Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Obama Makes Free Speech a Felony, Signs Anti-Protest Bill!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MolonLabe2009, Apr 20, 2012.

Page 1 of 2
  1. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    MolonLabe2009, Apr 20, 2012
    #1
  2. exotix

    exotix New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    14,859
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From what I understand you just can't block or interfere with officials while protesting ... so let's chalk this thread up to another right-wing paranoid thread raised to great heights of socialist / communist / national socialist facsist take-over-of-America-and-the-World tragedy ...
     
    exotix, Apr 20, 2012
    #2
  3. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The point of the secret service is to protect the people they are covering. That is the entire point. Now the president signs a bill that keeps people from protesting.
     
    Consmike, Apr 20, 2012
    #3
  4. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm assuming there are special exemptions for Columbian escorts.
     
    MolonLabe2009, Apr 20, 2012
    #4
  5. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One step at a time Marxism creeps forward until there is nothing but Marxism...then it is too late. We aren't crying wolf here, this is the truth.
     
    CoolWalker, Apr 20, 2012
    #5
    Consmike and (deleted member) like this.
  6. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    amen my brother.
     
    Consmike, Apr 20, 2012
    #6
  7. Not The Guardian

    Not The Guardian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course! They don't like the law because it keeps them and their guns from the president.
     
    Not The Guardian, Apr 20, 2012
    #7
  8. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is beyond rude! We may not like this president but we would never harm him physically. How completely absurd for anyone to say that...but being a Leftie, it just shows what you think would be natural for someone to do to someone YOU don't like.
     
    CoolWalker, Apr 20, 2012
    #8
  9. Not The Guardian

    Not The Guardian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've cited quotes on here expressing that exact desire.
     
    Not The Guardian, Apr 20, 2012
    #9
  10. WalterSobchak

    WalterSobchak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    24,602
    Likes Received:
    21,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The last GOP President double downed on Free Speech Zones. Not a single peep from the cons.

    [​IMG]
     
    WalterSobchak, Apr 20, 2012
    #10
  11. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Believe me many of us screamed our heads off at The patriot Act.It is immoral I feel and should be stricken. Our Freedoms...ALL of them, are precious. We can't allow even one of them to disappear, not now, not ever.
     
    CoolWalker, Apr 20, 2012
    #11
  12. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's all over the internet...look it up (Lord, lefties are lazy).
     
    CoolWalker, Apr 20, 2012
    #12
  13. The XL

    The XL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Barack is just as authoritarian as any of the recent neocon presidents. And Romney is just as bad, if not worse. Yay for the authoritarian, anti-constitution, Coke/Pepsi political system we have.
     
    The XL, Apr 20, 2012
    #13
  14. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,950
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    A case of selective outrage perhaps? The left would explode with rage if Bush had signed such a bill (please don't pretend they wouldn't).
     
    Object227, Apr 20, 2012
    #14
  15. The XL

    The XL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It isn't right vs left at this point. They're all coming for your freedoms.
     
    The XL, Apr 20, 2012
    #15
  16. Not The Guardian

    Not The Guardian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I wouldn't. The President, any President, needs protection. Especially Obama, what with the number of extremist racists out there since he was elected. That's all that this is about.
     
    Not The Guardian, Apr 20, 2012
    #16
  17. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably correct. So both sides are guilty of selective outrage.

    think about this- if this is a real bill- it passed through the Republican controlled house, the Democratic controlled Senate and was signed by President Obama.

    And you blame President Obama for it.

    And yes....plenty of selective outrage to go around.

    Apparently the Republican House had nothing to do with the bill that they passed.....
     
    SFJEFF, Apr 20, 2012
    #17
  18. Veni-Vidi-Feces

    Veni-Vidi-Feces New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,594
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It does not sound like you speak for Ted Nugent.
     
    Veni-Vidi-Feces, Apr 20, 2012
    #18
  19. GeddonM3

    GeddonM3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    20,283
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83
    only person to shoot at the prez so far was a psycho liberal from the Occupy movement.
     
    GeddonM3, Apr 20, 2012
    #19
  20. jackson33

    jackson33 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/#pxXxHHOqFcXpBzev.99


    The way I understand the bill, it extends what were misdemeanor's, to felonies, primarily in DC. It was introduced by a Florida "R" and sign by the President that promoted OWS, whom would be most opposed and his base.
     
    jackson33, Apr 20, 2012
    #20
  21. RP12

    RP12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    48,878
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama isnt President for life.... And the SS does more then protect the President. Another failure of a post from you.
     
    RP12, Apr 20, 2012
    #21
  22. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,557
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bill is extremely vague. It makes it a felony to trespass on property where the selective service is operating. That isn't just for the president. The SS protects many other politicians as well.
     
    BleedingHeadKen, Apr 20, 2012
    #22
  23. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you read the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing OP...jackass?

    Libearls are so (*)(*)(*)(*) inept, that they come into a thread and then ask questions about the topic as of which they have not a clue about.
     
    Consmike, Apr 20, 2012
    #23
  24. WatcherOfTheGate

    WatcherOfTheGate New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,520
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does " Free Speech Zones " ring a bell?
     
    WatcherOfTheGate, Apr 20, 2012
    #24
  25. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Instead of relying on "what you understand", why don't we actually read the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE BILL, shall we?


    3/8/2012--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 17, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] -

    Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of:

    (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds,


    (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or


    (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance .

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347



    One and two seem reasonable enough, at least in today's world; it's NUMBER THREE that I find more than a bit worrisome; it is far too vague, and allows for far too much ARBITRARY APPLICATION OF RESTRICTION based on an "event of 'national significance' "?

    Who , exactly, MAKES THAT DETERMINATION?
    Nowhere NEAR enough restrictions on the Federal government utilizing this bill to suppress opposition political speech...NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH...
     
    Grokmaster, Apr 20, 2012
    #25
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page