2016 Postmortem

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

94. They could do that before. nt

Reply to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #85)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 07:50 AM

Mar 2012

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] castnet55 Mar 2012 OP

WTF? "...virtually unanimous support..."???? How the fuck did this happen? nt gateley Mar 2012 #1

That's a 1000 dollar question castnet55 Mar 2012 #2

They always seem to slip through crap like this under the radar. There is SO MUCH gateley Mar 2012 #4

Because possibly, just possibly... TreasonousBastard Mar 2012 #60

You know, I always start to wonder that AFTER I've flown off the handle and knee-jerk gateley Mar 2012 #104

They distracted us with a bunch of white christian men who said a lot of crazy midnight Mar 2012 #118

It happened because current Congressional Dems seem to be in name only, not deed. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2012 #120

It happened while the Rush media frenzy was occuring, smokescreen 101. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2012 #124

You need a new calendar. onenote Mar 2012 #129

Seriously? graywarrior Mar 2012 #3

just in time for chicago this spring! lunasun Mar 2012 #5

Rahm Emmanuel no doubt helped write the damn bill re: G8 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #50

That's a demonstrably false statement. onenote Mar 2012 #70

Well, if it was passed under Reagan, it must be a good bill. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #81

Well, if it was supported by Kucinich, Sanders, Waters, etc. it must be evil onenote Mar 2012 #99

Well excuse me for being vigilant about our 1st Amendment rights to assemble & speak. 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #92

The concept of designated national security events dates back to 1997 and Bill Clinton onenote Mar 2012 #100

K&R think Mar 2012 #6

WTF Yelling boo at Santorum could land you in jail for 1 year. snagglepuss Mar 2012 #7

Isn't Friday Brunch with Bernie day on Thom Hartmann? someone must call in NRaleighLiberal Mar 2012 #8

Here's the link ProSense Mar 2012 #9

Either people here are fixing to attack a presidential candidate geek tragedy Mar 2012 #11

Not this stupid dishonest shit again. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #10

Well, ProSense Mar 2012 #12

One can only wonder how the Republic lasted MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #13

That ProSense Mar 2012 #15

It MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #16

I ProSense Mar 2012 #17

I MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #18

Oh ProSense Mar 2012 #19

Yeah, if it's socialists, it must be Ron Paul supporters n/t Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #82

It's strange there wasn't already a law for that Incitatus Mar 2012 #20

Hence the unanimity of support. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #34

It would have been strange. Except that there already was a law. The same law. onenote Mar 2012 #72

reread it castnet55 Mar 2012 #21

It SHOULD be illegal to interfere with the secret service when it's geek tragedy Mar 2012 #24

Except that Rahm says the Secret Service will have jurisdiction over the entire event in Chicago. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #83

yeah, going inside with the intent to disrupt... just like the protestors did in Wisconsin... kysrsoze Mar 2012 #33

There is no free speech right to take the President hostage. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #35

Nobody here thinks that. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #68

No, it's called argumentum ad absurdum and is a fallacy. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #90

The Wisconsin Captol building isn't under Secret Service protection jeff47 Mar 2012 #39

Actually, peons like you aren't allowed in the Capitol any more. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #84

So...what exactly do you think you gain from lying? jeff47 Mar 2012 #106

Doesn't it increase the penalty of political protest though? limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #22

Only if your political protest involves charging at the President, VP or a presidential candidate jeff47 Mar 2012 #23

I guess we'll find out in Chicago. nt limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #28

Anyone who tries to charge past a Secret Service barricade belongs in jail. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #29

Of course, who says otherwise ?? limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #32

Everyone complaining about this bill. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #36

News flash: that already was illegal. This law goes a little beyond and limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #41

No, it does not create "no protest" zones. jeff47 Mar 2012 #46

We must have both read that and came to different interpretations of the meaning somehow. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #62

That is the section that is very vague and is what should cause people concern think Mar 2012 #64

You didn't read far enough. jeff47 Mar 2012 #65

They can restrict the area after you get inside it. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #66

It requires knowledge or intent. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #71

I don't know what's up with it. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #75

Most of the language is already on the books. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #78

Think this through jeff47 Mar 2012 #107

"declare an area restricted ad-hoc in order to abuse protesters." dixiegrrrrl Mar 2012 #122

NYPD is not the Secret Service jeff47 Mar 2012 #126

Do you think there's a right to interfere with efforts to secure geek tragedy Mar 2012 #47

No limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #63

News flash: this law doesn't change any the existing law onenote Mar 2012 #97

Well that hardly "screws OWS and the rest of us" treestar Mar 2012 #103

According to Rahm Emanuel, Secret Service will have jurisdiction over the entire G8 event. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #87

Secret Service is NOT limited to those functions: think Mar 2012 #37

There is a right to protest. There is not a right to interfere with secret service geek tragedy Mar 2012 #42

Are you operating under the delusion that G8/G20 protesters weren't already being arrested/charged? jeff47 Mar 2012 #43

Are you saying protesting the G8 or G20 automatically makes you a criminal? think Mar 2012 #44

No, so long as one doesn't try to violate security lines. nt geek tragedy Mar 2012 #54

This bill can't be used to create "no protest" zones. jeff47 Mar 2012 #57

Which kinds of protesters are those? Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #91

Meaning you can't use this bill against protesters and ignore non-protesters in the same area. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2012 #108

Amen castnet55 Mar 2012 #52

Only if they physically interfere with the secret service geek tragedy Mar 2012 #26

That already is a crime. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #38

Apparently not. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #40

This law expands the penalty for peaceful protest when just standing in the wrong location. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #53

No, if you're accidentally in the wrong place, it's not a crime. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #58

Read. The. Damn. Bill. jeff47 Mar 2012 #59

This law allows them to declare an entire downtown area off-limits. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #85

They could do that before. nt geek tragedy Mar 2012 #94

+1 onenote Mar 2012 #98

I knew it. treestar Mar 2012 #102

STOP LYING jeff47 Mar 2012 #14

wrong castnet55 Mar 2012 #25

Not any government building. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #27

No, I'm afraid you're the one that's wrong jeff47 Mar 2012 #30

Po Feller castnet55 Mar 2012 #45

Disrupting with noise isn't covered by this bill. The bill covers geek tragedy Mar 2012 #49

Read. The. Damn. Bill. jeff47 Mar 2012 #55

"Are you operating under the delusion that (marchers) would not be "busted" before this law?" Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #89

Read that again, maybe you'll get it this time. jeff47 Mar 2012 #109

Its all about how you read it LiberalLovinLug Mar 2012 #125

The parts you don't like have been law since 1971 jeff47 Mar 2012 #127

As previously explained, the reason that Congress amended the law was to close a gap onenote Mar 2012 #128

Most of what you described has been covered by this same statutory provision for years onenote Mar 2012 #96

Also, do you think it should be legal for a mob to take geek tragedy Mar 2012 #31

LOL castnet55 Mar 2012 #48

The secret service isn't going to care about demonstrations at city hall. nt geek tragedy Mar 2012 #51

Ya just can't see the forrest for the trees castnet55 Mar 2012 #56

I can understand Internet hype. nt geek tragedy Mar 2012 #61

It's OK to protest disruptively as long as they don't do it at an event anyone cares about. Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #88

Nope, this law is better than the one currently on the books: joshcryer Mar 2012 #67

Change castnet55 Mar 2012 #73

I don't know who you are, but this is bullshit, the law has been around since 1971: joshcryer Mar 2012 #74

Does that make it a good law? Leopolds Ghost Mar 2012 #86

There is no change: "such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2)" joshcryer Mar 2012 #93

The sponsors and authors of this bill believed that there are significant "changes", bvar22 Mar 2012 #111

This is Congress we're talking about. jeff47 Mar 2012 #115

This is the 112th United States Congress, more importantly. The most impotent I've ever seen. joshcryer Mar 2012 #133

They wanted to add intent. Have fun proving that in court. joshcryer Mar 2012 #132

No, Congress hasn't. The description of the bill in the OP is BS. onenote Mar 2012 #69

Clarify something? I'm seeing 1971 on findlaw: joshcryer Mar 2012 #76

You are correct onenote Mar 2012 #95

Interesting castnet55 Mar 2012 #79

You copy-pasted a WSWS propaganda piece without actually looking at the details yourself. joshcryer Mar 2012 #80

In terms of the Doomsday bill, I guess they feel states have the right to be as fascist as they want JNathanK Mar 2012 #77

Nope jeff47 Mar 2012 #105

wsws.org. LOL...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #101

Certainly shows what side "they" are on. bvar22 Mar 2012 #110

Except ProSense Mar 2012 #112

Hmmm...."a slight revision"? bvar22 Mar 2012 #113

I guess ProSense Mar 2012 #114

That language that terrifies you is from 1971. jeff47 Mar 2012 #116

K&R midnight Mar 2012 #117

The GOP is the ugly side of the coin, but it's still one coin... polichick Mar 2012 #119

Is this a reaction to the Gaby Giffords shooting??????? dsharp88 Mar 2012 #121

No. Its a minor modification to a longstanding provision of law. onenote Mar 2012 #123

Why yes, yes they have. nt rbnyc Mar 2012 #130

Not only is money protected speech, it's the ONLY protected speech. DirkGently Mar 2012 #131

to all the people who are constantly going on about ron paul SwampG8r Mar 2012 #134

actually all he did was vote against protecting the White House and VP's residence onenote Mar 2012 #135

he is smarter than that SwampG8r Mar 2012 #136

How was voting against covering the WH and VP's residence a vote for the people? onenote Mar 2012 #137

I guess I have incorrectly assumed that SwampG8r Mar 2012 #138

You are right onenote Mar 2012 #139