as it has up to this point.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

In hopes of clearing up this thread, it appears that people like Flasch are not comfortable with their tax dollars being used on "Town Hall" style meetings. I certainly can understand this sentiment and think that is a very fair (and consistent) stance. The best thing to do would be to email your congressmen and ask that they either change the title of these events to "Issue advocacy" meetings or not allow public funding.

Outside of that, this process will probably continue on well past Bush and the next president as it has up to this point.

And that, my friend, is how I feel, EXACTLY. The title, you proposed, I would be fine with....

it was the terminology and how most American's think about it when they hear it.

BTW, I would be fine with the "town hall" meetings using tax dollars if everyone who got a ticket were treated the same...otherwise, what you say above i agree with.

[Arles]

I actually don't think this is all that unreasonable an action as well. The moons must be in some strange orbit today

[duckman]

It only took five pages to come to this conclusion.

[Arles]

I take pride in my verbose and somewhat obtuse nature on political issues

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

a "town hall" in which they do assume it is public.

You know what they say about assuming ...

Seriously Flasch, I worry about people who would make that assumption about a Presidential affair, even if it had a sign out front that said "Open House - Free Beer Here Tonight" ... regardless of what party that President happened to be a member of. I've dealt with the process with both parties (well, one sitting President and one ex-President) and there was no noticeable difference in how it was handled with either.

Assuming that anybody-can-just-come-on-in-because-it-said-Town-Hall shows a level of naivety that makes me believe those assumptors probably aren't going to be sharp enough to add anything worthwhile to the discussion in the first place, so their absence isn't really a loss.

Honest to goodness Flasch, I really do believe (cross my heart, no lie, no joke) that you're smarter than this if you slow down and think about it for a minute. If you want to rail against the reality of it, that's cool (I'll ignore you, but it's cool), but please don't confuse how-you-wish-things-are with how-things-are. That sort of error tends to damage credibility & effectiveness.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You know what they say about assuming ...

Seriously Flasch, I worry about people who would make that assumption about a Presidential affair, even if it had a sign out front that said "Open House - Free Beer Here Tonight" ... regardless of what party that President happened to be a member of. I've dealt with the process with both parties (well, one sitting President and one ex-President) and there was no noticeable difference in how it was handled with either.

Assuming that anybody-can-just-come-on-in-because-it-said-Town-Hall shows a level of naivety that makes me believe those assumptors probably aren't going to be sharp enough to add anything worthwhile to the discussion in the first place, so their absence isn't really a loss.

Honest to goodness Flasch, I really do believe (cross my heart, no lie, no joke) that you're smarter than this if you slow down and think about it for a minute. If you want to rail against the reality of it, that's cool (I'll ignore you, but it's cool), but please don't confuse how-you-wish-things-are with how-things-are. That sort of error tends to damage credibility & effectiveness.

Well honestly Jon, I think the fact that youre willing to ignore some and not others and say that youre okay with the way thigns are and not willing to think about the way things should be says a ton.

It is ok, to not think things are ok....EVEN if they'll never change. Its not naiive, its about standing behind your ethics and not throwing your hands up and saying, "oh well." I THINK that this STRENGTHENS credibility since you know Im not a hypocrite along with many others.

Just because they dont agree with you or dont agree with the admin. doesnt eman that they should be ignored...I reiterate my belief that you dont know if youre right unless you listen and consider the viewpoints of those you think are wrong.

Im sure you are equally as shocked that we disagree on most things and you would insinuate that my credibility is shoddy....WOW, that certainly comes out of nowhere that we would disagree and because we disagree instead of us being, equals and disagreeing, and our viewpoints being equaly valid.

im so

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lemme do the more important part first.

im so

If you're "eek" about what I said, then I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm not talking about whether the situation re: how "town halls" really work is right, wrong, or indifferent -- my point was basing assumptions on something other than reality. That is what I was talking about damaging credibility in this instance, not what you/they/me thought about "how it should be".

If you want to change the reality, have at it ... but when you make assumptions about how things will work before you effect that change, then you have to make them based on the existing reality.

What I'm getting at is:
You believe that "Town Hall" should = pretty much wide open.
That's fine, work on it then. BUT ...
if you show up at one truly expecting to get in the door without being screened at the door (for a variety of factors), then that's where you're crossing into the territory of problems with fantasy (how it "oughta be") vs reality (how it really is).

And what I was trying to say was that I've never thought you had problems distinguishing the difference between the two -- a left-handed compliment perhaps, but intended as a compliment nonetheless. Phrased another way, "Wishing doesn't make it (immediately) so", and no matter what I think of a lot of your politics, I really think you understand that.

And all of this was really a point about the comment you made about "which they do assume it is public." What I'm saying is that anybody who made that assumption is either naive or an idiot or both. NOT those things if they wish it was so, but definitely those things if they believed that's how things are right now.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme do the more important part first.



If you're "eek" about what I said, then I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm not talking about whether the situation re: how "town halls" really work is right, wrong, or indifferent -- my point was basing assumptions on something other than reality. That is what I was talking about damaging credibility in this instance, not what you/they/me thought about "how it should be".

If you want to change the reality, have at it ... but when you make assumptions about how things will work before you effect that change, then you have to make them based on the existing reality.

What I'm getting at is:
You believe that "Town Hall" should = pretty much wide open.
That's fine, work on it then. BUT ...
if you show up at one truly expecting to get in the door without being screened at the door (for a variety of factors), then that's where you're crossing into the territory of problems with fantasy (how it "oughta be") vs reality (how it really is).

And what I was trying to say was that I've never thought you had problems distinguishing the difference between the two -- a left-handed compliment perhaps, but intended as a compliment nonetheless. Phrased another way, "Wishing doesn't make it (immediately) so", and no matter what I think of a lot of your politics, I really think you understand that.

And all of this was really a point about the comment you made about "which they do assume it is public." What I'm saying is that anybody who made that assumption is either naive or an idiot or both. NOT those things if they wish it was so, but definitely those things if they believed that's how things are right now.

ok

BUT

if i showed up at a "town hall" meeting and got turned down I'd be pissed BUT if they wouldnt let me in to a Republican Issue debate then I would fully understand as long as Im not paying for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

... if i showed up at a "town hall" meeting and got turned down I'd be pissed.

And I'm cool with you being pissed about it ... just so long as you, intellecutally & realistically, knew that there was a reasonable chance it was going to happen.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I'm cool with you being pissed about it ... just so long as you, intellecutally & realistically, knew that there was a reasonable chance it was going to happen.

but Jon that doesnt make it right since I paid for it and the only difference between me and the person standing next to me (other than me being good looking) is somewhere in my brain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

but Jon that doesnt make it right since I paid for it and the only difference between me and the person standing next to me (other than me being good looking) is somewhere in my brain.

See, now there's the point we probably disagree on, but I'll only question your priorities/values/discernment from that, not your intellect (which is where I kinda gave you the wrong impression earlier).