Its also in the best interests of corporations to have functional doors and microphones. Should we oppose doors?
Are doors a sinister scheme to protect corporate interests and politicians? Afterall how could government or corporations operate well without doors?
Would recognizing that doors have a legitimate purpose be an example of shilling for corporations?

Is there no room for recognizing the reasonable functions of rules of order and rules against insults and incivility without being a corporate/big government shill?
Should anyone and everyone be allowed to speak during all government hearings and proceedings and say whatever they want? Or do you support some rules?
Are you merely against this particular instance of silencing because you support her message?

Would turning all meetings and hearings into a bigger shitshow end up abolishing government and/or undue benefits for corporations?

Should we necessarily oppose anything and everything that could conceivably be in corporate or US government interests?
Or are some policies reasonable or good despite the possibility that they benefit some businesses?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 12 2018 09:59pm

There was no insults, only facts, you are dodging pretty hard on this one.

Did you even read my post? what does your statement have to do with what i said? what am i dodging?
I'm directly questioning the principles and reasoning behind your position.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 12 2018 09:58pm

BECAUSE AT A DISCUSSION OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL THE FACT THAT CORRUPTION IS INVOLVED IS AS RELEVANT AS IT GETS.
How can you discuss a bill and leave individual corruption off the list of discussion topics?

No, it isn't. There are rules for decorum and making corruption allegations are clearly outside of the bounds of discussing the policy.
If they held an open discussion on financial regulation and she got up there and started screaming that 'the wall street kikes are stealing our hard earned money and poisoning wells' and started reading off lists of goldbergs and bernsteins, they would remove her and she would be just as wrong for screaming about being oppressed because muh free speech 'because the dirty rat jews' are as relevant as it gets when it comes to financial regulation

Then why discuss the policy at all?
If corruption is not an issue what possibly could be a more worthy topic of discussion?
And your rhetoric is pathetic, because she never once used racism or any other defamatory remarks.

Its quite simple really. You can discuss the merit of the bill.
Its something you and heinrich cant seem to do in any thread.. but the rest of us are more than capable.

It was a public hearing on a specific bill. Requiring that comments be about the bill rather than personal attacks is standard and reasonable. Its not a special rule for this case.
Hearings would be a shitshow if they were full of personal attacks rather than discussing the policies.

Alleging that the politicians involved are corrupt because there were some small donations doesn't determine whether a policy is good or not.

Would you care to answer the questions i posed about the principles of the matter?

/ Goomshill just raised a similar good point along the lines that i was thinking as well.

In a court of law if a judge or a prosecutor is found to be corrupt, there is no "debating the merit of the case".
They are instantly recused from the case.
Politics should be the same.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Feb 12 2018 10:34pm

Man who filmed himself punching a toddler in the face is jailed for 17 years

https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-filmed-himself-punching-a-toddler-in-the-face-is-jailed-for-17-years-11247505


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suba%C4%8Dius

How that kind of people are able to exist ?

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Feb 12 2018 10:48pm

holy shit, that's an instant fallacy bingo: false equivalence, slippery slope, ad hominem... you've got them all, don't you?
what you apparently don't have is ANY shame when it comes to making excuses for the corrupt system that infringes upon all the freedoms that the people you amusingly claim to be a part of, regard so highly.

seriously, when "working doors" are equated to a system that allows corporations to buy politicians, which in turn introduce favourable legislation for them (as seen on a daily basis in american politics, from local to national level), you know you're one dishonest hack. if you really can't distinguish between a system that allows corporations to efficiently work with lawmakers on practical solutions on the one hand, and outright buying politicians to introduce basically whatever they want on the other hand, then you should know you have no business even pretending to make a valid argument.

and when you have to act like someone calmly providing FACTS about "campaign donations", is somehow "turning ALL meetings and hearings into shitshows" and therefore unacceptable, you really should not expect anyone to take you seriously. the whole "i'm just saying THIS is not the way" narrative is as lazy as it is transparent.

it reminds me of the nfl protest opponents: pretending to acknowledge the right to oppose something in theory, just never in the manner someone chooses to do it, never in a way that actually has a CHANCE of changing something, or at the very least draw attention to it and make the public question the system...