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.

 

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Indigo5
, but FOX NEWS can't take 50 Million and start a PAC to slam Obama.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Yet unions can to slam Romney?


Honestly...are you playing dumb? Cuz I directed you multiple times to links, qoutes excerpts. Under this Amendment UNIONS ARE PROHIBITED AS WELL.




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
I directed you multiple times to links, qoutes excerpts.


Did you? Or are you pointing to this website, which is an
advertisement for a specific bill to Amend the First Amendment?

freespeechforpeople.org...

Do you want donations too?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Indigo5
I directed you multiple times to links, qoutes excerpts.


Did you? Or are you pointing to this website, which is an
advertisement for a specific bill to Amend the First Amendment?

freespeechforpeople.org...

Do you want donations too?


It is the VERY SOURCE of this debate. THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT.

Sources seem to offend you.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by sonnny1
So the minute ANYONE forms a Corporation,they lose their rights?

Nice.


NO...THAT CORPORATION CANT SPEND FUNDS AND PROFITS FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. THAT INDIVIDUAL CAN DO AS THEY LIKE.


And you don't see this being abused,one bit ? Cant see someone using a loophole,or causing one ?

Sorry,but I am not falling for Big Government,and its intrusiveness,into ANY sector of business,or personal life. You can hang your hat,on Draconian,Orwellian laws,or bylaws,or Amendments. I for one,don't want it,or need it. Small Government. Thats the way to go.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


NO...THAT CORPORATION CANT SPEND FUNDS AND PROFITS FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. THAT INDIVIDUAL CAN DO AS THEY LIKE.


Yet unions can.

¿Por qué

(I'm feeling kinda south of the border tonite)

ETA; you gave an "answer" of sorts, retract
edit on 20-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Apparently someone forgets....she is not a vote....she is the reflection of a vote.....which says....

No....they lie....vote for them and vote for the gestapo.....



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You are also disregarding my last 5 posts explaining that unions would also be effected just like corporations by this amendment.

I don't think you are dumb, just willfully playing at ignorance?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Does Obama benefit from PAC's?

(cookie break)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by beezzer
 


You are also disregarding my last 5 posts explaining that unions would also be effected just like corporations by this amendment.

I don't think you are dumb, just willfully playing at ignorance?


Nope, just seeing a silence, a restriction of freedoms.

You can dress it anyway you wish.

It's the government placing the foot of authority on the throat of freedom.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


It is the VERY SOURCE of this debate. THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT.

Sources seem to offend you.


Hmmm.

It seems the current First Amendment rights,are offending those who benefit from corporate dollars,and Government dollars too.......


On SolarReserve's website is a list of "investment partners," including the "PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC." As blogger American Glob quickly discovered, PCG's number two is none other than "Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives."


Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi's Brother-In-Law

Why would you believe this woman has ANYONE'S but her own best interest,at heart ?








posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

It's the government placing the foot of authority on the throat of freedom.


By "foot of authority" you mean recognizing "speech" as belonging to it's people and by "throat of Freedom" you mean McDonalds?

...no one needs to agree with me, but disregarding the facts of the debate?...The actual language of the bill?...pretending that "freedom of the press" is not in the constitution? That Unions wouldn't be hit by this amendment? Lots of intellectual cowardice hiding behind dihonesty.


edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Indigo5
I directed you multiple times to links, qoutes excerpts.


Did you? Or are you pointing to this website, which is an
advertisement for a specific bill to Amend the First Amendment?

freespeechforpeople.org...

Do you want donations too?


It is the VERY SOURCE of this debate. THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT.

Sources seem to offend you.


I'm having trouble seeing the actual amendment language.

Which link has the new amendment that Pelosi and the House members are talking about.

I wanted to see the real deal.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I also think that people are forgetting that the citizens in the U.S. (and Canada) are deemed corporations. I think that if Pelosi gets this pushed through that you will find that the rights of Americans are gone. They are all but gone now with the last two decades of legislation that have been passed in the name of Terror. By wording it that they are doing it for corporations, disclosure etc. is another of the Great Lies being told by politicians and the powers that be. Think it through folks, if the world is Disinformed, Bluebeamed, False Flagged and there is a push for the unveiling of the operational NWO, then having the most potentially outspoken group of people (Westerners) muzzled is a great step in preparation for that time.

Please do not accept this as some form of altruism from the very people that have enslaved us and continue to sell us out.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by beezzer

It's the government placing the foot of authority on the throat of freedom.


By "foot of authority" you mean recognizing "speech" as belonging to it's people and by "throat of Freedom" you mean the McDonalds?

...no one needs to agree with me, but disregarding the facts of the debate?...The actual language of the bill?...pretending that "freedom of the press" is not in the constitution? That Unions wouldn't be hit by this amendment? Lots of intellectual cowardice hiding behind dihonesty.



YOU may be speaking the truth as you see it.
I'll grant you that.

But I don't believe, trust the people behind the movement. ANY law, ANY rule, ANY restriction, pertaining to this, damages us all.

benevolent Heretic had a signature line that I liked.

True freedom of speech is defending something you don't agree with.

This inhibits freedom of speech. It may be disguised in the form of PAC's, corporations (is an LLC still considered a corporation? Cause I are one???) but it is still an INHIBITION!
edit on 20-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

I'm having trouble seeing the actual amendment language.



Thats because the site quoted from is an advertisement for a campaign.

About the Campaign


John Bonifaz, Co-Founder and Director
John Bonifaz is the Co-Founder and Director of Free Speech For People. Mr. Bonifaz has served as the Legal Director of Voter Action, a national voting rights and election integrity organization in the United States. Prior to joining Voter Action, Mr. Bonifaz worked for more than 12 years (as the executive director and then general counsel) with the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), an organization he founded in 1994.


Wow, who is John Bonifaz?

Muckety score of

www.muckety.com...


Connections: John Bonifaz has direct or once-removed relationships with 39 people, organizations or other entities in our database of the most influential people in America. Under a scoring system that gives more weight to direct links, this score is higher than 50% of all entries.
Muckety connection score: 50

Influence: Bonifaz has a Muckety influence index of 51 out of 100. This is a measure of power and reach compared with others in the U.S. leadership elite.

edit on 20-4-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Does Obama benefit from PAC's?

(cookie break)


Yes he does bigtime it seems.

Obama campaign to support super PAC fundraising

Obama's re-election campaign announced that they will be sending administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action. Weak fubdraising was cited as one reason.

Priorities USA Action is a super-pac that supports the POTUS.

However, Mr Obama, Michelle, VP Biden and Wife Jill will NOT be appearing in person (yet).



Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from Priorities USA Action.



But in the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to change its position, and announced the new stance to members of its national finance committee Monday evening.

Two Obama campaign aides confirmed that senior campaign and administration officials who participate at fundraising events for the president's campaign will also appear at events for Priorities USA Action, the PAC supporting Obama.


CNN Report



Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting [color=gold]the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.

"The President opposed the Citizens United decision," Messina wrote. "He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, [color=gold]we would see new strategies to hide it from public view.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join