Revolt against AARP

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Aug 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    #1 Revmitchell, Aug 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2009
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a mess. Haven't these folks ever heard of parlimentary procedure?
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    yes that is what is important here:rolleyes: She left simply because she did not like what was said.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    :laugh: I think that's terrific.

    The leadership of AARP hasn't been responsive to their members for a long time.

    Since the members there did not agree with her, she packed up and left.

    the elderly are smarter than AARP thinks they are. They know that Obamanoncare is going to shaft them first and worst.
     
  5. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0

    Parlimentary Procedure.... yes..... in parliment.

    But in any meeting where it is 'town hall'...... it is the wrong presumption of organizers to think they are going to start the horse and pony telling the audience what it thinks and agrees with before it starts..... In such case, it becomes clear to these seniors, some of which, no doubt, have had experience sitting in group workshops where the outcome and the format was already predetermine by 'leaders' who would then steer all discussion and 'agreement' into a false 'consensus'. These seniors knew the purpose of this meeting was not to get their opinion and ideas....(clue; the presumptive way the opening 'led' in) but to get the appearance and validation that the public had been consulted and was in agreement.

    Not all 'committee' meetings or 'townhall' meetings or problem-group solving is design to get one's input. Many may start off with the appearance of order.... parlimentary or Robert's...... but, as useful as order is, if one is desiring discussion, openness, and input...... you don't head it off by telling others what they think and how they agree..... before they've had a chance to speak or vote....... to do so is (and I don't care if the rules don't have something to deal with this.....) dictatorship, anti-democratic, and impeachable. Instead of receiving the public, it is dictating to the public. The people retains only those rights it exercises. In our country.... free speach even gives US the right to refuse to conform to rules.... when, at some point, it becomes apparrent that the 'public platform' offered to us is for apprearance only..... and those so-called 'rules of order' are only designed to use, accuse, and control, limit or censor entirely, the free speach which was promised.

    No matter what the song and lies from the AARP, this meeting was like so many which are predetermined in outcomes..... and the meeting is designed with the purpose of propagandizing consensus to the public like 'see here, we heard from you all..... and we all came to agree'..... when there was no sincere attempt made to open the floor.

    In reality, any meeting intended to get the public input.... can have an organized agenda which allows various presentations or questions..... but it is off..... dead off from the very start, if someone steps forward, promoting their own or their associations opinion as speaking for the group with out first having recognition by that group as leader and spokesperson.

    I don't like AARP. Whatever their claims..... they are NOT apolitical.

    I hope more people are observant of their free speach regarding this legislation and the meetings set up.
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    It boggled my mind when the AARP first sold out Medicare to Bush and then their health plan insurance ads started.They must have made a $billion by now.
     
  7. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since AARP is confused and sending me literature now, (dear me, I'm not that old am I?), Just do what I do when I receive unwanted mail. Plainly state on the return documents that you do not want any offers/programs/insurance/etc. and return it in their pre-paid envelopes. I do this with all my junk mail and have found it to be quite a deterent, (not only giving me something to do Saturday night, but since they have to pay for it.) To find out how I deal with tele-marketers, just send $1.00 to me, via telephone.
     
  8. rdwhite

    rdwhite
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    For over a decade now, we have placed a gospel tract in all the postage paid envelopes and mail them back.
     
  9. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a good one. Now I really know what to do with all the fake $50.00 tracts I just dump in a busy parking lot!
     
  10. rdwhite

    rdwhite
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you make sure your address is on the tracts, it will get your name removed from many mail out lists. And occasionally, someone will write back and thank you and tell you how God used that tract at that precise moment in their life to bring them to salvation.

    Anyway, back to the OP, sorry, I did not mean to hijack the thread. I watched the video and it was awesome. If that video goes viral AARP will have to recant at least and it may put them under.
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it was THAT they disagreed, it was HOW they disagreed.

    Permit me to repeat our president, "we can disagree without being disagreeable".

    We can disagree with each and still respect each other. There is no mandate to disrespect me because you disagree with me. If one wants to be heard at a meeting, the custom is to raise your hand and wait until you are called on. Until then, respect the person speaking.

    This is called civil discourse 101 and is what you expect your children to do, I don't know why we lower the standard for adults.
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree, she left because of how they were saying it.
     
  13. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, great idea, thanks for sharing... :thumbsup:
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I've always been revolted by the AARP gun grabbers.
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes...our president has been a paragon of virtue when it comes to this issue. At times, he's even "acted stupidly." :eek:
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    When you subvert the constitution you do not get "disagree without being disagreeable"

    When you work to slaughter innocent unborn human life you do not get "disagree without being disagreeable"

    When you work to fundamentally change the foundation of this country you do not get "disagree without being disagreeable"


    Such views are not equal to reality nor are they to be appreciated. They are to be opposed, defeated, and destroyed.
     
  17. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0

    Permit me to repeat our SAVIOR...
    Notice who Jesus cared for.. the innocent...

    And your president votes to destroy the innocent life in the womb.. and he promotes legislation that will harm the elderly.

    I for one would rather act like my Savior than our baby killing president.

    There are times that we must not just disagree agreeably.. as our Savior here demonstrated.. there are times that we MUST become righteously indignant...

    Mr. Obama's words are empty... The only reason he says this is because he doesn't want us extremists that know that he promotes baby murder to mess up his agenda.

    There is no way to disagree agreeably over Abortion.. (and that is the topic he was referring to when he spoke those words at ND at the commencement ceremony)

    Either a person is against abortion or for it.. no in between.

    And anyone actively promoting the right to get an abortion is lying when they say they are saved.. because saved people abhor sin.

    There are times we MUST stand up for righteousness..

    Of course the devil in Obama will tell everyone to calm down.. only because it scares Satan when God's people rise up!
     
  18. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus made it clear it was His house. He sets the rules and can do what He wants in His house.

    This is OUR country, per our constitution we have a representative form of government and we make changes and decide issues by majority vote. It is as much the Lefts country as it is the Rights country.

    As for what Jesus protected, he protected the sanctity of His House. This verse has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with defiling God House. Jesus was setting His House in order.
     
  19. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    A president and a concurrent majority in congress of the same political party does not mean that they can do whatever they want.

    There will be consequences when the next election rolls around.

    As for majority vote - perhaps we could use a national referendum to see what the people really want in the way of health care reform.
     
  20. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Either way the consequences will be felt in the next election. I want the public plan I was promised and voted for in the last election and you will vote them out if we get a public plan. So the question is what does the majority want?

    Coming into this 72% wanted a public plan
    Obama campaigned on the public plan and he won

    Trust me, the democrats are toast if we don't get a public option so fearing someone who wasn't going to vote for them anyway is the least of their worries. They need to do for those who voted them in and MIGHT vote for them again.

    Is that what the constitution says?

    We went to the polls and gave the democrats a super majority so they should have no hesitancy passing their agenda. We gave them the green light on Nov 4, 2008. All this negotiating, debate and talk of co-ops is loosing them support from their own voters. What they need to do is what we sent them there to do. Get us a public option.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...