This is about the so-called Disclose Act. Al Roney was talking about this on his radio show on Thursday. Roney asked his listeners to call their reps to vote againt this act. Well, it's now too late for that, but we can still contact our U.S. Senators, and please tell your friends in other states to do the same.
Did anyone think that any of our elected Dems would vote against what their savior wanted. I hope people understand what these people in Congress are doing and vote against them in November.
Yes, Stein wants the government to approve anything spoken or written. The true liberal, progressive, police state way. And she wonders why I call her a Nazi.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
It takes some dog-tiring effort to sort out what was actually being voted on, and with limited time and random selection of specific sections of the current legislation, I have found absolutely nothing as yet that even remotely suggests that this legislation steps one bit away from its stated goal. That statement is made on page one of the first .pdf file and it reads as follows.
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."
If Sunnie57 or GrahamBonnet can provide exact references as to where the legislation diverges from this statement or is an assault on the first amendment, I should welcome those details.
Forgotten here are a few simple facts. To begin with, the constitution (including the bill of rights) is a charter between the government and the people being governed. The first amendment prohibits the government from intervening in 'responsible' speech by the people. There are two points made here: first, it does not prevent private institutions (such as corporations) from limiting free speech among its employees or on its premises, and they do so regularly, nor does it give a child freedom of speech within a household; second, corporations and companies are NOT people, and while the 'Kennedy' opinion on campaign spending bends that truth in the extreme, the fact remains that companies are not people and therefore are extended only such aspects of the Bill of Rights as the legislature(s) wishes them to have.
To the point, the people's right of Freedom of speech has not been changed by this law.
The questions that arise are interesting: Why do GrahamBonnet and Sunnie57 wish to allow foreign influence in Federal elections to exist? Why do they not wish to know which government contractors are making expenditures to alter the outcome of federal elections? Do any of us want Osama influencing our federal (or any other) elections unchecked? Do we want Haliburton, an organization that has been quietly making donations to every pro-oil candidate, to be allowed to continue subsidizing their goals at any level of government? Lincoln’s term, "...government of the people, by the people, and for the people," meant actual people - actual citizens of the United States. Foreign influence is exactly that - foreign, and not a part of the US populous. Companies and corporations are exactly that - entities licensed by government at some level, and not people.
Finally, painting this as a 'liberal' thing is completely illogical. In fact, it is about as conservative a piece of legislation as can be imagined. It wants to keep the election boxes in the hands of the citizenry of this country, where the founding fathers intended. How in any way is that liberal?
Here is a detail I would like to point out to you Ockham: The bill in an infringement of free political speech, Priest. So shove your attempts to limit the free political speech of Americans up your lily white Catholic a$$. IF, as you lie about- the bill is an attempt at limiting foreign speech, you would be apoplectic that it would disenfranchise some immigrant or foreign minority, as you are about the new law in Arizona. Ockham, you can lie in the name of Jesus Christ all day as long as it furthers socialism (as we know, Priest, that government is your only god.) As far as your liberation theology, I say take it to hell with you. Not that your world is ruled by Satan as much as it is ruled by Bozo the Clown. But considering that you come here with your high Papist doctrine and spout your social justice line, I find it amusing that so many of history's great murderers and tyrants also were men of the cloth or studied to be one at one point.
I want, like Jefferson wanted- government off my back.
The bottom line: We will take our country back and restore it from the tyranny of an oppressive government that has made Americans fearful. And you, priest, will face a consequence, along with all the others who want to stifle our rights. It is only a matter of time. I will enjoy the day I see the tyrants on the end of a rope, or in an electric chair, because I really don't give a damn about what the Pope or some perverted bishop has to say about capital punishment. For some, especially tyrants, it is just.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
What's with the Catholic bigotry. I'm a Catholic and started this thread.
Quite often when confronted with facts, those making hollow claims resort to more of such, with as massive a broadcast overlay of vitriol as can be summoned, at once relieving the deliverer of investment of personal industry or any real thought at all. (I was once Catholic and am no longer - a little 'fact' like that won't derail those with their own conflicting religion.)
Thanks for the assist, Mr. Bonnet. Couldn't have done nearly as well without your keenly cogitative response. Well done!
It takes some dog-tiring effort to sort out what was actually being voted on, and with limited time and random selection of specific sections of the current legislation, I have found absolutely nothing as yet that even remotely suggests that this legislation steps one bit away from its stated goal. That statement is made on page one of the first .pdf file and it reads as follows.
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."
If Sunnie57 or GrahamBonnet can provide exact references as to where the legislation diverges from this statement or is an assault on the first amendment, I should welcome those details.
Forgotten here are a few simple facts. To begin with, the constitution (including the bill of rights) is a charter between the government and the people being governed. The first amendment prohibits the government from intervening in 'responsible' speech by the people. There are two points made here: first, it does not prevent private institutions (such as corporations) from limiting free speech among its employees or on its premises, and they do so regularly, nor does it give a child freedom of speech within a household; second, corporations and companies are NOT people, and while the 'Kennedy' opinion on campaign spending bends that truth in the extreme, the fact remains that companies are not people and therefore are extended only such aspects of the Bill of Rights as the legislature(s) wishes them to have.
To the point, the people's right of Freedom of speech has not been changed by this law.
The questions that arise are interesting: Why do GrahamBonnet and Sunnie57 wish to allow foreign influence in Federal elections to exist? Why do they not wish to know which government contractors are making expenditures to alter the outcome of federal elections? Do any of us want Osama influencing our federal (or any other) elections unchecked? Do we want Haliburton, an organization that has been quietly making donations to every pro-oil candidate, to be allowed to continue subsidizing their goals at any level of government? Lincoln’s term, "...government of the people, by the people, and for the people," meant actual people - actual citizens of the United States. Foreign influence is exactly that - foreign, and not a part of the US populous. Companies and corporations are exactly that - entities licensed by government at some level, and not people.
Finally, painting this as a 'liberal' thing is completely illogical. In fact, it is about as conservative a piece of legislation as can be imagined. It wants to keep the election boxes in the hands of the citizenry of this country, where the founding fathers intended. How in any way is that liberal?
you have explained this really well kudos to your efforts! I think you've quieted down GB and Sunnie57 for a while. Let's see what they have to say now
OCKHAM likes to read Catholic doctrine here, hence he goes by the title 'Priest.' He is a confirmed communist of the "social justice" stripe, one who wants to break America's back and enslave her people in the name of some utopian religious leftist scheme. I have heard his rants and remember well. You would be wise to remember that it is the Catholic Church of America that is filled with communists and satanists in its ranks, working to undermine the nation's freedom and create more and more government tyranny. I say this as a Catholic who came to the realization quite early when it was initially impressed on me by many conversations with my family and with a priest of the old order. Further study makes it irrefutable. The religious left is an instrument of global tyranny that seeks to influence our national thoughts through a program of "social justice." You may have recently heard Glenn Beck take this up, and it has been the first time in my study of the issue in 25 years that anyone has had the balls to confront the liberation theologians.
Restricting political speech is tantamount to these "religious communists". Limiting vile pornography is of course taboo to them, however. So much for the First Amendment.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
you have explained this really well kudos to your efforts! I think you've quieted down GB and Sunnie57 for a while. Let's see what they have to say now
Thank you for the praise, and now you have seen. Falsehood and bigotry are scattered freely by GB, with total avoidance of delivering a single shred of factual support for any of his assertions. There is not the barest attempt at rational explanation to be had. Small wonder that many who contributed to discussions here in the past no longer choose to lest they incur the wrath of the Great and Omnipotent Oz (oops) GB!! Who needs such mindless prattle and sophomoric retaliation for daring to offer truth that flies in the face of baseless opinion?
ANY RESTRICTION via government fiat, of political speech is a bad restriction, and would NOT have been embraced by the likes of the founders. Ockham sits in front of a portrait of Marx and Lenin, and bows, knowing full well they would approve.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
ANY RESTRICTION via government fiat, of political speech is a bad restriction, and would NOT have been embraced by the likes of the founders. Ockham sits in front of a portrait of Marx and Lenin, and bows, knowing full well they would approve.
That's totally incorrect. The founding fathers were absolutely opposed to the voice of England in our internal affairs, and went to war over it. From that, we became a nation. To the point, can you present a single bit of supporting fact that this latest legislation has in any way restricted your first amendment rights? Because of your laziness, and the legislation itself, you cannot. But your controllers tell you that, "this is bad," so you, the good border collie go out and act on that. Put up some facts, or shut the f... up. You're looking more stupid by the moment. Cling to Fox news - it's the only mind you have.
OCKHAM likes to read Catholic doctrine here, hence he goes by the title 'Priest.' He is a confirmed communist of the "social justice" stripe, one who wants to break America's back and enslave her people in the name of some utopian religious leftist scheme. I have heard his rants and remember well. You would be wise to remember that it is the Catholic Church of America that is filled with communists and satanists in its ranks, working to undermine the nation's freedom and create more and more government tyranny. I say this as a Catholic who came to the realization quite early when it was initially impressed on me by many conversations with my family and with a priest of the old order. Further study makes it irrefutable. The religious left is an instrument of global tyranny that seeks to influence our national thoughts through a program of "social justice." You may have recently heard Glenn Beck take this up, and it has been the first time in my study of the issue in 25 years that anyone has had the balls to confront the liberation theologians.
Restricting political speech is tantamount to these "religious communists". Limiting vile pornography is of course taboo to them, however. So much for the First Amendment.
Your ignorance is exceeded by your ignorance.
Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan were two strong reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union.
Logged
kudos to your efforts! I think you've quieted down GB and Sunnie57 for a while. Let's see what they have to say now
