Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

Originally posted by sonnny1


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

Aside from the attempted derailment of the topic. Why would you believe Nacy Pelosi endorsed this? Do you have a transcript or video of her making that endorsement? Or just the headline on the "Conservative News Service"?? famous for thier BS?

CNSNews.com's motto is "The Right News. Right now."[4]

CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle.

Hogenson's leave of absence expired on November 15, 2004 when he returned to CNSNews.com in his original capacity.

Terence P. Jeffrey became editor-in-chief in September 2007.

[Jeffrey] was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992. Jeffrey was Buchanan's national campaign manager in his 1996 campaign

en.wikipedia.org...

But lord help me if I track down the actual bill???? THAT is misinformation???

Honestly what is wrong with some people.

The video from the article has her saying all that. It's from C-Span.
(Pelosi appears to be "drugged" IMO)

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment



And this link has a video of the U.S. House reps talking jibberish.
Donna Edwards (D-Md.) can hardly even explain it herself !!
She keeps cutting off her own sentences !

Democrats Call for New Amendment to Limit First Amendment Rights

Sour Grapes

reply to post by xuenchen
Thank you.

Just more "do as I say, not as I do" from Obama.

This actually reminds me of something Mark Levn said recently.

MARK LEVIN: “Obama, it would seem, wants to deny to others what he will not deny to himself. He wants to deny to the children of others what he will not deny to his own children. He wants to amass riches, but he doesn’t want you to amass wealth. He doesn’t mind private school for his own children, but he minds it for your children. He doesn’t mind eating whatever he wants to eat, but he minds what you eat. He doesn’t mind taking that 747 one frivolous trip after another, one self-serving fundraising after another, but he minds what you drive and how much fuel you use. And we can go on and on.

Link-a-reno

I would also question why after being on C-Span, the M$M is ignoring this so far !!

You would think that CNN and MSNBC would be proud to endorse this masterpiece !!

And still no actual language.......still looking.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Why would you believe Nacy Pelosi endorsed this? Do you have a transcript or video of her making that endorsement? Or just the headline on the "Conservative News Service"??

Hello? The silencing has not taken place yet.

Here she is scary as ehll.


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by xuenchen
I would also question why after being on C-Span, the M$M is ignoring this so far !!

You would think that CNN and MSNBC would be proud to endorse this masterpiece !!

And still no actual language.......still looking.

I'm watching "The Five" right now, thursdays show. They spoke about it. Bob Beckle said that it may not be popular, but it is the right thing to do.

Meaning, progressives want it, and the "99" would hate it.

Originally posted by xuenchen

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 it earlier on the thread here...text excerpted, link included.

post by Indigo5

Originally posted by Indigo5


Third
The text of the amendment

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

freespeechforpeople.org...

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

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

reply to post by Indigo5


Posted it earlier on the thread here...text excerpted, link included.

post by Indigo5


That post goes to page 1.

Nothing there by you.

I can't see any language.

We really need to look now.

EDIT after you edit:

OK I see that.

Is that really the House language ?

Seems a bit thin.

H.R. ????

reply to post by xuenchen


Yes, not to mention that the website is a campaign for the bill,
and the bill is promoted by Pelosi which whom John Bonifaz is buddies with.

Originally posted by beezzer

Meaning, progressives want it, and the "99"

would hate it.

Yah...and Montana refuses to recognize "Citizens United" too...Those damn liberals!

reply to post by xuenchen


Edited to include post. see post above yours.

anyone against what pelosi is asking for is for

wait for it

corporations buying and owning the politicians

think about it

there is a good reason we have ammendments in the first place, times change

we are not primarily rural farmers anymore, the original constitution was meant to be altered by each generation in the wisdom of the founding fathers

reply to post by Indigo5


I'm not seeing the specifics about repealing the Supreme Court decision.

That all looks more like a "statement" and "opinion" rather than a U.S. House bill.
(no authors, sponsors etc)

It doesn't seem to differentiate about "corporation" speech either.
( as in "is it an advertisement" or a "political contribution" ) ??

Looks like a perfect law !!

Originally posted by xuenchen

Is that really the House language ?

Seems a bit thin.

H.R. ????

edit on Apr-20-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

It hasn't hit the house floor and frankly likely never will. It is a proposed amendment to the 1st amendment to define the word "speech" as referring to people.

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

Wiki

reply to post by Indigo5
You appear to be all for it.

You know what?

I will defend your right to say that you are all for it.

I just wish you and Pelosi would feel the same way.

reply to post by Indigo5


Oh OK.

I was misunderstanding.

So they really do want to amend the 1st.

Not easy. Can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Oh OK.

I was misunderstanding.

So they really do want to amend the 1st.

Not easy. Can't have it both ways.

The 1st Amendment language remains intact...this amendment defines "speech" in the 1st, similiar to what the SCOTUS ruling did, but with opposite intent and via Amendment.

Did I see this right? Pelosi thinks "money in campaigns" can be reduced by TAXPAYER FUNDED CAMPAIGNS?

Now she wants the taxpayer to pay for election campaigns? Sorry, but If I were a US taxpayer I would be outraged that she thinks my tax dollars should pay for every Joe The Plumber who wants to run for office.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You appear to be all for it.

You know what?

I will defend your right to say that you are all for it.

I just wish you and Pelosi would feel the same way.

No fan of Pelosi and not sure I would be all for an Amendment to define speech. Right now Montana quitely sits in opposition to federal law as the courts and legislature there have declared they will not recognize the SCOTUS ruling and Montana bans corporations from participating in local elections. No one has challenged them yet. If Romney gets elected I am sure that policy will change...and we can have an ironic debate about states rights.

By providing the actual facts surrounding this, by providing the actual text of the bill and by championing the sentiment behind it, by refuting BS spin...the assumption was I am "All for it" and BTS personal attacks.

Ugly...and partisan....When showing the text of the speech, the explanation of the bill by it's sponsor...those who support it and what thier thinking is...I have been too busy DENYING IGNORANCE and pushing back against false claims, spin and lies to ponder whether I am for it.

Enjoy the thread...maybe look up facts for yourselves?