Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

Clueless politicians. This rampaging Wilderbeast needs to be put down before it hurts more innocent people. Where is Ted Nugent when you really, really need him?

Originally posted by groingrinder
Clueless politicians. This rampaging Wilderbeast needs to be put down before it hurts more innocent people. Where is Ted Nugent when you really, really need him?

I used to enjoy early Nugent. I used to smoke up on Stranglehold and found it impossible to believe we wasn't doing the same when he wrote it...he denies it...but he appears quite capable of being a f'ing liar and a fraud.

He is scum now. He has crossed a line of decency. Sure, you can dispute, boycott, cry foul, jump up and down pulling on your hair....but ...it is not ok to insinuate what he insinuated....and F the people that deny it...you know exactly what he did and you know exactly what he meant.

No...it is not ok to incite violence as a means to solving disputes....we are an educated species. Our differences are meant to be worked out in arbitration and judicial methodology...Nugent....well I lost all respect for him....and at one time in my life I loved that dude....he is a neanderthal and should be treated by the secret service accordingly....you don't threaten....even cleverly disguised....it is bad karma.

I don't agree with this administration....however...I have the common sense to not threaten or "cleverly disguised threaten" it....you have to state your rebuttals cleverly and un-threateningly....he did not and he is an idiot for it....

I would have said hell no, the first amendment is fine as it sits.

But, then again, I thought this before the SCOTUS decided that corporations are people...
Now, ya...that sort of wonked the whole system, therefore, some corporate segregation may be in order...the system broke, time to apply duct tape and band aids to protect the actual organic people verses..erm..corporate entity people or whatever the hell that is, and stop the overt corporatisation of the united states government

Originally posted by Damrod
Just so we get it out of the way....

We are a Republic....which is the Rule of Law. Anything less is a bad thing. The Rule of Law is fair and equal to the many and the few...even the one.

A Democracy is "Majority (aka the Mob) rules" and it silences the voices of the few and the one.

What we are "technically" is a democratic (lower case d) Republic in which the Rule of Law is decided, governed and applied by democratically elected representatives of the People. We choose those that will interpret, add to and define the "Law" which is the Constitution.

Good post. Accurate in the most part.

Originally posted by Damrod
Nancy wanting to change the fundamentals is a bad idea....

I am not sure she does? Quote please? Not some right wing news outlet spin of what they think she feels.

But that said...this is an amendment to the constitution. We have had 27 of those thus far.

Originally posted by Damrod
the Constitution is one of the Wisest documents ever written...it's ability to "live" is second only to the religious texts. It never ceases to amaze me how "living" the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence actually are. They transcend time and apply to all ages. The Gentlemen that composed these literary works of art were far wiser than anyone living today....sorry.

Agree with the above ...strongly...but when "the men" today interpret the constitution in a way that most Americans see as a corruption of those principles...did not our founders allow for Amendments to the constitution? Is that not part of the "life" of that "living document"?...

Now that said...amending the constitution is no easy matter, it requires...

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once - in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment - has the convention method of ratification been employed.

So in a large part I see this as rhetoric...but a debate worth having.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Indigo5


Thank you.

I do not for a moment believe that our 'living" document cannot go without updates and clarification. I DO absolutely appreciate that it is a complicated process to amend said document...and it should be...before we alter our foundation, every citizen should have a voice in doing so.

The Rhetoric...yes, admittedly, I was responding to the prior posts and I do not know if Pelosi actually said what was quoted...my bad....my very bad actually.

But I stand behind what I said...whether she did or did not. The Constitution must stand and only be meddled with when it is an unquestionably clear choice. it is one of the best documents ever penned down and should not be tampered with unless great consideration has been put into play.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Here we go again! Outcast spreading more propoganda. The whole idea of this is to STOP the TRUTH that might get out about our corrupt government using mind control to lull the American people from waking up! Any news organization that TRIES to tell the truth will be stopped from doing so! PERIOD!

Are you OK? Some idealogical haze going on? The first Amendment remains intact under this proposal..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This NEW Amendment would simply affirm that our founders had actual people in mind when using the word "speech".

It should also be noticed that our founders...if they meant to include all entities in thier definition of "Speech", including Profit Motive Legal entities like corporations, ...would not have had the need to include the "press" as protected "speech".

Originally posted by Damrod

But I stand behind what I said...whether she did or did not. The Constitution must stand and only be meddled with when it is an unquestionably clear choice. it is one of the best documents ever penned down and should not be tampered with unless great consideration has been put into play.

Agreed and thus the unusually high standard on consensus among the states and congress before an amendment can be ratified.

Those that take this new amendment seriously and call for it as opposed to using it as a vehicle to bring the issue to light, believe that this time in American history is a critical tipping point with corporations and lobbyists having a stranglehold both on the politicians that govern us and the media which simply runs thier propaganda without the journalistic integrity of old. With the internet, twitter etc a well financed lie has power and sway upon the short attention span of Americans. A headline is easy...a 3 page explanation of the details debunking the Tweet is too time consuming to read. Corporations are beholden to profits...not welfare of the citizenry and not truth. They are literally legal entities committed to simply profiting the shareholder. That is great, it is capitalism. But to invite that soley profit motivated entity to participate in National Discourse as "people"...well that is frightening to our "democracey" to say the least and I can see how some would see it as a threat to the very life of our system of government.

reply to post by Indigo5


It is a tenuous...at best...position.

I have no dislike for Nancy Pelosi. She is a little more liberal than my personal taste but she seems to be a very nice person genuinely concerned for the welfare of the people.

Now...believe it or not....some of that I can swallow....oh man...the other Libertarians are going to hang me...but...

I do believe it is the humane thing to do....to help one another. I believe it is wrong to seek your own fortune at the expense of those around you. I believe that we should be free to choose how we invest our "very few" free dollars. I think tax incentives for charity are broken....but that is another topic.

I think we should be able to take our money and be free to do the best with it as we see fit. It is hard times but you know what? I know very few people without a heart...amost everyone I know gives to "something"...even when they themselves are struggling....it's kinda the 'pay it forward" rule. People know it is good karma to give...and they give...they hope they are giving to a worthy cause but in the end....it's speculative at best. I have been talking to my wife about it...there needs to be something clean and surgical....a simple service that receives charity and disperses it without prejudice...but I don't know how to do it...if i did...i would do it. I like helping people...it is the one thing I have found in my old man life that is the absolutely most satisfying thing of all. If you help someone and you really know you have made a difference....it is like...well...I don't know how to describe it. it makes you feel good....it makes you feel like you actually matter and you made a difference.

But maybe that is just me and my agnostic ways.....

I have said time and time again that corprate money has no place in politics. It should be illegal for any corporation to contribute to any politician. thats like a NFL team donating money to a referee. It should be illegal and if found out the politician accepting should be immediately out of a job and the corporation should be fined back to the stone age.

Once legislators think they can start modifying the Bill of Rights to suit whatever whim they have for that day we are in big trouble. Once this door comes flying open there won't be any shutting it again.

Anyone familiar with the story of Pandora? Same principal, don't open the damn box.

Personal attacks against other members ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE

I hope thats clear. Any more of that will result in post bans being issued.

First and ONLY warning.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Every government figure will parrot the "Democracy" line over and over. Ron Paul is the only one to ever mention we are a Republic.
People are falling for it too. I cannot count the number of people I've heard say the US is a democracy.
There was one Democracy and it was ancient Athens.

Originally posted by xuenchen

allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

Well this would equate out to any news source being essentially silenced.

Thats right, I dont know of one "news" agency on the net, print or TV that is not
a corporation.

"You write what your told". Basically this fits right in with the other things
that have happened under this O administration!
lately.

I would just like to point out something to my liberal collegues here.

If this were a conservative president in office and a conservative group trying to abridge free speech, especially for liberals, then you may not be so enthusiastic about this proposal.

reply to post by beezzer


Beez,

Yes there are several ways to re-frame a picture.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by xuenchen

allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

Well this would equate out to any news source being essentially silenced.

Thats right, I dont know of one "news" agency on the net, print or TV that is not
a corporation.

You are confused. "The Press" is still protected under the first amendment, which this proposal would not alter.

This proposal only looks to define "speech" as originating with living, breathing, people as opposed to corporate legal constructs structured with a sole duty to profits.

reply to post by Indigo5


Hmmm.

So would unions be affected by this then?

(my confused bunny face, just trying it out)

reply to post by Indigo5


More than happy to be enlightened. Show me the language that would
assure the press is still protected, waiting now. Thanks.

Originally posted by beezzer
I would just like to point out something to my liberal collegues here.

If this were a conservative president in office and a conservative group trying to abridge free speech, especially for liberals, then you may not be so enthusiastic about this proposal.

I would like to point out that this is an iniative that has been called for by several conservative leaning states, both through thier attorney generals as well as resolutions at the state level and this also would exclude unions groups from the definition as well as corporations.

I know it is difficult sometimes, but comming at without the partisan glasses is the most honest route.