Obama signs bill to make protesting illegal
-
YES WE CAN=THANK YOU SATAN
-
herc:
YES WE CAN=THANK YOU SATAN
the backwards clip sounds like PID crap. plus it seems distorted like it was 'made' to sound like that for the video.
-
doris mendlovitz:
. What alterntaive solutions do the others who are critical of the situations presented before this president come up with. All they have thrown out are mud slings not alternatives. Lets here the Alternative to what Obama put in to play here A Viable alternative. What transpired between him and Mayer have nothing to do with him signing that bill. love doris
well said, Doris. I've been saying the same thing. It's all just mudslinging and using gay marriage and women's reproductive issues as a smokescreen when all we really care about is the economy and NO ONE is addressing that issue.
-
rich n:
doris mendlovitz:
Well How many of the republicans of done simular wrongs.
It's not about both sides doing right or wrong...it's about hypocricy. You seem to forget that this is basically fallout from the Rush Limbaugh (who's only the right's 'defacto leader' if you're looking at it from the left - no one on the right cares about the man) and Sandra Fluke incident...in which the right immediate condemned the comments as 'out of line'...but then the left joint the frey and as it turns out, were never offended by this incident - and in fact were only so glad to use it....
That's not true. Many I know on the left, mostly young women about Sandra's age, where offended the moment we heard it. (I heard it as it was broadcast and couldn't believe how low he stooped). But they weren't offended about the most offensive part. they just jumped on the words slut and whore (when whores do it for money and sluts are wonderful beings. Just ask Sir Paul.) What I found the most offensive and NO ONE BUT ME IS TALKING ABOUT THIS is when Rush propositioned the girl to have live sex on the internet so he can watch her. I've written an article about this soon to be published in a Major Detroit magazine (I just got the confirmation letter this week! GO ME!) about how that was truely offensive and off base. It's as if a woman can only have sex if it's for his pleasure alone plus MR Conservative Family Values has shown he has a fetish for voyeurism and knows his way around live-streaming internet sex. I myself have no problem with live streaming adult entertainment, but I do believe that ANYONE who preaches family values needs to be condemned for it if they're caught. and I really didn't want to know Rush's fetish. Why did he tell me? UGh....
-
21st Century Paul:
JennyLP:
Americans criticize their politicians all the time....
but does the new law make it illegal? the freedom of speech is getting smaller and smaller there...
Sounds that way from the article. I'd expect this from the Republicans. Obama surprised me considering such a law would have made the civil rights protest of the early 60s illegal.
-
Kathryn O:
rich n:
doris mendlovitz:
Well How many of the republicans of done simular wrongs.
It's not about both sides doing right or wrong...it's about hypocricy. You seem to forget that this is basically fallout from the Rush Limbaugh (who's only the right's 'defacto leader' if you're looking at it from the left - no one on the right cares about the man) and Sandra Fluke incident...in which the right immediate condemned the comments as 'out of line'...but then the left joint the frey and as it turns out, were never offended by this incident - and in fact were only so glad to use it....
That's not true. Many I know on the left, mostly young women about Sandra's age, where offended the moment we heard it. (I heard it as it was broadcast and couldn't believe how low he stooped). But they weren't offended about the most offensive part. they just jumped on the words sl*t and wh**e (when whores do it for money and sluts are wonderful beings. Just ask Sir Paul.) What I found the most offensive and NO ONE BUT ME IS TALKING ABOUT THIS is when Rush propositioned the girl to have live sex on the internet so he can watch her. I've written an article about this soon to be published in a Major Detroit magazine (I just got the confirmation letter this week! GO ME!) about how that was truely offensive and off base. It's as if a woman can only have sex if it's for his pleasure alone plus MR Conservative Family Values has shown he has a fetish for voyeurism and knows his way around live-streaming internet sex. I myself have no problem with live streaming adult entertainment, but I do believe that ANYONE who preaches family values needs to be condemned for it if they're caught. and I really didn't want to know Rush's fetish. Why did he tell me? UGh....
While I understand your point (to a degree), I absolutely disagree that anything Rush said (regardless of just the foul langauge name calling right down to the sexual proposition made by mr Limbaugh) is anything close to interjecting 'retard' rhetoric at someone who actually has a child with Downs Syndrome, then further go on to label an entire group of people under the same umbrella...And the left needs to stop with the 'Bill Maher is a comedian' bit...not only is it a lie, it's getting old...he's a political humorist with strong ties to the left and an audience more dialed in to him than anything Rush can relate to (as I said earlier, the only people listening to Rush are Dems trying to catch him saying something wrong...Reps don't take him serious, as Dems do Bill M)
-
Kathryn O:
21st Century Paul:
JennyLP:
Americans criticize their politicians all the time....
but does the new law make it illegal? the freedom of speech is getting smaller and smaller there...
Sounds that way from the article. I'd expect this from the Republicans. Obama surprised me considering such a law would have made the civil rights protest of the early 60s illegal.
Why? By the very basic definition of Democrat includes having larger, more intrusive governments...A democratic gov is a gov that doesn't trush people
-
Kathryn O:
21st Century Paul:
JennyLP:
Americans criticize their politicians all the time....
but does the new law make it illegal? the freedom of speech is getting smaller and smaller there...
Sounds that way from the article. I'd expect this from the Republicans. Obama surprised me considering such a law would have made the civil rights protest of the early 60s illegal.
Why so, this President ordered the MURDER of an american citzen and since has made it legal retroactively.
-
rich n:
..While I understand your point (to a degree), I absolutely disagree that anything Rush said (regardless of just the foul langauge name calling right down to the sexual proposition made by mr Limbaugh) is anything close to interjecting 'retard' rhetoric at someone who actually has a child with Downs Syndrome, then further go on to label an entire group of people under the same umbrella....
Basically, it's personal on what offends someone to what degree. I could claim that because you are a male, you won't understand what it is to be an attractive woman who is viewed by most males simply as a sex object. (way too many men have Madanna/Whore complexes anyway and it's part of the problem). anytime a woman relates to a sexual issues, as was done here on the case of birth control, then to any man it must be related to just his sexual pleasure and he must do so in a crude manner. Being in the sex industry myself, I've seen this in way too many men and it's a strong defect, much stronger then there are women out there responsibly enjoying sexual activity without you. Thank Gods someone is fighting back with these new viagra bills where a man's sex partner must write and affidavit to swear he is impotent. It at least shows them the sick double standard every woman has to live with.
-
Kathryn O:
21st Century Paul:
JennyLP:
Americans criticize their politicians all the time....
but does the new law make it illegal? the freedom of speech is getting smaller and smaller there...
Sounds that way from the article. I'd expect this from the Republicans. Obama surprised me considering such a law would have made the civil rights protest of the early 60s illegal.
You know what? I think that Obama and the Republicans (so kind of, the Democratics AND Republicans) doing things like that are obviously making them getting less and less popular. The arguement left to them is "Oh, X is out to get us (the USA) so we must be united (agree with whatever the goverment does, no matter if goes against yourself, and if you don't you're just anti-patriotic...)" The "Goering strategy"
, I hope it doesn't work out this time in the USA. There's hope cause many already say "it would have happened with a Republican president too". So they don't see it as Reps vs Dems but as Reps and Dems vs the people. -
im not into american politics but i do love the body of the wife in 'homeland'....hmmmmmm..shes hot
-
21st Century Paul:
. So they don't see it as Reps vs Dems but as Reps and Dems vs the people.
I've been saying this for two decades. they're both one big party who put up a divided front to divide and conquer. I mean, Hillary Clinton and W both worked together on a bill that made it illegal to sell Ephedra when actually it was a bill that gave congress the power to make it illegal to sell ANYTHING they choose. Nobody but a few of us even talk about that. and only extreme left wingers even notice.
-
peter:
Kathryn O:
21st Century Paul:
JennyLP:
Americans criticize their politicians all the time....
but does the new law make it illegal? the freedom of speech is getting smaller and smaller there...
Sounds that way from the article. I'd expect this from the Republicans. Obama surprised me considering such a law would have made the civil rights protest of the early 60s illegal.
Why so, this President ordered the MURDER of an american citzen and since has made it legal retroactively.
Wow....this thread even brought out Peter again.....great to see ya!
-
Kathryn O:
21st Century Paul:
. So they don't see it as Reps vs Dems but as Reps and Dems vs the people.
I've been saying this for two decades. they're both one big party who put up a divided front to divide and conquer. I mean, Hillary Clinton and W both worked together on a bill that made it illegal to sell Ephedra when actually it was a bill that gave congress the power to make it illegal to sell ANYTHING they choose. Nobody but a few of us even talk about that. and only extreme left wingers even notice.
That's it, "divide and conquer", it works. One plays the bad cop and the other plays the good cop, but that's not only happening in America, here is the same. Actually if we look at the big picture.... being us divided us between "American" and Europeans, Asian, Africans is making us all fight with each other. Or in black and whites or women and men or that religion or this religion... It's much more than politics, kind of WE like that... Us vs Them..." I'll join the... Dems and I would go against the Reps..." Beatles vs Stones, John vs Paul... And it's not Paul, John or The Beatles and Stones instigating us to fight... it's easy to get us into that...
-
21st Century Paul, I'm finding what you're saying very interesting in how this 'divide and conquer but don't let them know we're one big party' is happening everywhere. I guess it really is the 99% against the 1%
-
Kathryn O:
rich n:
..While I understand your point (to a degree), I absolutely disagree that anything Rush said (regardless of just the foul langauge name calling right down to the sexual proposition made by mr Limbaugh) is anything close to interjecting 'retard' rhetoric at someone who actually has a child with Downs Syndrome, then further go on to label an entire group of people under the same umbrella....
Basically, it's personal on what offends someone to what degree. I could claim that because you are a male, you won't understand what it is to be an attractive woman who is viewed by most males simply as a sex object. (way too many men have Madanna/wh**e complexes anyway and it's part of the problem). anytime a woman relates to a sexual issues, as was done here on the case of birth control, then to any man it must be related to just his sexual pleasure and he must do so in a crude manner. Being in the sex industry myself, I've seen this in way too many men and it's a strong defect, much stronger then there are women out there responsibly enjoying sexual activity without you. Thank Gods someone is fighting back with these new viagra bills where a man's sex partner must write and affidavit to swear he is impotent. It at least shows them the sick double standard every woman has to live with.
Problem is that there are a lot of 'grass is greener on the other side' type of topics and issues...for example, if you call me 'sweetheart' or I call you 'sweetheart', they would be viewed in two entirely lights...I personally find the most offensive type of political rhetoric to be the type that starts to involve the children of your opposition....mostly because while grown adults can be quite reprehensible, at least I expect the skin to be thicker to a degree on adults rather than innocent children who could care less if their mommy/daddy are democratic or republican...you can call a woman the 'C' word, an African American the 'N' word and so forth, and it does not measure up (even collectively) to picking on a child with downs syndrome
-
any such behavior...is an indiscretion...everyone is guilty of it
-
21st Century Paul:
No comment, it speaks for itself. So Americans can't critice their politicians here anymore?
If you read more about the bill from other news sources, the bill is an anti-trespass bill, not a bill that eliminates criticism of elected officials. I'm not in favor of this bill, mind you, but I don't want people misrepresenting the bill, either.
-
walliebaby:
21st Century Paul:
No comment, it speaks for itself. So Americans can't critice their politicians here anymore?
If you read more about the bill from other news sources, the bill is an anti-trespass bill, not a bill that eliminates criticism of elected officials. I'm not in favor of this bill, mind you, but I don't want people misrepresenting the bill, either.
This is true - more or less. It concerns 'disruptions', effecting controlls by secret service, especially concerning campaign stops and events ...But this is actually open to interpretation and in my opinion, opens the door to further impeding free speech...which is why i think it's disgusting and I don't support one word of it Net result is that while it unto itself isn't directly a blow to freedom of speech, it is planting the seeds to such a direction
-
Kathryn O:
21st Century Paul:
. So they don't see it as Reps vs Dems but as Reps and Dems vs the people.
I've been saying this for two decades. they're both one big party who put up a divided front to divide and conquer. I mean, Hillary Clinton and W both worked together on a bill that made it illegal to sell Ephedra when actually it was a bill that gave congress the power to make it illegal to sell ANYTHING they choose. Nobody but a few of us even talk about that. and only extreme left wingers even notice.
same master different puppets. this is geared to stop OWS. it will be interesting to see if they start busting them it more will come.
