It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dem planning bill that would outlaw threatening lawmakers

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This is almost hilarious. Isn't it "against the law" to threaten anyone?

They're clearly feeling very scared and very impotent right now...understandable. But this kind of knee-jerk reaction and grand gesture to try to assuage their impotence is...well...again...almost laughable.
edit on 1/10/2011 by ~Lucidity because: i left out a few words.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
This is almost hilarious. Isn't it "against the law" to threaten anyone?

They're clearly feeling very scared and very impotent right now...understandable. But this kind of knee-jerk reaction and grand gesture is...well again...almost laughable.


Yes, what this does is broaden the definition to be subjective and able to be interpreted by locals - meaning conservatives in liberal districts better watch out, liberals in conservative districts better watch out. It also broadens the definition if "inciting others" so that people that make a living about discussing the government will all eventually be rounded up by this law including talk show hosts on both sides. This is an assault against every American and no I'm not inciting violence. I'll need to change my tag line to be a legal disclaimer.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Yes, and this was kind of my point in my opening statement of this thread.

I do feel that some of the nonsense with innuendos of 'targeting' and other garbage laid out by many of these 'leaders' is ridiculous and they should be much more responsible with the childish incitations of tongue-in-cheek violence against their opposition.

That being said, this type of Bill is designed to capitalize and EXPAND any type of language which might be 'considered' threatening against any top level positioner of gov, and that to me signals a 'looseness' of what will be deemed 'acceptable' talk.

So under said bill, something like, "we should toss so and so out of office" would become against the law, and be interpreted as a potential threat. This obviously is designed as an expansionary tool to dissuade and crush dissent against those who are in leadership positions imho.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by ararisq
 

That being said, this type of Bill is designed to capitalize and EXPAND any type of language which might be 'considered' threatening against any top level positioner of gov, and that to me signals a 'looseness' of what will be deemed 'acceptable' talk.

So under said bill, something like, "we should toss so and so out of office" would become against the law, and be interpreted as a potential threat. This obviously is designed as an expansionary tool to dissuade and crush dissent against those who are in leadership positions imho.


Under this bill, the first thing I would do is search this site for every negative word ever said about Sarah Palin, since those people seem to love this idea, and submit them to the See Something, Say Something campaign.

Not really, but you get the point. This law screws everyone, especially those that think its a wonderful idea. We should be free to use common sense in discussing politics - if we want someone taken out of office - it means we want them taken out of office - we're not Chicago gangsters. This law is horrific in its language with an outcome which will be worse than the original attack itself.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword

Hey, just calling a spade a spade.

It's just not healthy to be obsessing over a piece of paper written by rich white land/slave owners.


Lol say what?

Are you willing to give up all of your Constitutionally protected rights?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


I totally get that. You articulated very well the part about this that is not almost laughable and has some very frightening potential ramifications along the downward-spiraling path we're on. Sublegislating or microlegislating along hate or intent or class lines just seems wrong and dangerous to me on every level and always has.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto Politician's the things that are Politician's."

Sorry for abusing the quote but this came to mind when I read the OP.

It must be nice to think so highly of one's self.

(I am going to be sick now, especially of any and all politicians)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Just what are the PTB going to do when everyone is in jail? who is going to plow the land, milk the cows, deliver the Pizzas? dig the ditches, pack the meat, bake the bread? unload the cargo ships from China? who has'nt voiced a wish that so and so needs sorting out? Still, with %90 of the population in jail, that will bring the population down!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

...make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.


Perception is in the eye of the beholder or those in power. A law going down this road is akin to our past Sedition Acts that this country drums up ever so often; usually connected to a war except whatever this bill will be is going to connected to this crime.

From the 1798 Sedition Act later ruled unconstitutional


To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.


We already have those protections in place. Placing targets on a political map showing districts that one party wants to win doesn't equate to killing that person. Making that connection is done out of the want for that to be.

I agree that Sharon Angle's (sp) statement was borderline and irresponsible and ridiculous. A First Amendment option is the option that should always be used. Which we engage in daily and during election time.

The fact the language proposed will be fast and loose on what 'perceived' will be. Don't like how a certain reporter uses a thesaurus, nail him under this bill. Don't like that at a political rally a person calls for "the removal of your sorry butt from office one way or another"....well I perceive that to be dangerous to my life and I have been specially protected. Sorry pal, you are getting slapped with a fine or jail time.

If ever there is a dangerous road this country will travel, this will be one of them. But heck...maybe I'll approve of this because I am a federal official and thus can silence my opposition at will and whim.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


You do know, using Lougher as your example, realize that he has been identified as a radical liberal right?



They want protection against nutjobs obsessed with the constitution, birth certificate and every other rightie loonie issue under the sun.



Or did I misunderstand you?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It ALWAYS comes down to this when discussing limiting speech.

WHO is going to be the judges? WHO is going to be the ones to judge the judges.

Sorry to say this, I think I have seen the problems of this already. Just because you do not like someone's ideology or their viewpoint, they WILL be constrained. They WILL be disallowed their viewpoint.

Sorry, but YOU CANADIANS have already gone down this path. You have laws that limit free speech and I have seen the ramifications.

I will not allow ANYONE to limit the free speech of others, even if it is reprehensible in my eyes. I hope that those of us in the US will agree with me. If not, you will see this country come apart.

PERIOD.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I still feel pretty strong about there being more pressing matters than running for cover.

How about curing the economy and putting people back to work?

Take representing the PEOPLE to an honorable level. Quit disrespecting your employers, and do what you were put in office to do... Uphold the Constitution.

It's so trivial to keep the kitties chasing after cheese on a string. Issue after issue, and I'm still waiting for my bacon.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
How about curing the economy and putting people back to work? Take representing the PEOPLE to an honorable level. Quit disrespecting your employers, and do what you were put in office to do... Uphold the Constitution.


Thats sort of the point behind this - as the economy unwinds and it will because there is no model in place which explains how it can possibly turn around - there will be more and more anti-government sentiment against the jack asses (not inciting, just stating fact) that got us in to this situation. They are going to need protection (not inciting, just observing). They know police cannot protect them so they need pre-crime laws to help lock up the people that they think intend to do them harm (not inciting).



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


All these actions are, are preemptive measures to ensure their stability. Implementing the " rule " over its people, while they, themselves, now have a wider range of "diplomacy " under the premise of National Security. You watch, the politicos will say that any threat against the upper echelons of power, threaten to undermine National Security. They will categorize this bill as such. Betcha~



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Thanks. Heed taken.

I did some editing prior to posting that...


I am only equipped to observe anyhow.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
THANK GOD that this happened after the routing of the Democrats. These totalitarian psychopaths will use any excuse to take away our rights.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 




Do you happen to be a frequenter of the The People's Cube?

If not, you would appreciate the humor.

All praise MAO!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Its so typical that the "lawgivers" would run to protect theselves without consideration of the other 6 "innocent" individuals killed in this senseless act. I say "innocent" because they weren't there for anyother reason but passing interest, whereas politicians, are there for their own self promotion, and the promotion of their personal agendas. To me, they take risks for being controversial by choice.

Famous people, like movie stars, need, and have to pay for their own sercurity. Politicians should be no better.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 




Do you happen to be a frequenter of the The People's Cube?

If not, you would appreciate the humor.

All praise MAO!


I like that,thank you!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
you can bet this law would be used to silence people........perceived as a threat.......covers just about anything you want it too. What they dont seem to understand is that if you cant use speach then violence is the only thing left.

Or maybe they do and are TRYING to push the issue to give them a reason to strip us of speach and gun rights



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join