After the jump you can read the most assinine arguement between democrats ever. It's in reference to a 'town hall' meeting Lamar Smith had and through a Yahoo! info group, we received a copy. There is actually a discussion on Robert's Rules Of Order. The whining democrats that send out these email arguements are the reason the Democrats deserve to lose elections. On one hand you have the right-wing retards, and on the other you have liberal whiners that make you want to beat the shit out of them.

Here's a tip Dems. Shut the fuck up and vote. Keep your pontifications to yourself. Read a talking point, stick to it and repeat it. Then...Shut the fuck up. I know that's hard to do because whining about something is so much more fun, but Jesus...give us all a break.

(Edited to Add) I don't think all Democrats are morons. The ones that actually show up, volunteer and raise money make me proud. In defense of one of the parties in this exchange, I think they were most likely trying to shut someone up.

Since John added this address to his list in the middle of our email
conversation, limiting what he showed here to the part that includes
the bizarre interpretation that I "think that a county chair can
legally shut down the county party," I thought I'd let you see the
whole conversation:

John 5/23:
Last Saturday, I went to a meeting with my Republican
Representative, Lamar Smith. I understood it was to be a town
meeting. It wasn't that. It was about a 30-minute presentation by
the Congressman followed by a question and answer period. Congressman
Smith hewed to the Republican Line on matters concerning Social
Security, Iraq, Homeland Security and other matters that I could
barely hear. Others had trouble hearing and asked the Congressman to
speak into the mike. During the question and answer period, I could
hear only those questioners nearby. Many of those who wished to ask a
question held up their hands like school children until they were
recognized. Only a few rose to their feet and called out their names
to be recognized as we Democrats doâ??or should do--in our
meetings.
Congressman Smith was polite enough while answering questions,
but he was clearly in charge. It was not a democratic meeting.
In the first place, the room was not set up for a democratic
meeting. There was but one mike, which the Congressman used
throughout the meeting, and the acoustics were poor. Seating was
inadequate. We sat on benches attached to picnic type tables in a
student cafeteria. It was difficult to rise to one's feet even if
one wanted to. It was not a suitable place to hold a democratic
meeting.
It was not a place encouraging to that open exchange of ideas
which we Democratic love and thrive on. Or do we?
Given many of the "democratic" meetings I have attended lately,
I am beginning to wonder if we really do like "democratic" meetings.
Just what should a democratic meeting be like?
First of all, it should be properly called in accordance with
the rules or bylaws of the organization. The meeting place should be
conveniently located and large enough to comfortably hold all who may
be expected to attend. There should be a dais from which the chair
can clearly see the entire assembly and a sound system, which will
allow all to hear and be heard clearly without having to shout. There
should be a separate lectern and microphone on the dais for other
speakers, if any, so that the chair can maintain control of the room
at all times.
The meeting should be called to order at the announced time, the
required conditions having been met. The first order of business
should be the approval of the agenda by the members. Once the agenda
has been approved it must be strictly followed unless the rules are
suspended by a two-thirds vote. The approved agenda must be followed
and business conducted on democratic principles, which require that
each member has an equal opportunity to speak without interruption
and to be heard on each issue before the assembly. Those wishing to
speak must rise as the previous speaker sits down and ask to be
recognized by the chair. No other conversation or unnecessary noise
should be permitted while a speaker has the floor. The business of a
democratic organization must be conducted with the utmost decorum
since, in many cases, the work of the people is being done. Members
must understand that it is ultimately their responsibility to
maintain order throughout the meeting. They should do that by calling
any disturbance to the attention of the chair, not by trying to quell
the disturbance by themselves.
There are those who rail under the restrictions placed on them
by the parliamentary procedure which has been adopted by most
democratic organizations (I don't believe a democratic
organization is possible without some form of parliamentary rules.).
These rules have been developed over the centuries to allow us to
experience democracy and to govern ourselves in a democratic way.
They are designed to protect the rights of members not present and
others unable to speak for themselves. They allow the majority to
prevail while protecting the rights of the minority.
How does one learn to conduct one's self under parliamentary
procedures? Like most skills, it takes practice under real-life
conditions. A little knowledge of parliamentary procedure will speed
the process and help to avoid embarrassing mistakes. The first
requirement for a chair should be the ability to conduct a meeting
under parliamentary law. All that is required here is the knowledge
of basic procedures. A competent parliamentarian should be appointed
to advise the chair in difficult or unfamiliar circumstances. If the
Chair knows the duties of that office and the members know their
responsibilitiesâ??and all are committed to democracyâ??an
orderly and productive meeting is assured.
Just how important are the meetings of the Democratic Party?
When we consider that all the substantive business of the Party at
all levels must be done in committees, the importance of our meetings
can not be over stated. Good ideas are plentiful. It takes the
approval and the support of the members to put them into action.
I am convinced that our failure to hold orderly and democratic
meetings from the county level to the national level has caused the
disorganized, powerless state our Party now is in. I believe that
only by conducting our meetings in accordance with our own rules can
we regain the power which we must have if we are to counter the
efforts of the Republicans and their right-wing supporters to destroy
the Democracy so many have fought and died for.
What should you do if you think the meeting is not going right?
You should stand up and state "Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of
order." The Chair must say "State your point of order." You then
state what you think is wrong. You may interrupt a member who has the
floor, and your point of order does not require a second.
There are those who say that it will take years to rebuild the
Democratic Party. I disagree. If we organized ourselves in accordance
with Party Rules, we can make a great difference in the 2006 Election
Cycle in every aspect from selecting the voting systems to ensuring
that the votes are properly counted. All of that and everything in
between is our responsibility.
Let's do it!

Mary 5/24:
Far be it from me to defend Lamar Smith in any way, but as the
gathering on Saturday was not the meeting of an organization and did
not have the purpose of conducting business, it would not have had
any reason for following the "Robert's Rules" procedures outlined in
your email. It was an open forum, not a "democratic" meeting where
decisions were to be made.
But as regards meetings of organizations at which decisions ARE
to be made and business is to be conducted, I agree with much in
John's email--the need for decorum and order at meetings, in
particular. However, while it's certainly possible that I'm mistaken
in my understanding, I understand some of the rules he discusses
differently from the way he presented them:
1. The agenda is set by the chair (preferably with prior input from
members before the agenda is announced) and is not approved or
disapproved at the meeting. There are two exceptions. The first is
items on the "consent agenda," a part of the overall agenda which
consists of routine, noncontroversial items that are approved or
disapproved with one vote and no discussion. A member can remove an
item on the consent agenda if, for example, he or she wanted the
opportunity to discuss it. The second exception is a convention
agenda, a convention being defined as a series of connected meetings
held over a limited and defined amount of time, e.g. five days.
A "call for orders of the day" requires only that the agenda be
followed, not that it be approved.
2. While speakers should, as John says, be able to speak without
interruption (except for points of order and a handful of other
circumstances), in order to facilitate the meeting's concluding
before 2 a.m., there is a limitation of 10 minutes on the amount of
time each person can speak and, when the meeting is large, this time
can be reduced to 2-5 minutes. After allowing the person making a
motion to speak first, the chair does not just recognize whoever
stands first but has the obligation to alternate speakers before and
against a motion, assuming there are speakers on both sides. In
addition, all wishing to be heard must be heard before any speaker
can speak a second time, and the chair does not recognize anyone
during debate on a motion who has already spoken twice on that motion.
3. Points of order, as John says, can be made at any time and do not
require a second. However, they are not debatable and are ruled upon
by the chair, unless the chair decides to turn the ruling over to the
assembly for a vote. Appeals from the decision of the chair, when
someone doesn't agree with the chair ruling on a point of order, must
be seconded and are debatable. Each member can speak only once in
this debate, however, not twice, with the exception of the chair, who
can explain his or her decision at the beginning of debate and again
at the end. Then members vote on whether to sustain the decision of
the chair. When voting, members must keep in mind whether their
organization's bylaws require adherence to Robert's Rules and should
not vote against sustaining the decision of the chair just because
they don't like it when that decision is clearly in accordance with
Robert's Rules.
4. The chair is not the only person able to sustain order at a
meeting. While he or she is the only person who can respond
officially to a point of order requesting, for example, that
extraneous conversation be stopped, members can accomplish a great
deal by using peer pressure to support proper decorum in a meeting.

John 5/24:
In response:
The yardstick by which all interpretations of Party Rules, which
include the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised,
is "Is it democratic?" For one individual to set the agenda would be
undemocratic. The current (10th) edition of Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised has this to say on the subject on page 360:
Agenda or Program
By a single vote, a series of special orders or general orders-or a
mixture of both-can be made; such a series is called an agenda. When
an hour is assigned to a particular subject in an agenda,that subject
is thereby made a special order unless, by footnote or other means,
it is stated that the time is intended merely for guidance, in which
case the subject is only a general order. Subjects for which no hour
is specified in an agenda are general orders. Usually an agenda
covers an entire session, in which case it is the order of business
for that session and is adopted by a majority vote, even if it
contains special orders. If a series of orders of the day that
contains one or more special orders is made by a single vote during
the course of a session that already has an order of business,
however, a two-thirds vote is required. After an agenda or program
has been adopted by the assembly, no change can be made in it except
by a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership,
or unanimous consent. An affirmative vote to adopt an agenda or
program may not be reconsidered.
I can only conclude that W is reading from a different
version of RONR than I am. The details of how debate is to be
conducted are depicted in RONR. In general, each member can speak
twice for 10 minutes on the same question on the same day unless the
assembly votes to limit debate. This vote requires a two-thirds
majority. The assembly, not the chair, makes such determinations.
When a member has the floor, no one else is allowed to speak or
otherwise create a disturbance except as detailed in the Rules.
Concerning the "point of order," It must be recognized by the
chair, and the chair does rule on it. If any member disagrees with
the chair's ruling, he/she may appeal the ruling of the chair. Such
an appeal requires a second, is debatable, and requires a majority
vote for resolution. Again, the members make the ultimate decision as
democracy demands.
Chapter XX of RONR deals with disciplinary procedures. Members
should be familiar with these procedures. The members are ultimately
responsible for maintaining order. The chair is responsible for
calling a disruptive member to order. If the member does not respond
properly to the chair's call for order, the chair must turn the
resolution of the matter over to the members. If the chair will not
or can not perform the duties of the presiding officer, the members
have the responsibility to take charge of the meeting. The people's
business must take precedence over all considerations except those
concerning safety.

5/25:
I think John is right in much of what he says. I don't think
we're reading different versions of the Rules. We agree on how often
and how long a speaker can debate and how to limit debate, as well as
on how a point of order is handled.
However, we disagree on how we interpret the sections related to
setting the agenda, and on what to do when a one or more members
believe the presiding officer isn't doing his or her job.
I find nowhere in Robert's Rules that says the members
must "take charge of the meeting" if some or all of them think the
chairman isn't doing his or her job properly at the meeting. Just as
the Constitution tells us how to get rid of the President of the
United States when the "membership" thinks he or she isn't doing his
job, an organization's bylaws generally contain procedures for
removing an officer. There would be nothing democratic about removing
an officer without using the process required in the bylaws. The
members have the right to appeal a decision from the chair and to
vote on it, but not to create anarchy by storming the dais, debating
without recognition, shouting at the presiding officer, etc. Within
the bylaws and the rules of what's proper to be discussed at a
meeting, members may, of course, bring up new business at the
appropriate time.
On the overall agenda, the "special orders" section John refers
to does not include setting the agenda itself but setting the time at
which one or more items in the agenda will be addressed. A 2/3 vote
is required to adopt a special order because it would require
suspending discussion on one item and taking up another when a
specified hour arrives. As a result, special orders tend to be rare.
General orders are another part of the agenda. The general
orders section usually consists of any motions which were made at a
prior meeting but postponed. To make items a general order requires
only a majority vote because, unlike special orders, they cannot
suspend business.
Note also that "session" in the part of Robert's Rules that John
quotes from (I think) Chapter 21 refers to a meeting in a convention,
not a regular meeting held outside a convention. A convention is a
series of meetings (or sessions) held within a specified time period,
e.g. two days, five days, and the full agenda for a convention is
voted upon during the first session. The agenda for a regular meeting
is set by the chairman or president, preferably with the input of the
membership, and is not voted upon.

John 5/26:
Speaking about the race for San Antonio Mayor between Julian
Castro and Phil Hardberger, Larry Hufford, a political scientist at
St. Mary's University stated on page 1B of yesterday's Express-
News, "It all depends on who gets their voters out." That sentence
explains the Democratic Party's dilemma in a nutshell. The only way
The Democratic Party can get its voters out is to organize. The only
way the Democratic Party can organize is by following the law
governing political parties in Texas. That law is expressed in the
Election Code, and in Party Rules which incorporate the current
edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Nowhere in that law
is authority given to one individual to stop the work of the Texas
Democratic Party or its county affiliates. Someone seems to think
that a county chair can legally shut down the county party. That
doesn't make democratic sense.
I have said nothing at all about "getting rid" of a county chair
if he isn't doing his job. It is clear that the members of an
organization have the right to conduct that organization's business
if the chair is unable or unwilling to call or to chair meetings. I
certainly have not advocated creating anarchy "by storming the dais,
debating without recognition, or shouting at the presiding officer."
On that last point, I must say that if the members--or the audience
as in Lamar Smith's meeting--do not have microphones available, they
have to shout to be heard if the room is of any size. Shouting adds
an unavoidable angry tone to anyone's voice and adds unnecessary
tension to any meeting.
I have yet to discuss the subject of special orders or general
orders. The information touching on those subjects I included in my
last email was an extract from page 360 of the current edition of
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. That section does explain when
a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required in setting the
agenda. I have been unable to find any section of our parliamentary
authority that would support Mary's contention that "The agenda for a
regular meeting is set by the chairman or president, preferably with
the input of the membership, and is not voted upon." I ask that Mary
point out where she found that information.
My hope is that the exchange between myself and Mary Cole on the
proper calling and conduct of meetings of the Bexar County Democratic
Party County Executive Committee (all party meetings for that matter)
will cause other Democrats to read The Rules of the Texas Democratic
Party and draw their own conclusions--and to seek a higher authority
than either Mary Cole or myself when in doubt about meaning. I speak
as a twice-elected precinct chair and I have read the law and the
rules as carefully as I can, but I have no legal authority to
interpret that information. I am not sure what standing Mary has
within the party, but I am confident that she has no more authority
than I do. I do have one vote on any issue before the CEC--if the CEC
ever meets so I can exercise that vote.
I do believe that the only way the Texas Democratic Party can
ever again be a force in the state or the nation is by organizing
itself according to its rules. Our rules can not be changed before
the 2006 Convention, so we have to go with what we have. They are
good rules. They will do the job.
Is it important that the Democratic Party gets organized? Does
it matter that Priscilla Owen has been elevated to the Federal Bench?
Does it matter that we have lost over 1600 of our young men and women
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan , not to mention the thousands
wounded and the civilians killed and wounded, since Gulf War II began
in 2003? The list of atrocities grows every day.The attack on
democracy is unrelenting. And all because we Democrats did not "turn
out the voters." The Republicans have a small majority, Democrats
waffle. The results are in the headlines. An organized party would
cure many of those ills.
That great union organizer, Joe Hill, reportedly said to his
supporters before he was executed by a Utah firing squad, "Don't
grieve, organize!
Grieve a little we must, but not so much that our vision is
dimmed or our determination weakened.

5/26:
I didn't know we were talking about the CEC or the Bexar County
Democratic Party. We started out talking about Lamar Smith's forum,
and I commented--rushing to clarify that I wasn't by any means
intending to defend Smith--that the forum wasn't a meeting of an
organization doing business, so criticism of it for not
being "democratic" or following Robert's Rules might not be well
placed.
I did go on to comment on a couple of John's assertions about
correct procedure according to Robert's Rules, but we were never
talking about a specific organization. While we agreed on far more
than we that on which we disagreed, I questioned the statement that
the agenda is approved by members of an organization, clarified that
members being able to speak "without interruption" does have time
limits, and expanded on what happens when a point of order is raised.
As it happens, we completely agree on practically everything.
Later, I apparently went aground when I questioned John's
statement that "If the chair will not or can not perform the duties
of the presiding officer, the members have the responsibility to take
charge of the meeting." At the time, I interpreted John to mean "take
charge of the entire meeting" but, on rereading, I see it's possible
he meant just to help call a disruptive member to order. That makes a
lot more sense than my first interpretation, where I was envisioning
members "storming the dais, debating without recognition, shouting at
the chairman, etc." Thank goodness! Sorry for my misreading of John's
statement!
So the only thing left is our disagreement about whether the
agenda is voted upon at a regular meeting. I commented on general
orders and special orders because they were mentioned in the section
of Robert's Rules John quoted to substantiate his assertion that the
agenda of a regular meeting is voted upon. I wanted to clarify that,
although general and special orders are, indeed, voted upon, they are
not the full meeting agenda, but only part of one. When I have more
time, I'll thumb through 400 pages of RR to see if I can find an
exact statement about not voting on the full agenda at a regular
meeting, although sometimes it's difficult to find statements in
procedural manuals about the absence of something.
I'm sorry that John decided to turn this discussion personal--I
was sort of enjoying it--and to suddenly to leap to the conclusion
that this abstract exchange was an indication that I "think that a
county chair can legally shut down the county party." We hadn't been
talking about any particular organization--only about Robert's Rules--
and suddenly I'm shutting down the county party! We were not talking
in specific about "the proper calling and conduct of meetings of the
BCDPCEC," but about meetings in general. Since all we disagree on is
whether an agenda is voted upon, I'm sorry to learn that John thinks
that this alone can "shut down" any organization.
I'm curious--has anyone else reading this exchange ever been to
a meeting, other than the first meeting of a convention, at which the
agenda was voted upon?
I do agree with John for the need for a "higher authority" in
the case of large meetings where disagreements about the Rules may
impede the business of an organization. A disinterested certified
parliamentarian can often be of great help in keeping the wheels on
the track.