On May 15, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on June 3 on amending the U.S. Constitution to limit political speech. If ultimately adopted, it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment rescinded a freedom listed as among the fundamental rights of the American people.
The proposed amendment was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-CO) as S.J.R. 19 and if ratified would become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. It provides in part that “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect [to] the Federal elections … [and] State elections.”
The proposed amendment includes a provision that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” So Breitbart News, The New York Times, and the mainstream media would be able to say whatever they want, but citizens and citizen groups such as the National Rifle Association could not.
The American people have amended the Constitution 27 times in the nation’s history. Ten of those happened in a single package when the states ratified the Bill of Rights, and another three occurred between 1865 and 1870 following the Civil War, forbidding slavery and racial discrimination.
Reid usually opposes amending the Constitution. In 2011, Reid voted against S.J.R. 10, a proposed constitutional amendment by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee (R-UT) that would require the federal government to balance the federal budget. In 2004 Reid voted against S.J.R. 40 that would have protected marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which would not include same-sex partners or polygamous marriages of three or more people.
Only one amendment has modified a previous amendment. The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified in 1919 and empowered Congress to forbid alcohol nationwide. Then the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified in 1933 to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment and allow alcohol to flow once again.
But the right of Americans to fully engage in political speech is guaranteed by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. If S.J.R. 19 becomes part of the Constitution, it would be the first instance in which a right secured by a constitutional amendment was later scaled back.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) promises that the full Senate will vote on the measure later this year.
My, my! The Commiecrats are really getting bold in showing their true colors, aren't they? The next obvious Amendment attack would be to get rid of the Second Amendment. 888bravo
Their first target is talk radio. Then they will move to shut down sites like this and eventually attempt to intimidate Fox News.
The ultimate idea in this is that if I come on a web site and write something like, "I really like Ted Cruz." Then that would be considered what they are calling 'political speech' and would therefore be under the oversight of the FEC, with all the crap and headache that would rain down on the owner of the site. It is some real deal naziesque crap.
Of course none of these rules would apply to Liberal sites or to Democrats because the rules or laws never do.
But yes, there is no longer even a pretense of respect for the American system of government. The current administration is going full bore to establish a Cuban-ish style of communist authoritarianism.
Welcome to the third world everyone. We have arrived.
Well since many here believe there's absolutely no difference between Republicans and Democrats, I guess it will pass the Senate 100 to 0. :pondering:
Well since many here believe there's absolutely no difference between Republicans and Democrats, I guess it will pass the Senate 100 to 0. :pondering:
You actually make a very good point in that if there was a vote like that then the gig would be up. They have to keep it respectable. But in the end, the Democrats almost always get whatever they want. No matter what.
DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!
(I stole that)
MAC knows that. He or she isn't looking for education. MAC simply wants to poke people like me in the eye. And then wonder why he or she is treated rudely from time to time. MAC has very liberal sensibilities.
Or a low tolerance for BS.
People that sit on the 99 yard line, think somebody on the 85 yard line is on the enemy's side.
Or a low tolerance for BS.
C'mon, if you're going to bash, at least be clever about it.
(Hint, there is no 99 yard line).
MAC knows that. He or she isn't looking for education. MAC simply wants to poke people like me in the eye. And then wonder why he or she is treated rudely from time to time. MAC has very liberal sensibilities.
Actually JR, you're the only one here who has been out-and-out rude at least with respect to me. And I certainly won't look to the likes of you to tell me anything about conservatism. And if you want me to :nometalk:, then talk to the owners, not me.
Nope, simply pointing out that your post was a sarcastic bash.
Where am I wrong?
If you see that as rude, sorry, reality bites for some people.
Or an inability to distinguish? An opinion that doesn't fit with one's view of the political spectrum is BS?
Or perhaps that's the intolerance you seek?
Took the words right out of my mouth....... :laugh:
Mac and I know BS when we smell it.
Meatloaf, 1977
And I know maggots when I see them.
And I know maggots when I see them.
Most of us been around these forums for a long time, and because of that we're used to all kinds of sophomoric attacks from posters who believe that the ends all to end all in a debate is to toss out "liberal", "libtard" RINO" or such other nonsense. When I see that, I immediately equate it to a liberal losing an argument... you know... when the race card gets played. Escalating the attacks to include insecta and other assorted vermin just means that we have now added beer to the sophomoric behavior.
If you were ever to accuse me of having liberal tendencies, I'd say that you were right. I am very much a Liberal Classic, and sometimes I may even brush up against post modern liberalism insofar as I truly believe that short of engaging in activities which pick my pocket or breaks my leg, people should be left alone to do as they wish, with no coercion from either the State, the Church, or a self-anointed morally superior Omnipotent Majority.
So, should you decide to accuse me of having "liberal sensibilities", you will be correct, so don't bother trying to cast the insult. Insults only work when they mean something to the targeted recipient.
I have a long, established habit of considering the source before embracing the moment (and the insult) as it were.
So, in your intolerant way, you've decided that you dictate what is playing fair, and what is an automatic disqualification.
Here's a clue, I find your posts to be something I'd expect from someone with an over inflated sense of self importance. Your pseudo intellectual dribble is dry, and offers very little in the way of value. You tend to snipe, picking at other posters as you see fit in your own little world. I seek neither approval or validation from someone such as yourself.
Your teaming up with MAC is kind of cute. Some of the little girls in elementary school used to be like that.
So, in your intolerant way, you've decided that you dictate what is playing fair, and what is an automatic disqualification.
Here's a clue, I find your posts to be something I'd expect from someone with an over inflated sense of self importance. Your pseudo intellectual dribble is dry, and offers very little in the way of value. You tend to snipe, picking at other posters as you see fit in your own little world. I seek neither approval or validation from someone such as yourself.
Your teaming up with MAC is kind of cute. Some of the little girls in elementary school used to be like that.
Come on guys....please?? It's only freaking Monday. LOL!
IMHO, MAC was simply pointing out that when people....some in here lately...publicly say there's no difference between the two parties in terms of leadership and policy (which is laughable on its face), then any vote taken in Congress to go against somebody like what Harry Reid is proposing would be impossible. Said by MAC in a sarcastic tone, of course.
Maybe his 'crime' was not adding the "[/s]" at the end.
Let's all shake hands and try not to take everything so personally.
So, in your intolerant way, you've decided that you dictate what is playing fair, and what is an automatic disqualification.
Here's a clue, I find your posts to be something I'd expect from someone with an over inflated sense of self importance. Your pseudo intellectual dribble is dry, and offers very little in the way of value. You tend to snipe, picking at other posters as you see fit in your own little world. I seek neither approval or validation from someone such as yourself.
Your teaming up with MAC is kind of cute. Some of the little girls in elementary school used to be like that.
Relic, I sense you're probably a pretty decent person, with some deeply held values. But so are we all. This is a good forum because for the most part, people can take positions others don't. Quit taking it personally and try defeating the argument rather than the poster. Luis and I have differences, but I truly respect his intellectual approach to an argument. His logic is what you need to debate. If you can't then don't activate your keyboard. He isn't "teaming up" with me; he's trying to explain to you that some of us have been around the block and have different opinions. But in the end I think we all want to keep the Country from moving any farther to the left. Others here have also tried to suggest that to you. As Mystery suggested, Let's move on.
Your teaming up with MAC is kind of cute. Some of the little girls in elementary school used to be like that.
240B posted to tell you what you already know.
Gents? Are you going to continue frying sprats over a can of sterno or help land this whale?
So, in your intolerant way, you've decided that you dictate what is playing fair, and what is an automatic disqualification.
Here's a clue, I find your posts to be something I'd expect from someone with an over inflated sense of self importance. Your pseudo intellectual dribble is dry, and offers very little in the way of value. You tend to snipe, picking at other posters as you see fit in your own little world. I seek neither approval or validation from someone such as yourself.
Your teaming up with MAC is kind of cute. Some of the little girls in elementary school used to be like that.
Mac and Luis teaming up? The world must be coming to an end, or I am in an alternate universe! *bouche* 8888huh :cross: :mauslaff:
Luis go to bed LOL
And we all moved on, but you felt compelled to take one more bite at lecturing me.
You took a swipe at those of us who think there is little to no difference between the parties, that it's simply the political elite versus the rest of us. 240B posted to tell you what you already know. The political class is clever enough to make it appear as though there is real opposition. I believe that to be the general case, even if not always true.
That is the "debate". I hope I made it clear for you, because in spite of your pontification, you seem to miss some things.
LOL! Can't sleep either.
After watching a 15 inning NATS game which they lost 4-3, I remembered to watch tonight's episode of 24.
....where I found myself shouting twice....at the POTUS' Chief of Staff.
The point that you, and so many like you miss, is that it is "us" that is electing the political class. It's not perhaps an "us" that you and others want to be a part of, but it is "us" nevertheless, in the larger sense of the word.
I don't adhere to all the farcical arguments on voter fraud and "unfair" primaries. Hell, the people at large and the polity are so blindly disconnected from the affairs of State that neither fraud nor "unfairness" in the electoral process is needed to maintain the ruling class in power.
We are getting exactly the government that we deserve.
LOL! Can't sleep either.Dang!!! I forgot to watch 24 8888crybaby
After watching a 15 inning NATS game which they lost 4-3, I remembered to watch tonight's episode of 24.
....where I found myself shouting twice....at the POTUS' Chief of Staff.
That is EXACTLY what I just finished doing.
You could tell that those two hadn't been married long.
Someone married twenty years or so may have held out for a few more knuckles.
I thought for sure she was going to execute her daughter right in front of him. A hammer and chisel for a knuckle? :thud:
You never did answer the question on Roquefort vs Limburger.
Neither. Smoked Swiss or sharp cheddar please.
The point that you, and so many like you miss, is that it is "us" that is electing the political class. It's not perhaps an "us" that you and others want to be a part of, but it is "us" nevertheless, in the larger sense of the word.
I don't adhere to all the farcical arguments on voter fraud and "unfair" primaries. Hell, the people at large and the polity are so blindly disconnected from the affairs of State that neither fraud nor "unfairness" in the electoral process is needed to maintain the ruling class in power.
We are getting exactly the government that we deserve.
Your reply smacks of a vague accusation of racism. "so many like you", "not perhaps an "us" that you and others want to be part of,". If I am reading things that aren't there, I apologize. But, you really don't know me, so to characterize me and "so many like me" is foolish.
I can't recall ever complaining about stolen elections. I am generally not a conspiracy theorist. I don't have tin foil hats, I don't visit stormfront, and I'm pretty sure we don't even own white sheets.
What I am sure of, is that if you watch the political class, you'll see quite a few surprising and confusing moves. The first, most logical explanation is money. Major donors drive policy decisions, regardless of the impact on America and Americans. In order to facilitate that flow of money, it makes good sense for the political class to collude. I have no proof, other than watching what they do, and don't do. I will freely admit that I could be wrong on the collusion part, (not on major donors driving policy). But, if you observe, and connect the dots, it's easy to believe there is a cooperative element in the political class that does not serve America.
Quit playing the race card... it's embarrassing.
After seeing the twist it got from you, how can I resist doing so in the future?
Barack would be proud.
Now I'm the liberal?
This is so awesome. I guess I need to get a "Ready for Hillary" bumper sticker?
Just an observation, guys. Please? It's getting beyond silly.
It reminds me of "I know you are, but what am I?".
Relax.
I rather like Relic.
He's got spunk.
I prefer the "Vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife" one myself.
Relax.
I rather like Relic.
He's got spunk.
We're good. No animosity here.
I've learned a long time ago that communicating this way is hugely flawed.
Lou Grant: "You've got spunk. I hate spunk."
Great to read that, Relic.
I'm crazy about the both of you. :beer:
Excerpted from "The Life of Abraham Lincoln" by Henry Ketcham
Chapter XXXIV - Lincoln and Grant
Prominence always brings envy, fault-finding, hostility. From this Grant did not escape. The more brilliant and uniform his successes, the more clamorous a certain class of people became. The more strictly he attended to his soldierly duties, the more busily certain people tried to interfere,–to tell him how to do, or how not to do. In their self- appointed censorship they even besieged the President and made life a burden to him. With wit and unfailing good nature, he turned their criticisms. When they argued that Grant could not possibly be a good soldier, he replied, “I like him; he fights.”