2016 Postmortem

treestar

(82,383 posts)

102. I knew it.

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 09:50 AM

Mar 2012

As soon as I started reading this. Geez, they look for shit to be offended about and twist it into something victimizing.

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