PDA

View Full Version : Obama signs bill 'in secret' making FREE SPEECH ILLEGAL!



Mach1
01-18-2013, 12:54 PM
This is an outrage. Standing within earshot of a Secret Service agent and complaining about government, does not endanger anybody! This is about chipping away at our rights one by one. If there was any doubt in your mind as to why they're trying to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights. This should alleviate that doubt


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKjy0PDlKV4

st33lersguy
01-18-2013, 01:02 PM
Barack Ostalin couldn't wait to get re-elected and not held accountable before he could start chipping away at our rights. He's not wasting any time. At this rate I think he wants to attack every right expressed in the Bill of Rights by the end of the year

43Hitman
01-18-2013, 01:05 PM
Unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Lawsuits will be coming soon.

Hindes204
01-18-2013, 01:41 PM
Unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Lawsuits will be coming soon.

This.

however, if Obama gets the chance to appoint ssomeone to the Supreme Court (which is likely), it may shift the balance of the court, this scares me more than what Obama himself can do.

X-Terminator
01-18-2013, 01:46 PM
The thing that should scare everyone about this bill, besides the obvious, is that BOTH parties overwhelmingly supported this bill. That is another reason why it was done in secret. If it was just one side or the other promoting this bill, the opposition would have demagogued the shit out of it. It's also more proof that there really is no difference between the parties in Washington. They all want to gather more power at the expense of the people. I hope this ends up being overturned, but I'm not holding my breath.

SteelerEmpire
01-18-2013, 02:05 PM
The thing that should scare everyone about this bill, besides the obvious, is that BOTH parties overwhelmingly supported this bill. That is another reason why it was done in secret. If it was just one side or the other promoting this bill, the opposition would have demagogued the shit out of it. It's also more proof that there really is no difference between the parties in Washington. They all want to gather more power at the expense of the people. I hope this ends up being overturned, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's no secret and there have been many studies that members of congress "pretend" to be enemies when in reality (and in secret) they are working towards the same ultimate goals. It's a lawyer thing.

Dwinsgames
01-18-2013, 02:46 PM
it is all part of the master plan to illuminate the constitution of the united states and form a one world government ......

turn in your guns for a tax break ... turn in your guns for a gift card ....register all your guns so they know where go to take them ......

to enslave you first must disarm

stillers4me
01-18-2013, 03:08 PM
Now it becomes clear as to why Obama wants to take away our guns......for his safety.

43Hitman
01-18-2013, 04:10 PM
This.

however, if Obama gets the chance to appoint ssomeone to the Supreme Court (which is likely), it may shift the balance of the court, this scares me more than what Obama himself can do.
yeah, that is worrisome.

GBMelBlount
01-18-2013, 04:19 PM
http://aleksan.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/camels-nose.jpg

stillers4me
01-18-2013, 04:23 PM
I find this so hard to believe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/sueincinci/Smileys/bth_sarcasm2.gif

43Hitman
01-18-2013, 04:24 PM
http://aleksan.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/camels-nose.jpg

At the risk of ruining the punch line, could you explain this joke to me. It has gone over my head. lol

fansince'76
01-18-2013, 04:35 PM
At the risk of ruining the punch line, could you explain this joke to me. It has gone over my head. lol

It's an illustration of the "Camel's Nose" proverb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose).

43Hitman
01-18-2013, 05:11 PM
It's an illustration of the "Camel's Nose" proverb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose).

Thanks man! :-) I learned something new today.

The Patriot
01-18-2013, 05:30 PM
Unanimously approved in the Senate. All but 3 representatives approved it in the house.

43Hitman
01-18-2013, 05:36 PM
Unanimously approved in the Senate. All but 3 representatives approved it in the house.

absolutely disgusting isn't it?

The Patriot
01-18-2013, 05:55 PM
absolutely disgusting isn't it?

Yep. People complain about partisanship in Congress. But look at the shit they pass when they agree on something.

steeldawg
01-18-2013, 06:35 PM
lol, The law merely updates a measure that has been on the books since it was signed by then-President Richard Nixon in 1971, making it a federal crime to trespass on grounds secured by the Secret Service. No new penalties were added, and the bill was not signed “secretly” as some claim. The White House announced the signing publicly just as it does for other such routine measures.

GoSlash27
01-19-2013, 10:41 AM
"The thing that should scare everyone about this bill, besides the obvious, is that BOTH parties overwhelmingly supported this bill. That is another reason why it was done in secret. If it was just one side or the other promoting this bill, the opposition would have demagogued the shit out of it. It's also more proof that there really is no difference between the parties in Washington."

Thank you!! This is why it's so important to stand up and *force* them to be different even if that means losing elections in the process. If you're successful, you have a viable alternative. If you're unsuccessful, you're not really any worse off and at least your side doesn't take the blame for crap like this.

Every Republican who supported this should be replaced by a Republican who doesn't.

st33lersguy
01-19-2013, 12:48 PM
If only there were enough people in this country willing to stand up and demand meaningful change

GoSlash27
01-19-2013, 01:03 PM
If only there were enough people in this country willing to stand up and demand meaningful change

If all the people who thought that would just go ahead and *do it* without waiting for everyone else, that wouldn't be an issue.

Dwinsgames
01-19-2013, 01:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnOoNM0U6oc

If you fail to heed history it is doomed to repeat itself

silver & black
01-19-2013, 04:50 PM
May 4 1970. I was 10 years old. Funny how certain things are burned into your brain, even at a young age, that seem just as clear 43 years later as they were at that young age.

Just so this isn't contributing to thread drift...... I agree with your post.

Craic
01-19-2013, 05:09 PM
lol, The law merely updates a measure that has been on the books since it was signed by then-President Richard Nixon in 1971, making it a federal crime to trespass on grounds secured by the Secret Service. No new penalties were added, and the bill was not signed “secretly” as some claim. The White House announced the signing publicly just as it does for other such routine measures.

THIS BEARS REPEATING!

Got your attention? Good. Here's the thing. This is NOT a new law. As SD said, it's a re-issuance of an old law from the 1970's under Nixon. If we're going to yell and scream about something, let's be a lot more accurate about it. The problem here is that the phrase "Willful" has been removed from the legislation. What that does, is make it so that if the SS extends a perimeter, and it is now behind you but you aren't aware of it, you can still be arrested. It does not "limit free speech" anymore than the original law did.

What we SHOULD be protesting, as it is the only thing that changed, is the lowered bar for the felony.

Count Steeler
01-19-2013, 06:54 PM
THIS BEARS REPEATING!

Got your attention? Good. Here's the thing. This is NOT a new law. As SD said, it's a re-issuance of an old law from the 1970's under Nixon. If we're going to yell and scream about something, let's be a lot more accurate about it. The problem here is that the phrase "Willful" has been removed from the legislation. What that does, is make it so that if the SS extends a perimeter, and it is now behind you but you aren't aware of it, you can still be arrested. It does not "limit free speech" anymore than the original law did.

What we SHOULD be protesting, as it is the only thing that changed, is the lowered bar for the felony.

SS, abbreviation of Schutzstaffel, (German: “Protective Echelon”), the black-uniformed elite corps of the Nazi Party. Founded by Adolf Hitler in April 1925 as a small personal bodyguard, the SS grew with the success of the Nazi movement and, gathering immense police and military powers, became virtually a state within a state. (link (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562059/SS))

Yeah, I know you meant Secret Service, but I couldn't resist. Sorry.

Craic
01-19-2013, 09:40 PM
SS, abbreviation of Schutzstaffel, (German: “Protective Echelon”), the black-uniformed elite corps of the Nazi Party. Founded by Adolf Hitler in April 1925 as a small personal bodyguard, the SS grew with the success of the Nazi movement and, gathering immense police and military powers, became virtually a state within a state. (link (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562059/SS))

Yeah, I know you meant Secret Service, but I couldn't resist. Sorry.

:buttkick: :chuckle:

Honestly, if I had to pin anyone federal agency as the SS, I'd look a lot more to the BATF that the Secret Service - not for how they began, but for the power and ability to destroy a nation.

BnG_Hevn
01-22-2013, 12:57 PM
From the youtube page. I think people are jumping to conclusions if this statement is true.

'..
Fox is sensationalizing this bill, the bill already existed for forty years, all it does is prevent trespassing on the presidents and vice presidents properties. Please actually look up the law instead of jumping into a mob at the medias call.
..'

Craic
01-22-2013, 04:05 PM
From the youtube page. I think people are jumping to conclusions if this statement is true.

'..
Fox is sensationalizing this bill, the bill already existed for forty years, all it does is prevent trespassing on the presidents and vice presidents properties. Please actually look up the law instead of jumping into a mob at the medias call.
..'
It is almost true. As I said below, there is a change to the bill that is disturbing, but it's also been quite sensationalized.