Dem planning bill that would outlaw threatening lawmakers

Originally posted by whatukno
I wonder, is it possible to speak out against what one would consider bad legislation, or an unfair agenda without the use of violent speech?

Is our society so hung up on violence that it's all we know? It's the only way we can be? Are we that devolved as a society that normal political discussion and discourse is a rarity instead of the norm, and the only way we feel that we are being heard is through threat of violent action?

no one is threatening anyone. No one is suggesting violence. Stop it already.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Over these last two years there has been a LOT of threats made against lawmakers. This is a reality, Sarah Palin made threats with her little sign:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74fdb65efb7e.jpg[/atsimg]

And Sharron Angle made threats with her "Second Amendment Remedies" talk.



Threats have been made. Don't pretend like the last two years have been filled with love and peace.

But is that what should be expected? Is that what you want to be able to do? Is that kind of coercion the right type of talk in our political system?

It's not right in my opinion, it's not good for our country, and it should be illegal. This indecent shows exactly why that kind of talk and imagery shouldn't be tolerated.

Are you one? I will post as I see fit. Sorry you are having trouble containing yourself.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Are you a moderator? I think not.

Don't lecture me.

reply to post by The Sword


Yeah, wouldn't want to harp on and on about the very basis of ALL OUR LAWS.

Yeah, might just as well throw that out and be a country of men instead of a country of LAW.

WOW.

Where do they dig up these attitudes?

So tell me oh enlightened one, what should we base our laws upon? Hmmmm?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


And WHERE in heck do those in Congress get the RIGHT to promote themselves to positions of aristocracy? That is a position where laws apply only to us but not to them and vice versa?

Here are the Powers of Congress spelled out in the Constitution and I see NOTHING about special treatment for Congress Critters.

The Constitution even says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Actually according to this MOST laws made by Congress apply only to the District of criminals and "all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

reply to post by whatukno


Maybe you should read this thread there arch nemisis, it might make some sense to you.

Did Obama cause the Tuscon attack from his rhetoric????

The media and democrats want us to focus on the nation’s “caustic political climate” after the tragedy yesterday. Maybe they should start with President Obama.
He may be the worst offender.

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

If the media really wants to improve the “caustic political climate” they may want to start at the White House.

Or this article-The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

BUT ESPECIALLY THIS ARTICLE-FASCIST PIGS, FANATICAL IDEOLOGUES, AND DELUSIONAL ILLNESS

reply to post by hotbakedtater


All, everyone needs to sit up and pay attention to this. There are existing laws which criminalize threats against anyone. This proposed law would broaden the definition of what constitutes a threat and make it apply specifically to congress. If I say we need to target John Smith in District 4 then under this law I've made a death threat against John Smith. It removes ALL COMMON SENSE. If I make a map of the districts I want my supporters to "target" then I've made a death threat against the representatives in that district. It removes ALL COMMON SENSE. History tells us that when laws like this are passed, that tyranny is on the horizon. Have a bumper sticker that criticizes congress - YOU ARE GOING TO GET PULLED OVER and possibly arrested. This is serious business - its an assault on liberty and a means to quell lawful and protected dissent.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


It's normal to lash out when events like this happen.

I've been warned before. I do not care. If people can threaten the government, complain about taxes, complain about the lack of the constitution and NOT get warned/banned, then I should be able to call them out on their bull# too.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


So to you it's perfectly fine to threaten someone with violence and threaten to kill them?

Either it's ok to do or it's not.

As a matter of political discourse, I don't believe it is ok to threaten someone with violence, no matter what side of the political aisle you are on, especially when you name names and list them as targets.

Oh by the way:

Your links?

RightNetwork

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I never claimed to be enlightened, unlike some of the fools on here that call themselves "awakened" and then harp on and on and on and on about how much they hate the government, on a forum that is monitored by the government. How laughable is that?

It's like confessing everything to your "enemy", right at their convenience!

I'm sorry, I thought this site was a place of rational discussion. Instead, it's devolved into a right-wing whiner site.

It would be great to rid the recent threads of all of the idiotic political ramblings so I could read more about aliens, fragile earth and stuff that really matters. In the long run, left-vs-right politics are just a grand distraction.

(I'm off to check out the Fragile Earth section)

Oh God No not the bumperstickers!

I understand what you are saying. You are right, there is no common sense to this porposal.

Originally posted by ararisq
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

All, everyone needs to sit up and pay attention to this. There are existing laws which criminalize threats against anyone. This proposed law would broaden the definition of what constitutes a threat and make it apply specifically to congress. If I say we need to target John Smith in District 4 then under this law I've made a death threat against John Smith. It removes ALL COMMON SENSE. If I make a map of the districts I want my supporters to "target" then I've made a death threat against the representatives in that district. It removes ALL COMMON SENSE. History tells us that when laws like this are passed, that tyranny is on the horizon. Have a bumper sticker that criticizes congress - YOU ARE GOING TO GET PULLED OVER and possibly arrested. This is serious business - its an assault on liberty and a means to quell lawful and protected dissent.

edit on 1/10/2011 by ararisq because: Typo

A grand distraction you gleefully join in and participate in! If you are interested in those esoteric topics, why are you wasting your time here in politics? I myself only click on threads I enjoy and am interested in.

Who is distracting, really, here? reply to post by The Sword

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Duly noted. I don't wish to keep apologizing to others so I will bow out.

Take care, folks.

You know, I always respect the poster who apologizes. Most of us have been there. No problem!

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Duly noted. I don't wish to keep apologizing to others so I will bow out.

Take care, folks.

Originally posted by abecedarian
Isn't it already illegal to threaten anyone with physical harm?

Yea..... but they are special. This knee jerk reaction show us where the minds of the writers of this bill are at. But like the guy said its better that the government fear the people than the other way around. lol

reply to post by whatukno


Really, show me the threats. Oh like the ones I posted of Obama telling people to bring a gun to a knife fight, or the one where he tells the Latino Community to attack their enemies?

No, you must mean ONLY the ones that you assume to be threats from your political rivals. RIGHT?

As for my sources, what you read Gateway Pundit? I have about 1000 bookmarks that I attempt to get a lot of my info. Some of them even include some bloggers at Huffpo. Shhhhh, do not tell anyone. Funny how some of their info is actually relevant in intellectual discussions. Not much, but some.

Question, is it unlawful to threaten or tell others to attack their political enemies.

Better start calling for the arrest of the president, or you would be a hypocrite here. Would you not?

You can attempt to obfuscate the situation, but that would mean you have already lost the argument.

Can't we all just get along? what_what_what?

There are already laws in place for this sort of thing.

On Sunday, federal prosecutors charged 22-year-old Loughner with one count of attempting to assassinate a member of Congress, two counts of unlawfully killing a federal employee, and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee.

And there are certainly laws of this nature about threatening.

Exclusive

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Here's a question, in the list you dredged up from the depths of your right wing site did Obama ever mention a single name? Any specific names at all? Looks to me like there aren't any names associated with Obama's rhetoric.

However, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin sure put some names to their violent rhetoric. Heck Sarah Palin made a hit list, and who's name is on that hit list? Oh that's right, the victim of the shooting that started all of this. Gee, coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!

One of Sarah Palin's groupies did what Sarah wanted and now you somehow want to blame Obama for it?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

One of Sarah Palin's groupies did what Sarah wanted and now you somehow want to blame Obama for it?

Whatukno, I don't want to be offensive - trying not to. What evidence is there that this person was a Sarah Palin groupie? You seem to be teeming with hate against Sarah Palin - if she were elected and this law is in place then you are going to become the target.

The only points anyone needs to consider is (a) there are already laws to prosecute people that make threats, not only against politicians but against anyone, so (b) why this law which serves to broaden the language and make it subjective so that any local can use it to criminalize the behavior of a person they disagree with needed?

You, or the type of person you are, is what we need to be afraid of. Someone that take has a knee jerk reaction to an event, categorizes it as political, and uses it to persecute those that disagree with them, with ZERO facts -- actually ALL of the facts contradicting the view point.

This law, and your rhetoric in the face of contradictory evidence, I find frightening.

reply to post by whatukno


Oh, YOU WANT TO BRING UP HITLISTS?

What about the target list for the Daily Kos that had GIFFORD as one of the targets? You *SNIP* are sooo transparent.

Oh, looky here-

BREAKING: DEMOCRATS PLOTTED TO BLAME TEA PARTY FOR SLAUGHTER!

Democrat political operative admit the smear campaign was planned just like the use of the Oklahoma Bombing incident that Bill Clinton used.

*SNIP*

edit to add-But hey, keep on with your narrative there *SNIP* you are just showing how absolutely insane some in the political debate are. Kinda like the way you have been doing this for years here. Keep up the good work.