Obama Makes Free Speech A FELONY!!!!!!!!!!

[JD4570]

Simply put is you have one group doesn't like the way the other group wants to go "around the mountain" so one takes the north side while the other takes the southern route. All the while the Exec takes the high road, and they all end up at the same place.

 

[chickened]

Unfortunately free speech is only applied when you agree with Obama, or his sheeple.

Why would the power to only arrest/remove them be acceptable? Our country was founded on the basis of freedom which includes the freedom of speech including to support, or protest, for or against a political figure. It is yet one more civil liberty taken away from us. How has it come that in the United States Of America, you can be arrested for speaking opposition to a candidate and wind up serving time for a felony??!! Understand that every time one of our freedoms are taken away, it puts us one step closer to Communism. EVERYONE should be appalled and enraged by this. THIS is not what our elected officials were intended for!

 

[duckinnut]

Why does the liberal left always assume that when we disagree with Obama that it's due to hatred of the man? I disagree with most of his policies and way of thinking but does that make me hater of him, absolutely not. I truly believe he is a genuine good guy and a good father and family man but feel his ideologies are convoluted. The one thing that makes me not want to vote for beyond his policies is that he takes the blame for nothing, takes credit for achievements that are not his and blames everything on somebody else.He has divided this country more than any other president in recent history. That just makes him less of a man.

 

[Q9]

This bill, I believe, is H.R. 437. It passed the House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes (unfortunately Rep. Ron Paul was campaigning and was not able to add a fourth "no"), and passed the Senate unanimously - which means, the two guys besides Ron I thought I could trust, Senators Rand Paul and Jim DeMint, voted for it. I feel extremely betrayed by these two.

What H.R. 437 does is essentially declare that any protest on certain government property is now illegal, and it is now illegal to protest near any event or person protected by Secret Service. The potential for abuse is astounding. What is the purpose of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble if we can't do it near the politicians?

I am horribly let down by both the "Tea Party" Republican congressmen and President Obama. The Tea Party Republicans ran on limited government, and Obama ran on civil liberties. In the immortal words of Lord Acton, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Both Left and Right should be ashamed. Whatever happened to Republicans' much-hyped respect for the Constitution? Of course, we learned long ago that it only counts when the Democrats are in power. Whatever happened to the Democrats' much-hyped concern for civil liberties? Likewise, we learned long ago that it only counts when Republicans are in power. When it comes down to it, they're all the same.

 

[duckinnut]

This bill, I believe, is H.R. 437. It passed the House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes (unfortunately Rep. Ron Paul was campaigning and was not able to add a fourth "no"), and passed the Senate unanimously - which means, the two guys besides Ron I thought I could trust, Senators Rand Paul and Jim DeMint, voted for it. I feel extremely betrayed by these two.

What H.R. 437 does is essentially declare that any protest on certain government property is now illegal, and it is now illegal to protest near any event or person protected by Secret Service. The potential for abuse is astounding. What is the purpose of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble if we can't do it near the politicians?

I am horribly let down by both the "Tea Party" Republican congressmen and President Obama. The Tea Party Republicans ran on limited government, and Obama ran on civil liberties. In the immortal words of Lord Acton, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Both Left and Right should be ashamed. Whatever happened to Republicans' much-hyped respect for the Constitution? Of course, we learned long ago that it only counts when the Democrats are in power. Whatever happened to the Democrats' much-hyped concern for civil liberties? Likewise, we learned long ago that it only counts when Republicans are in power. When it comes down to it, they're all the same.

This country is ripe and ready for a revolution. Either by ink or powder, I'm ready with pen and musket. Sign me up for the front line.

 

[Capvin]

This bill, I believe, is H.R. 437. It passed the House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes (unfortunately Rep. Ron Paul was campaigning and was not able to add a fourth "no"), and passed the Senate unanimously - which means, the two guys besides Ron I thought I could trust, Senators Rand Paul and Jim DeMint, voted for it. I feel extremely betrayed by these two.

What H.R. 437 does is essentially declare that any protest on certain government property is now illegal, and it is now illegal to protest near any event or person protected by Secret Service. The potential for abuse is astounding. What is the purpose of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble if we can't do it near the politicians?

I am horribly let down by both the "Tea Party" Republican congressmen and President Obama. The Tea Party Republicans ran on limited government, and Obama ran on civil liberties. In the immortal words of Lord Acton, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Both Left and Right should be ashamed. Whatever happened to Republicans' much-hyped respect for the Constitution? Of course, we learned long ago that it only counts when the Democrats are in power. Whatever happened to the Democrats' much-hyped concern for civil liberties? Likewise, we learned long ago that it only counts when Republicans are in power. When it comes down to it, they're all the same.

Q9....Q9 calling Q9....come in from the cold Q9. As I said previously this has been the law since 1971. You are talking about this like it is new but the only chnage in the new law is one word. Come back down to earth...the revolution is not ready to start. Duckinut...keep your powder dry..I think you are going to need it. Q9 I am sure you know how to read very well...it is Title 18, Section 1752, US Code. Been there since 1971. I think long before you were born and we have all survived. It is a bad law but its an oldie.

 

[AquaEyes]

Give it a rest!! The point I was making was pointing out that despite the OP's rant and the usual ranting of the conservative right (who hate Obama) it is clear that Obama had very little to do with this law. The law (Title 18, Section 1752, US Code ) has been in effect since 1971 and I will take no part in defending this particular law. The only change that was made in this law was in stead of saying "willfully and knowingly" it was changed to just say "knowingly". Basically everything else about the law is the same as it has been for quite some time. To actually say that it is Obama who is attempting to infringe on free speech and that he did it in secret is ridiculous considering the real circumstances. The law was passed by virtually the entire House and Obama then signed it. My preference would be that the law be done away with entirely and a new one be put in place that is worded better. This new law was done by Congress because they wanted to be able to prosecute the OWS easier. That is it!!

Most intellegent people try not to do a useless act...a veto when the bill passed by almost every member of congress is a useless act.

So, basically, if Obama vetoed the bill, everything would be exactly the same, except for the "willfully" part, because that's the law that has already been on the books for over 40 years. OK, let's go back in time...who was president when the original law was passed? And to what party did he belong?

tick-tock, tick-tock.....

 

[chickened]

This thread is only 7 hours old and it only took Capvin 6 hours to start calling some one a racist or bigot. He is racebaiting and it is wrong.
and yes, tick, tock, tick, tock...

Why does the liberal left always assume that when we disagree with Obama that it's due to hatred of the man? I disagree with most of his policies and way of thinking but does that make me hater of him, absolutely not. I truly believe he is a genuine good guy and a good father and family man but feel his ideologies are convoluted. The one thing that makes me not want to vote for beyond his policies is that he takes the blame for nothing, takes credit for achievements that are not his and blames everything on somebody else.He has divided this country more than any other president in recent history. That just makes him less of a man.

 

[chickened]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Race_baiting

 

[EweSheep]

President Kennedy, President LBJ, President Nixon, and Gerald Ford are the ones that would be back in 40 years. I have no idea who started it but the Democratic parties were the ones that won most of these men's position in office.

So, basically, if Obama vetoed the bill, everything would be exactly the same, except for the "willfully" part, because that's the law that has already been on the books for over 40 years. OK, let's go back in time...who was president when the original law was passed? And to what party did he belong?

tick-tock, tick-tock.....