Obama signs 'end to free speech'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Deleted member 472633, Jan 23, 2013.


  1. He is destroying the Bill of Rights.
     
  2. #2 halcyone, Jan 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2013
    The first amendment has been trampled and its meaning lost to most. The first isn't only about being able to blather whatever you wish but being able to hear the other side of the story. This one has been dead for a long time, he's just flogging the rotting pieces of goo that was the horse.
     
  3. he's going to cause a civil war weather it helps us or not he's stepping out of line and people aren't going to take it
     
  4. He's not a leader. I'd have more respect for him if his motto from the beginning wasn't "CHANGE"
     
  5. keep calm and carry on, nothing to see here :p
     

  6. Lol at the 'other side of the story'... nahhhhh the founding fuckheads weren't interested in

    'the other side of the story'...

    they would've been less racist and xenophobic were they truly interested in this...

    Haha what really has lost its meaning is the patriotism you and the OP are trying to invoke here. Let's 'blather like idiots' about what we think 'the other side of the story' is...

    that's the first amendment.

    To be clear: executive power is f-u-c-k-e-d.

    I just don't discriminate between tyrants...

    they all the same.
     
  7. Congress passed this law before he was able to sign it.

    They are all bad
     
  8. That's a bit overexaggerated. The largest and most obvious attack on the Bill of Rights came under our last president, not this one. I'm all with the "watch the government" shit, but this irrational fear of Obama more than any other is based in ignorance and propaganda.
     
  9. Are you talking about the Patriot Act?

    Lol who resigned it?

    Hint: not bush
     
  10. I know this, and Obama is a fuck for doing it. He's been following in Bush's shoe steps for a long time now. I still find the initial action more dangerous because it set precedence.
     
  11. You can easily set precendence by vetoing it under constitutional grounds, but i digress. Warmongers don't do that.

    you know what the worst part is, the people who wrote the bill are still serving in congress making 6 figure salaries and voting themselves raises.

    I think along with both presidents' actions, we should recognize the problem is with the entire government. Vote them all out i say.
     
  12. One should make a Declaration of Independence to and for the United States, that we should tear apart the foundation of such oppressive governments and build a new one.
     

  13. Or just adhere to the founding principles, most of which are legislated already...
     
  14. No, because corruption is too great right now. We are seeing socialism at work. Executive order should be abolished. It should be we the people by the people. Read my sig. That's how it should be. No adhering to the founding fathers constitution, as it allows corruption.

    There has been a long line of abuses, when will we say enough is enough?
     

  15. Corruption will, and has existed in every society in history.

    I agree the socialist ideologies are being legislated, and it's ridiculous, but abolishing and reinstating governments will just be a substitution of similar corruption.

    Much of what I consider our corruption to be is in violation of the constitution and the bill of rights.
     
  16. Take the less of two evils.
     

  17. But you don't know which would be less evil...

    I'm partly just playing devil's advocate. My point is that corruption is not going anywhere, but that our best bet (I think) would be to strictly adhere to the constitution.

    Perhaps another system would work too. We don't really know.
     
  18. I think constitutional principles are very important.

    They certainly left a lot of it to broad interpretation which has led to, in my opinion, exploitation of the document.

    Article 1 section 8 in particular. I think competitive federalism is what we need to strive for instead of cooperative federalism which we see today.
     

  19. I definitely agree. I've heard they made it somewhat vague to account for changes they could not have predicted.

    I guess it's a double-edged sword.
     
  20. It is indeed a double edged sword. That's the best way I can describe it.

    I think they definitely anticipated change. I've read that Madison later regretted favoring a strong national government instead of stronger state governments.
     

Share This Page