Comments on: Insurgent Town Hall Meeting

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:59:08 +0000

I feel dirty.

By: Casey

Casey — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:50:44 +0000

Sensi bitchfest anyone?

By: Toby

Toby — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:23:37 +0000

I’ll say again, why not save us all the PR stunt and take something off the agenda rather than walkout. I want to personally thank Sen. Hamilton for appoligizing to Sen. Hicks and myself for the lack of professionalism and commonsense seen that evening. Good to see a Student Senate Leader stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions. Good Luck next year Sara…

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:20:33 +0000

I agree with everything Bryan said. He makes more sense than anything else I’ve read about the walkout. Bravo Bryan! That is all.

By: Miles Rost

Miles Rost — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:56:56 +0000

“Jon”: If I gave a damn about you, I would have actually campaigned. But, Japan is more important to me, and you’re not. Say goodnight, Gracie.

Mr. Rosenberg: Didn’t phase me for a minute.

By: Jonathan Rosenberg

Jonathan Rosenberg — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:01:05 +0000

Just in case someone might make assumptions, I want to make clear that the poster “Jon” is not me. I don’t post on this blog right now, but maybe later.

By: Matt P.

Matt P. — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:15:07 +0000

Yeah, why wasn’t Dallas at tonight’s “town hall” meeting? Dance class conflict?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:01:27 +0000

Mike, I’d like to address your comment that “simple discussion without financial repercussions is not in violation.” Also, your statement that President Frohnmayer “maintains a discussion is perfectly fine.” That’s what’s going on tonight. A town hall-style meeting, in which all are welcome to voice their perspectives, had been under discussion before the Senate meeting, and it was announced during the course of the meeting, before the walk-out took place. Don’t try to pretend David Goward or any of the senators who walked out on May 24 are opposed to this– they are among the people who called for it. Goward has expressed that he would even like to attend– but he’ll be at his weekly church meeting instead. That’s right.

What exactly would have taken place on May 24 had the Senate not performed its elaborate coup de grâce against FOX News and the inscrutable Dallas Brown agenda? No one knows. What was the agenda of Dallas Brown, or for that matter Bill O’Reilly, for that night? Again, no one actually knows.

Brown reversed course more than once between the time of his writing the resolution and the time of the Senate meeting, even going so far as to post a comment on this blog claiming he would not introduce the resolution. Yet he did attempt to introduce the resolution. Mic’d up for some unexpected attendees, FOX News. What were they doing there? If you wish to maintain that it would have been impossible, after it was determined early in the course of the meeting that the discussion of the Insurgent in that night’s Senate meeting would be limited to mere “discussion”, for the Senate or some of its members to then violate viewpoint neutrality, then you are either dishonest or hopelessly naïve. Quite likely both. If you wish to maintain that those who remained in the Fir Room on May 24 were somehow prevented from saying whatever they wanted to say, again, you are either dishonest or hopelessly naïve. Quite likely both.

By: Matt P.

Matt P. — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:54:33 +0000

It’s true.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:35:54 +0000

Yeah, at least Dallas kept it above the belt and didn’t resort to petty personal attacks or middle school-level sarcasm.

By: Matt P.

Matt P. — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:03:05 +0000

I miss Dallas Brown’s madness already.

By: frank

frank — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:34:13 +0000

huh?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:32:44 +0000

and Goward just go eat something and keep your mouth shut, nothing worthwhile ever comes out

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:22:03 +0000

…Dallas Brown… oh wait he is gone

By: olly

olly — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:20:27 +0000

Folks: this is all very well, but which brave senator will support a grievance accusing the Insurgent collective of TREASON?

Now is the time for true patriots to make a stand!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:15:26 +0000

http://oregon.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30729830&op=1&view=all&subj=11503102&id=11504495

Note the post walkout party…

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:09:52 +0000

While I am glad that my “talk” is above Filippelli, I do know that to try to defund or limit a groups funding based on content is illegal so why should the senators stick around only to argue against Dallas for awhile until they said something potentially incriminating and the resolution got shut down anyways? Think back to comments made about genocide and then realize that the senators made the right decision for themselves and the students they represent- and we only lost out because we didn’t get to sit around and laugh at what asses they would have made of themselves.

I am personally saving the title of greatest ASUO tool for Adam Walsh but that’s another story…

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:00:24 +0000

Wrong David, simple discussion without financial reprecussions is not in violation. So remove your mouth from her ass and try again. You can’t win this argument cause you are wrong. Oh yeah, check with President Frohnmayer because the two time Attorney General and Rhodes scholar, oh yeah, and the general counsel’s boss, would disagree with you. He maintains a discussion is perfectly fine. Your just wrong Goward. Go host a party for underage ASUO Insiders or something…

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:59:34 +0000

Goward:
In the court of public opinion, what may be legally the safest course may not be the smartest perception-wise. Lucky for you the whole “controversy” was being carried by O’Reilly, who has apparently found tastier bottom feeding elsewhere. Its just sad that thus far, almost everyone looks bad coming out of this…

By: Goward

Goward — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:53:43 +0000

Mike- Thanks for your note, but seeing how my interpretation of law was supported by the general counsel who has been doing incidental fee law for now maybe 15-20 years might make my opinion a litte more valid against some others who just want to interpret southworth to fit their needs or agenda