Results 161 to 170 of 218
Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?
-
05-31-2012, 01:24 PM #161
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 17,307
Thanked: 3227
-
05-31-2012, 01:29 PM #162
The run up to the 2012 Presidential election has temporarily held off a worsening Worldwide Depression that will be devastating to all of us. A positive? Atleast till November.
-
05-31-2012, 04:23 PM #163
-
05-31-2012, 07:11 PM #164
-
05-31-2012, 07:20 PM #165
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Tempe, Arizona, United States
- Posts
- 824
Thanked: 94So anyone hear about Obama signing legislation making it a felony to protest the president/elected leaders? free speach anyone?? just saying...
-
05-31-2012, 11:41 PM #166
-
05-31-2012, 11:48 PM #167
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- New Port Richey, FL
- Posts
- 3,819
- Blog Entries
- 3
Thanked: 1185
-
06-01-2012, 12:24 AM #168
He did no such thing. Just another manufactured controversy.
FactCheck.org : Obama Criminalize Free Speech?
-
06-01-2012, 12:34 AM #169
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
- Middle of nowhere, Minnesota
- Posts
- 4,623
- Blog Entries
- 2
Thanked: 1371factcheck.org leaves out the part that "willfully" was dropped from the language.
The law had bipartisan support - being authored by a republican in the house and a democrat in the senate. Both parties overwhelmingly voted for it.
Reading reports from sources slanted to both sides politically, it seems that the only people happy with the change to the law are the government. (how often do Fox news, Drudge, the Huffington post, and the ACLU all agree on anything?)
Whether it's a manufactured controversy or not remains to be seen - it does seem that there is more room now for federal law enforcement to abuse the law.
Any notion that one party or the other is responsible is ridiculous. Both parties worked together to make the change.
-
06-01-2012, 02:55 AM #170
No it doesn't. The second bullet point under the heading Manufactured Controversy clearly states: "The new law revises the standard that prosecutors must meet to gain a conviction, from proving that a violation was committed “willfully and knowingly” to merely proving that it was committed “knowingly.”
In any event the point remains that the law in question had nothing to do with making it a felony to protest the president or elected leaders. Sometimes when something sounds too crazy to be true it is because it isn't.