So CNN and MSNBC fans.... where is the coverage about Obama making free speech a FELONY - GoFuckYourself.com

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 10:50 AM

I'm not a Fox news fan, anymore than I'm a "fan" of ANY news source.... But I'm pointing out that anyone that does NOT watch a channel like FOX (as well as all the others that you can get a hold of), is simply not seeing all the news out there....

Meanwhile, your jaws should all be gaping at this insane law being quietly signed into law by this regime.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_anti_protest_bill_signed_by_barack_obama_is_a_ quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html

"...the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it?s almost impossible to predict what constitutes ?disorderly or disruptive conduct? or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to ?impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.?

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE?s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It?s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors...."

_____________________

We need to start paying attention, even when our favorite news channels are not....

.

.

Phoenix · 05-30-2012, 11:41 AM

when did foxnews become the real news source..lol

xNetworx · 05-30-2012, 11:44 AM

Faux News isn't reality, period.

epitome · 05-30-2012, 11:47 AM

Wait a second, I thought everybody was against OWS protesters and we didn't want those hippies bothering us?

Now we do want protesters?

Maybe we should only allow selective protesting depending on what you're protesting about?

/sarcasm

geedub · 05-30-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Wait a second, I thought everybody was against OWS protesters and we didn't want those hippies bothering us?

Now we do want protesters?

Maybe we should only allow selective protesting depending on what you're protesting about?

/sarcasm

Protesting and living in a park are two different things. OWS might have started out as a proper movement but quickly turned sour, there is no denying that.

Due · 05-30-2012, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

when did foxnews become the real news source..lol

So its fake ? If not what is your point ?

Failed · 05-30-2012, 11:58 AM

It's not a protest and wrong when the target is a republican issue. It's a legitimate protest when the republicans back it with a nod from sperbonzo.

This thread, by this op, gave me a good chuckle. Thank you!

epitome · 05-30-2012, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geedub

Protesting and living in a park are two different things. OWS might have started out as a proper movement but quickly turned sour, there is no denying that.

Kind of like what politicians do when they filibuster? That should be illegal as well since they refuse to leave until they get what they want.

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 12:03 PM

Fox is a joke.

And this news article is exactly why. We have the right to free speech. Free speech is the ability to say anything I want about the government or the President in the comfort of my own home or in a newspaper or even on line. It does not give us the right to walk up to the President at a public event and scream at him because your kid sister lost her house.

We have the right to protest. But the Secret Service has the fucking right to shoot and kill you if they believe you are a threat to whom ever they are guarding.

I read about Nazi Germany all the time, and people don't seem to understand that back then you made a simple defeatist remark to your neighbor and you were hauled away and never seen again for years.

What they are trying to do here is have a balance between Freedom of Speech (protesting near the President) and protecting him without having to shoot people. That's not too fucking difficult to understand.

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Fox is a joke.

And this news article is exactly why.

What they are trying to do here is have a balance between Freedom of Speech (protesting near the President) and protecting him without having to shoot people. That's not too fucking difficult to understand.

The article itself is from a left-wing website, not from Fox, so that kind of blows your point.

You should not only read it, but you should watch the news clip..... they are both from complete opposite sides of the spectrum.

And if you read the whole article, or listen to the whole clip, you will see that this is NOT about only protecting the president, and why would you actually back this new law, if you have read and watched all about it? Really?

Sly · 05-30-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Fox is a joke.

And this news article is exactly why. We have the right to free speech. Free speech is the ability to say anything I want about the government or the President in the comfort of my own home or in a newspaper or even on line. It does not give us the right to walk up to the President at a public event and scream at him because your kid sister lost her house.

Freedom of speech in approved venues only is not freedom of speech.

Fap · 05-30-2012, 12:17 PM

Maybe it will get the occupy wallstreet people to stop clogging up all my subways!

edit: this is rather old?

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failed

It's not a protest and wrong when the target is a republican issue. It's a legitimate protest when the republicans back it with a nod from sperbonzo.

This thread, by this op, gave me a good chuckle. Thank you!

This bill was voted in with all parties saying yes, except for Ron Paul and 2 others.

I guess you don't read my posts very closely. I'm a libertarian. I haven't been a republican for a long time. It became clear to me that they were not "the party of small government and the constitution", as I had always believed, they simply wanted to grow government in different ways, and the make the growth rate fractionally slower. Once they got a taste of real control, starting in 1992, by finally getting a majority in both houses for the first time in 50 years, they started acting just like Democrats. Both parties suck, and will continue to suck up all the power for the political elite class and their cronies. Disgusting

.

ajrocks · 05-30-2012, 12:18 PM

So happy I'm not living in the US, you guys should get the hell out!

Fap · 05-30-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajrocks

So happy I'm not living in the US, you guys should get the hell out!

where else would we go?

IllTestYourGirls · 05-30-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Fox is a joke.

And this news article is exactly why. We have the right to free speech. Free speech is the ability to say anything I want about the government or the President in the comfort of my own home or in a newspaper or even on line. It does not give us the right to walk up to the President at a public event and scream at him because your kid sister lost her house.

We have the right to protest. But the Secret Service has the fucking right to shoot and kill you if they believe you are a threat to whom ever they are guarding.

I read about Nazi Germany all the time, and people don't seem to understand that back then you made a simple defeatist remark to your neighbor and you were hauled away and never seen again for years.

What they are trying to do here is have a balance between Freedom of Speech (protesting near the President) and protecting him without having to shoot people. That's not too fucking difficult to understand.

Read http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-W.../dp/0226511928 educate yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Maybe from time to time you should actually read the constitution.

"Abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

^^This

Tom_PM · 05-30-2012, 01:04 PM

There've been "free speech zone" pens set up long before Obama came into office.

Here's one in Boston set up near the democratic convention in 2004: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0726-04.htm

Here's someone expressing their speech at the very idea of "free speech zones":

Rather than go on and on.. I'll just say that life did not begin at Obama, but if there's something wrong in the world you can bet there are those claiming it's all his fault.

sarettah · 05-30-2012, 01:20 PM

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr347enr.pdf

H. R. 347

One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings
or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’’.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
(a) Whoever—

(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—

(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) In this section— H. R. 347—2

(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—

(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

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

(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.

************************************************** **

Read this about 4 times and I still don't see where it says you can't protest. It does indicate that you cannot occupy a government building and that you can't block up the entrances but hardly that you cannot protest.

Bad precedent anyway but hardly what Napalitano said it was.

just my

.

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

The article itself is from a left-wing website, not from Fox, so that kind of blows your point.

You should not only read it, but you should watch the news clip..... they are both from complete opposite sides of the spectrum.

And if you read the whole article, or listen to the whole clip, you will see that this is NOT about only protecting the president, and why would you actually back this new law, if you have read and watched all about it? Really?

I didn't read the article at all or watch the video. I only read your post. Just by reading your first sentence - which says "punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone". That says it all right there. You have the right protest, you have the right to freedom of speech, but not when it threatens the President of the United States. Period.

If you don't think I'm write, find out what happened to the guy who threw the shoe at Bush. I wouldn't surprised if he had his fingers chopped off.

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Read http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-W.../dp/0226511928 educate yourself.

^^This

I have this book and have read it.

I'm currently reading Albert Speer's book. Great stuff.

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Maybe from time to time you should actually read the constitution.

"Abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

I've read the constitution. In fact, I took an oath to protect it. Did you?

You have the right to peaceably assemble. However, you do not have the right to do it in my back yard or my living room. You have the right to peaceably assemble, but if you enter my back hard in the middle of the night to do so you'll be arrested. And if you break into my house to protest in my living room, well, you'll be arrested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Freedom of speech in approved venues only is not freedom of speech.

Really?

So I can walk into any movie theatre and yell "fire"?

Can I walk into a court of law, take the oath, and then make up lies about you?

Can I make up stories about how you like to do kinky things with small animals, or could you sue me for slander?

We have the right to freedom of speech, but there are in fact limitations. You can't fucking protest while I'm watching Men In Black at the movies. You'll be arrested.

TheSquealer · 05-30-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Wait a second, I thought everybody was against OWS protesters and we didn't want those hippies bothering us?

Now we do want protesters?

Maybe we should only allow selective protesting depending on what you're protesting about?

/sarcasm

Everyone loves freedom of speech until they have to listen to things they don't want to hear... everyone loves democracy until its not their guys in power.

TheSquealer · 05-30-2012, 02:02 PM

And this is hardly "Obama making free speech a felony" - It was a very small change to an existing law with very limited application.

Brujah · 05-30-2012, 02:16 PM

Your typical anti-Obama sensationalist topic from Sperbonzo. Can't wait to read his anti-Romney posts, oh wait, there won't be any. lol

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Your typical anti-Obama sensationalist topic from Sperbonzo. Can't wait to read his anti-Romney posts, oh wait, there won't be any. lol

I am not understanding of this. Is he trying to blame Obama for this?

The law was written in 1971, and updated in 2006 - When Bush was in office. Shouldn't we be blaming Bush for this, not Obama?

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Your typical anti-Obama sensationalist topic from Sperbonzo. Can't wait to read his anti-Romney posts, oh wait, there won't be any. lol

you dont actually read my posts about where I stand, do you.... try scrolling through this thread again and read my posts more closely

.

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I didn't read the article at all or watch the video.....

so then why are you posting about the issue?

.

pornguy · 05-30-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Maybe from time to time you should actually read the constitution.

"Abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Just remember that was written in Pencil so it can be changed when needed.

I do believe the original also made taxes illegal.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-30-2012, 02:55 PM

ADG

Brujah · 05-30-2012, 02:57 PM

A lot of conservatives defending the need for the Patriot Act in this topic, for no other reason than it was under a Republican president and they wanted to defend their party. Now that he's out of office they flip-flop constantly.
https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=498917
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=2848179&postcount=16
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=3362218&postcount=33

You should really go back and read some of your posts from the Bush years, Sperbonzo

You were as partisan as possible. A real Bush fanboy.

but yeah, OBAMA just made freedom of speech a FELONY. lol.

Quagmire · 05-30-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I didn't read the article at all or watch the video. I only read your post. Just by reading your first sentence - which says "punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone". That says it all right there. You have the right protest, you have the right to freedom of speech, but not when it threatens the President of the United States. Period.

If you don't think I'm write, find out what happened to the guy who threw the shoe at Bush. I wouldn't surprised if he had his fingers chopped off.

You are acting as if the only person getting protection from the Secret Service is the President.

I find it very amusing that you support the idea of the people you've voted in to govern you being separated and protected from you. Almost like you as an average citizen is not to be trusted because you're nothing more than an animal who needs their guidance.

Doubleplusgood?

suesheboy · 05-30-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr347enr.pdf

H. R. 347

One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings
or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ??Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011??.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
(a) Whoever?

(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is?

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if?

(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) In this section? H. R. 347?2

(1) the term ?restricted buildings or grounds? means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area?

(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President?s official residence or its grounds;

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

(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

(2) the term ?other person protected by the Secret Service? means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.

************************************************** **

Read this about 4 times and I still don't see where it says you can't protest. It does indicate that you cannot occupy a government building and that you can't block up the entrances but hardly that you cannot protest.

Bad precedent anyway but hardly what Napalitano said it was.

just my

.

It was also spun by the OP.

LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT (other than 3) SUPPORTED THIS!

H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3. Such a lopsided vote suggests that nobody in Congress is bothered by this, on either side of the aisle. When President Obama signed it on March 8, almost nobody seems to have cared.

CyberHustler · 05-30-2012, 03:57 PM

sperbonzo was raised by fox

raymor · 05-30-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Wait a second, I thought everybody was against OWS protesters and we didn't want those hippies bothering us?

Now we do want protesters?

Maybe we should only allow selective protesting depending on what you're protesting about?

/sarcasm

There's a big difference between saying "I think these specific protestors are wrong" and "we should throw people in prison for protesting at a political event, such as a policy conference or fundraiser where an elected official may be present."

Many, if not most, of us, think OWS has the right to be wrong. We may think they are saying silly things, but that doesn't mean we support imprisoning them for saying silly things when government officials are around.

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suesheboy

It was also spun by the OP.

LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT (other than 3) SUPPORTED THIS!

H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3. Such a lopsided vote suggests that nobody in Congress is bothered by this, on either side of the aisle. When President Obama signed it on March 8, almost nobody seems to have cared.

Look at post #15, where I say "This bill was voted in with all parties saying yes, except for Ron Paul and 2 others."

.

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

sperbonzo was raised by fox

I consistently say on this board that you should get your news from as many different sources as you can, including those whose slant you DON'T agree with, or you are only getting the slant that you want to hear. If you want to only get the news from the bias that you agree with, then fine, good luck to you. I get mine from as many different sources as possible, including Al Jazira, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, etc, etc, etc....

.

theking · 05-30-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I'm not a Fox news fan, anymore than I'm a "fan" of ANY news source.... But I'm pointing out that anyone that does NOT watch a channel like FOX (as well as all the others that you can get a hold of), is simply not seeing all the news out there....

Meanwhile, your jaws should all be gaping at this insane law being quietly signed into law by this regime.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_anti_protest_bill_signed_by_barack_obama_is_a_ quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html

"...the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it?s almost impossible to predict what constitutes ?disorderly or disruptive conduct? or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to ?impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.?

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE?s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It?s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors...."

_____________________

We need to start paying attention, even when our favorite news channels are not....

.

.

Misleading title.

TheSquealer · 05-30-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

... but that doesn't mean we support imprisoning them for saying silly things when government officials are around.

Thats not what the law is or says. Thats not what the amendment is or says. If you want to organize a protest, you follow the law - such as all the existing applicable laws you are required to follow.

sperbonzo · 05-30-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

A lot of conservatives defending the need for the Patriot Act in this topic, for no other reason than it was under a Republican president and they wanted to defend their party. Now that he's out of office they flip-flop constantly.
https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=498917
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=2848179&postcount=16
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=3362218&postcount=33

You should really go back and read some of your posts from the Bush years, Sperbonzo

You were as partisan as possible. A real Bush fanboy.

but yeah, OBAMA just made freedom of speech a FELONY. lol.

I was wrong to support the Patriot Act when it was first enacted. I wrongly believed that it would be sunseted after an appropriate time limit. I was wrong, utterly, and I realized that NO government can be trusted with too much power, ever. I came to the conclusion that there were NEVER any exceptions to the realities described by F.A. Hayek, Frederick Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, etc.... I was wrong, PERIOD, and I will fight against the growth of government power that will inevitably come under Romney, if he gets in.

.

.

Brujah · 05-30-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This bill was voted in with all parties saying yes, except for Ron Paul and 2 others.

This says Ron Paul abstained, rather than vote No on the amendment.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h73

The 3 who voted Nay are:
Paul Broun - GA (R)
Justin Amash - MI (R)
Keith Ellison - MN (D)

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quagmire

You are acting as if the only person getting protection from the Secret Service is the President.

I would imagine at any given time it would include hundreds of people, including foreign heads of state when they visit. I have a friend of mine who works for the Secret Service here locally, and when Obama comes to time she rolls in the motorcade. It's kind of cool really.

What happens a group of idiots want to protest the Canadian embassy because of tution, and the Secret Service is assigned to protect the Ambassador. That's exactly why we need the law. We have Freedom of Speech, but we don't have the right to break windows and throw bottles and rocks at people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quagmire

I find it very amusing that you support the idea of the people you've voted in to govern you being separated and protected from you. Almost like you as an average citizen is not to be trusted because you're nothing more than an animal who needs their guidance.

I didn't vote in this election. In fact, the last time I voted I voted for Bush.

Yes, I want the President of the United States to be protected from the public. The general public includes a lot of unstable people. The average citizen shouldn't have a fucking driver's license. The average citizen cannot just call the White House and make an appointment; It just doesn't work that way.

Quagmire · 05-30-2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I would imagine at any given time it would include hundreds of people, including foreign heads of state when they visit. I have a friend of mine who works for the Secret Service here locally, and when Obama comes to time she rolls in the motorcade. It's kind of cool really.

What happens a group of idiots want to protest the Canadian embassy because of tution, and the Secret Service is assigned to protect the Ambassador. That's exactly why we need the law. We have Freedom of Speech, but we don't have the right to break windows and throw bottles and rocks at people.

I didn't vote in this election. In fact, the last time I voted I voted for Bush.

Yes, I want the President of the United States to be protected from the public. The general public includes a lot of unstable people. The average citizen shouldn't have a fucking driver's license. The average citizen cannot just call the White House and make an appointment; It just doesn't work that way.

So they get to be protected from the people who have something to say and aren't held accountable for anything they do to anyone. If you didn't vote, you certainly aren't holding them accountable.

Doesn't sound like the best of plans to me. In fact it seems like something that might breed a god complex. No wonder politicians feel untouchable.

Robbie · 05-30-2012, 05:34 PM

The very worst "news" organization is definitely MSNBC. They don't even try to pretend to be news. They ignore anything that doesn't make Obama look good. And then try to make believe that other stories about Romney are really, really bad.

Today they were going on and on about how Romney's plane was parked next to Trump's jet in Vegas when the two did a fundraiser together here.
It was unreal.

They acted as if Romney had just committed a crime or something! LOL!

And then all they wanted to talk about was how Romney hadn't "distanced" himself from Trump.
All because Trump made an ass of himself over the "birther" stupidity.

Why would Romney want to "distance" himself from a big contributor like Trump?

MSNBC (and CNN too) seem to want Romney to not have ANY backers for his campaign. They want him to ditch the Koch brothers, Trump, and anybody else with money. Meanwhile the Obama campaign supposedly already has ONE BILLION dollars in the war chest.

Funny stuff.

Overload · 05-30-2012, 06:19 PM

ah well ... trust your forces to be fighting for FREEDOM ... ehhh ...

oops!!! HAIL! HAIL! HAIL!

land of the free? are you kidding me? LMAO!

StickyGreen · 05-30-2012, 07:28 PM

People can't even focus on the subject at hand, they're all too busy arguing about which news agency is corrupt, somehow not already understanding that they're all pretty much corrupt.

All these idiots here ever do is shoot the messenger and avoid the message...

Rochard · 05-30-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quagmire

So they get to be protected from the people who have something to say and aren't held accountable for anything they do to anyone. If you didn't vote, you certainly aren't holding them accountable.

Doesn't sound like the best of plans to me. In fact it seems like something that might breed a god complex. No wonder politicians feel untouchable.

Of course the President has to be protected. If not from foreign governments, then from nut jobs with hand guns. That's just common sense. The days of being able to walk up to the front door of the White House and being able to see the president is long gone.

As for me not holding them accountable by not voting, well, frankly... I was given a choice between McCain and Obama, none of which appealed to me.

And I don't think any Presidents have a "god complex". Not Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

Radical Bucks · 05-31-2012, 01:03 AM

I stopped reading your responses after i read this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

If you don't think I'm write, find out what happened to the guy who threw the shoe at Bush. I wouldn't surprised if he had his fingers chopped off.

I do not think you are "write" nor do I think you are right. Bad grammar.

You did not watch the video and or read the articles on the matter but make comments about something you are not educated about.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-31-2012, 01:21 AM

50 Free Speech Felonies...

If Obama makes Free Speech illegal, does that mean no more stupid threads like this one?

If so, I say let's give it a try...

ADG

TheMaster · 05-31-2012, 01:22 AM

1. Lumping CNN and MSNBC is dumb, CNN is so pro-establishment, it will not go against "conventional Washington wissdom"
2. You're right it's so sad MSNBC doesn't react against this
3. Except for gay rights and torture, I think Obama has actually been worse om civil rights than Bush. Under Obama group of people who are targeted without trial has expanded. But the most sad thing is how Obama didn't roll back most of the Bush policies.

PornoMonster · 05-31-2012, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I didn't read the article at all or watch the video. I only read your post. Just by reading your first sentence - which says "punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone". That says it all right there. You have the right protest, you have the right to freedom of speech, but not when it threatens the President of the United States. Period.

If you don't think I'm write, find out what happened to the guy who threw the shoe at Bush. I wouldn't surprised if he had his fingers chopped off.

So, you are saying Protesters are Threatening.

05-30-2012, 11:41 AM	#2
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,457	when did foxnews become the real news source..lol __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

05-30-2012, 11:58 AM	#7
Failed Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,301	It's not a protest and wrong when the target is a republican issue. It's a legitimate protest when the republicans back it with a nod from sperbonzo. This thread, by this op, gave me a good chuckle. Thank you! __________________ (ICQ - 664784872)

05-30-2012, 12:03 PM	#9
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,965	Fox is a joke. And this news article is exactly why. We have the right to free speech. Free speech is the ability to say anything I want about the government or the President in the comfort of my own home or in a newspaper or even on line. It does not give us the right to walk up to the President at a public event and scream at him because your kid sister lost her house. We have the right to protest. But the Secret Service has the fucking right to shoot and kill you if they believe you are a threat to whom ever they are guarding. I read about Nazi Germany all the time, and people don't seem to understand that back then you made a simple defeatist remark to your neighbor and you were hauled away and never seen again for years. What they are trying to do here is have a balance between Freedom of Speech (protesting near the President) and protecting him without having to shoot people. That's not too fucking difficult to understand. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

05-30-2012, 12:17 PM	#12
Fap Just Du It Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 12,094	Maybe it will get the occupy wallstreet people to stop clogging up all my subways! edit: this is rather old? Last edited by Fap; 05-30-2012 at 12:20 PM..

05-30-2012, 12:18 PM	#14
ajrocks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: On Uranus Posts: 4,526	So happy I'm not living in the US, you guys should get the hell out! __________________ SEO Strategy - Digital Strategy - Cannabis Lead Generation Skype aj.durden1

05-30-2012, 10:50 AM	#1
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,748	So CNN and MSNBC fans.... where is the coverage about Obama making free speech a FELONY I'm not a Fox news fan, anymore than I'm a "fan" of ANY news source.... But I'm pointing out that anyone that does NOT watch a channel like FOX (as well as all the others that you can get a hold of), is simply not seeing all the news out there.... Meanwhile, your jaws should all be gaping at this insane law being quietly signed into law by this regime..... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_anti_protest_bill_signed_by_barack_obama_is_a_ quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html "...the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it?s almost impossible to predict what constitutes ?disorderly or disruptive conduct? or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to ?impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.? The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE?s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE. And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It?s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors...." _____________________ We need to start paying attention, even when our favorite news channels are not.... . . __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

05-30-2012, 11:44 AM	#3
xNetworx So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Whore Island Posts: 14,445	Faux News isn't reality, period.

05-30-2012, 11:47 AM	#4
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	Wait a second, I thought everybody was against OWS protesters and we didn't want those hippies bothering us? Now we do want protesters? Maybe we should only allow selective protesting depending on what you're protesting about? /sarcasm

05-30-2012, 01:04 PM	#17
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	There've been "free speech zone" pens set up long before Obama came into office. Here's one in Boston set up near the democratic convention in 2004: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0726-04.htm Here's someone expressing their speech at the very idea of "free speech zones": Rather than go on and on.. I'll just say that life did not begin at Obama, but if there's something wrong in the world you can bet there are those claiming it's all his fault. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

05-30-2012, 01:20 PM	#18
sarettah see you later, I'm gone Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,110	http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr347enr.pdf H. R. 347 One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and twelve An Act To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’’. SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS. Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: § 1752. Restricted building or grounds (a) Whoever— (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; (3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is— (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if— (A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or (B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case. (c) In this section— H. R. 347—2 (1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— (A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or (C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and (2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection. ************************************************ Read this about 4 times and I still don't see where it says you can't protest. It does indicate that you cannot occupy a government building and that you can't block up the entrances but hardly that you cannot protest. Bad precedent anyway but hardly what Napalitano said it was. just my . __________________ All cookies cleared!

05-30-2012, 02:02 PM	#23
TheSquealer Mayor of Thneedville Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 25,220	And this is hardly "Obama making free speech a felony" - It was a very small change to an existing law with very limited application. __________________ . Yes, fewer illegal immigrants working equates to more job opportunities for American citizens. Rochard

05-30-2012, 02:16 PM	#24
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Your typical anti-Obama sensationalist topic from Sperbonzo. Can't wait to read his anti-Romney posts, oh wait, there won't be any. lol __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

05-30-2012, 02:55 PM	#29
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

05-30-2012, 02:57 PM	#30
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	A lot of conservatives defending the need for the Patriot Act in this topic, for no other reason than it was under a Republican president and they wanted to defend their party. Now that he's out of office they flip-flop constantly. https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=498917 https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=2848179&postcount=16 https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=3362218&postcount=33 You should really go back and read some of your posts from the Bush years, Sperbonzo You were as partisan as possible. A real Bush fanboy. but yeah, OBAMA just made freedom of speech a FELONY. lol. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

05-30-2012, 03:57 PM	#33
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 26,113	sperbonzo was raised by fox

05-30-2012, 05:34 PM	#43
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	The very worst "news" organization is definitely MSNBC. They don't even try to pretend to be news. They ignore anything that doesn't make Obama look good. And then try to make believe that other stories about Romney are really, really bad. Today they were going on and on about how Romney's plane was parked next to Trump's jet in Vegas when the two did a fundraiser together here. It was unreal. They acted as if Romney had just committed a crime or something! LOL! And then all they wanted to talk about was how Romney hadn't "distanced" himself from Trump. All because Trump made an ass of himself over the "birther" stupidity. Why would Romney want to "distance" himself from a big contributor like Trump? MSNBC (and CNN too) seem to want Romney to not have ANY backers for his campaign. They want him to ditch the Koch brothers, Trump, and anybody else with money. Meanwhile the Obama campaign supposedly already has ONE BILLION dollars in the war chest. Funny stuff. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

05-30-2012, 06:19 PM	#44
Overload Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Beck's City, North Teutonia Posts: 3,185	ah well ... trust your forces to be fighting for FREEDOM ... ehhh ... oops!!! HAIL! HAIL! HAIL! land of the free? are you kidding me? LMAO! __________________ There aren't enough faces and palms on this planet for an appropriate reaction to religion. Last edited by Overload; 05-30-2012 at 06:23 PM..

05-30-2012, 07:28 PM	#45
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	People can't even focus on the subject at hand, they're all too busy arguing about which news agency is corrupt, somehow not already understanding that they're all pretty much corrupt. All these idiots here ever do is shoot the messenger and avoid the message...

05-31-2012, 01:21 AM	#48
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	50 Free Speech Felonies... If Obama makes Free Speech illegal, does that mean no more stupid threads like this one? If so, I say let's give it a try... ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare) Last edited by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude; 05-31-2012 at 01:24 AM..

05-31-2012, 01:22 AM	#49
TheMaster Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Prague Posts: 2,733	1. Lumping CNN and MSNBC is dumb, CNN is so pro-establishment, it will not go against "conventional Washington wissdom" 2. You're right it's so sad MSNBC doesn't react against this 3. Except for gay rights and torture, I think Obama has actually been worse om civil rights than Bush. Under Obama group of people who are targeted without trial has expanded. But the most sad thing is how Obama didn't roll back most of the Bush policies. __________________ Promote Chaturbate Free Cams