Disclose Act will cut off free speech during elections
Grassroots Gag Order
Fellow Patriots,
There is a movement underway right now to clamp down on our free-speech rights in way we previously couldn't imagine.
I'm not kidding, this piece of legislation will have you spitting your drink... so sit back, swallow any fluids, and brace yourself for this rest of this email.
The Disclose Act is its actual name, but we're going to refer to it as what it really is, the Grassroots Gag Order.
Dave Poff wrote a great column explaining what the Grassroots Gag Order is and why you should care. I highly recommend you read it and share the link with as many people as you can.
Let me start with the following paragraph.
This is outrageous. But it is instructive as well. We can no longer engage in discussions about candidates and their campaigns and their policy positions during the period 90 days prior to their primary/caucus/conventions and running all the way through the November election. In the case of President and Vice President it’s 120 days. Not only are we not allowed to speak…we’re not allowed to speak during the WHOLE of the campaign and election cycle when people are actually paying attention enough to consider whether they’ll even bother going to the polls! Democrats have the most to gain here…it is the Democrat party “we, the People” mean to teach a lesson to in 2010, and they’re trying to fend off the revolt that’s already being amassed against them before it’s too late.
Then, we move on to the real kicker. Large, well funded organizations with 500,000 members or more are in some magical way exempt from the law.
This bill will allow big organizations to continue donating big dollars to Politicians, so long as their membership is over 500,000 strong, they have at least one member residing in every state, and they meet certain tax-exempt criteria. It also prevents large dollars from being donated by individuals and small groups and… in my opinion worst of all…it extends to 90 days prior to an election all the limitations to free speech we were guaranteed in the Constitution would never be abridged…
In other words... MoveOn.Org, Media Matters, Organizing for America and all of their ilk are free to do as they please. But you and I... the grassroots activists, are sealed and backed into a corner.
The Grassroots Gag Order has passed the lower house and may be headed to the Senate next week. Our problem is that not many people know about it, and we MUST get the word out!
I hope you'll spread this message far and wide, and be ready for any other action alerts we send out about this bill!
For Liberty,
Tax Day Tea Party
anyone have any facts to prove this wrong about the Disclose Act up for vote in Senate soon???"anyone have any facts to prove this wrong"
How about you give us some facts to show that your assertions are correct?
Like, perhaps, the number of the bill, or a link to its page on thomas.gov?Sparkling-Jewel must have forgotten that the exemption was added to mollify the National Rifle Association, not Move-On or other progressive organizations. The organizations she mentioned didn't ask to be exempted from disclosing their contributions. They were included only because excusing only the NRA only would have been un-Constitutional.
Sparkling wingnut cites exclusively from a tea-party article. What's interesting is how it is twisted to distort the intent or implementation of the bill. The wingnuts want to believe THEY are the targets of the bill and would suffer from the implementation. Only if they're afraid to disclose who they are (who is paying for the ads).
I have to wonder if the tea-party movement IS actually funded by big business - an astroturf swindle from the get-go. OR did they simply slant the bill and oppose it in a knee-jerk opposition to all things Obama?So, if the Sparkling Wingnuts were not the target of this bill, then it falls equitably on the Dangling Wingdings? And has nothing to do with Obama's discontent and crossing of the line with the Supreme Court of the USA? And you expect us to believe it is all about making the NRA happy? I'll give that a long think, after I read Habee's link.
Dick Armey is one of the big guys behind the Tea Party movement through his FreedomWorks organization.
I doubt she forgot that unless she had access to the inside joke, which you apparently do. Classic pass the buck and load the gun of rhetoric.
Free speech???? Yeah, right, the only free speech in our systems at the moment are those 'speeches' that news editors permit to get on the airwaves. It is all soooo cosmetic, newspapers, TV stations and the like, chop and change, cut and paste, editorialize and spin, so that what is said is never what is said, and in any case, what is said is rarely what candidates actually think in any case (thanks to campaigns employing media-savvy spin doctors). Free speech??? Get a free media first... (and good luck with that)
What BS! We've never had freer speech than what we have now! Now we have the internet! Anyone can post anything. Don't like what's in the MSM? Start a blog and write what you want!
Of course, the democrats don't like that idea, which is why they passed the bill giving the President the sole discretion to shut off the internet for 120 days. Oh and that's not the end of it. This administration won't be happy until they have extinguisehed all free speech.I am no fan of Obama, trust me, though most of what I dislike about him was being done already by the Republicans (I have heard Tony Blair described as Maggie Thatcher in drag... it's someting like that... not sure I can stretch the drag thing on this one... too much cross-dressing confusion...), and some of that was being done by Clinton before that, and Carter, and so on, etc.
I agree with you that the Internet remains our best hope, and that protecting it is EXTREMELY important for that reason. The fact remains that most people get their information from newspapers (including online newspapers), CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and so on (as well as their online incarnations). The truth is that television still outweighs other sources of information on electoral issues, and that television is itself dominated by just a few organizations (the Big Three, CNN, Fox, to some degree PBS, in Britain the BBC and ITV/ITN, in Canada the CBC, CTV, and Global TV, as well as piped-in US stations).Yes but there are other sources, and regardless of the source of your information, you always have to consider the source and what their interest, and motivation is and what may be motivating them, then weigh that information against sources with competing interests. Even MSNBC has to report a fact once in a while!
MSNBC, Fox, even the BBC or PBS, they're all biased, in my view. Neither in America, nor in the country I'm from (England) or the one I live in (Canada) is there a sufficiently rigorous approach, not only to political issues, but to knowledge in general, among the general public. In principle viewing sources critically is the way to go, but ninety-nine percent of people don't take this moral duty as a citizen of a democracy nearly seriously enough.
The proof of this can be seen in the extraordinary spectacle of an entire nation (well, a lot of people in that nation, at least) being hoodwinked into believing that Saddam Hussein had a connection to the World Trade Center catastrophe. It REALLY would not have taken much research to discover that Saddam was not particularly religious, for a start, and was frequently at odds with Islamist fundamentalists in any case. It's just an example, but my point is that you cannot trust people (Canadians, Brits, Americans or, for that matter, Iraqis, Chinese, Russians) to be able to critique their sources of information, because there is almost no culture of intellectual critique in GENERAL (unless it is in relation the the TV show Lost, perhaps...)
FYI:
1) The bill has not been passed.
2) In its current form, it does not give the president the authority to turn off the internet. It "would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee."
3) I can guarantee that if the U.S. were subjected to a cyberattack and there were no cyber-emergency response plan in place, conservatives would be howling about how the administration is soft on security.Exactly.
In fact, it's a no win always. Whatever Obama does, the TP or the GOP or both will find a way to paint it as something awful.
It can get pretty funny seeing how far you can go with these, um, um, I just can't think if the right word.. Oh yeah, I have it, but if I use it here I'll get banned, so I won't.
Try this: when they bring up the Internet thing, try to convince them you just heard that the President has announced that he will not sign it under any conditions. Watch how quick it turns out that we NEED Presidents to have this power.No matter how you want to spin it, that's a lot of power for one man.
"In its current form"... still, it's too close for comfort.
The Internet MUST remain a public, open forum. It is our last, best hope, in my view. Hubpages forums prove this. What the hell IS a cyberattack in any case!
Fortunately (I think), while we have Google in the game, (the corporation Google, I mean), then probably the government cannot match the power of those guys (I hope).
I still say, however, that Obama is only continuing a trend started under Bush Junior. It is DEFINITELY a trend that must be squashed, and I commend the Tea Party for any efforts it might make to do that... that does not mean I support the Tea Party, because a lot of its members actually just seem to hate Obama -- but Obama is not the (only) problem... Bush-Cheney clearly set this in motion, Obama has continued it. What REALLY needs to happen is for BOTH major parties to have bejeezes scared out of them by the People -- don't hang your hopes on the Republicans, is all I'm saying: America is a One-Party State where that Party merely has two bickering factions to it, wherein one always has (slightly) the upper handA cyberattack would be something either trying to shutdown communications to critical infrastructure or infiltrate it for compromise or control.
Either way, your worry is silly: if an attacking enemy succeeds in disruption or control, isn't that just a little bit worse than the awful liberal guvmint shutting down your surfing?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: anything liberals do to protect security threatens basic freedom. Anything conservatives do is in our best interests. I always forget that it's not what's done, it is who is doing it. It's just like the awful health care bill that was almost identical to what Republicans wanted not so many years back - it was a wonderful idea when they wanted it, but sinful when the other side wanted it.
Don't think I am exempting the Left from this hypocrisy. Often they have been just as guilty. But the current batch of TP and GOP nay sayers have brought it to new heights.
We are going to tear this country apart if we don't stop this nonsense.Except you're assuming that one man will be honest about the emergency. You're trusting government won't abuse that power.
Of course we would have to pass the bill to see how it works right? Isn't that what they keep saying about everything? Trust me!The government consists of more than just one man. No, I don't trust the government to be honest about everything, but I'd rather have some protection in place than none at all. By your reasoning, the President should have no emergency powers whatsoever in a time of crisis, since he can't be trusted.
Well, gosh, everyone knows that all liberal Presidents always try to take over the country and turn it into sone pinko socialist state. Even *I* know that!
Your paranoia is showing. Calm down and look at it rationally. Pretend Limbaugh thought this was a great idea and imagine why he could think that.
A cyberattack means either shutdown or control. It would be a rapidly evolving threat and frankly by the time the President heard of it, it might be too late. But if it wasn't, do you really want to waste time arguing about it?
This isn't like declaring martial law. It would mean inconveniencing most of us. It would mean some of us would lose some income, but if there was a successful attack, we have all that and worse.Yeah right I'll calm down. You liberals are such phonies! You all screamed about the Patriot Act when Bush proposed it!
Oddly Obama supported it, voted for it and has extended it, and the silence from the left is, well, deafening!
You all screamed at bush when he issued his countless signing statement, essentially exempting himself from the laws passed by congress. Yet here again Obama is doing the same thing quietly issuing executive orders with profound effects all while you on the left look the other way.
So I'll ask you again, what if Bush was proposing this? Would you be so quick to call me paranoid for opposing it?Obama is not proposing this...Lieberman is. Do you not read any of the other postings? The Administration is against it...........
Sadly, you are rapidly becoming a lot like the Boy who cried wolf.You obviously don't listen to the left or you would know that "the left" (whatever that means) has been sorely disappointed in Obama in many areas, and particularly in the area of continuing Bush's most awful transgressions, such as the Patriot Act.
But, you're probably not actually exposing yourself to television programs, newspapers, blogs, or radio shows that would tell you that.I agree with the tendency of this comment. I mean by that that the Left, even a toned-down version like that in, say, 1970s Britain (ie, the Labour Party of that time), would certainly want, at the very least, a health care system that, ideally, was completley public or, failing that, that was privately-run just heavily regulated (that is in fact what most European countries have, contrary to popular belief); even Reaganite Margaret Thatcher maintained the universal health care system over her eleven years in power; or the heavy regulation of the banking system, maintained by the present Bushite Conservative Party in power in Canada (they have also preserved Canada's various universal health care systems), and introduced by a former government that was NOT left-wing, that in fact reined in spending and cut the deficit dramatically.
So, insofar as American banking remains largely under-regulated, and as the health care deal does not seem to resemble a health care system any self-respecting Socialist would go near, we can say that this is not about the 'Left'.
Besides, Clinton gutted welfare spending, introduced welfare-to-work, and so on... I don't think America is going to become a Left-wing State any time soon...Exactly! I suspect that leeberttea's notion of what "the left" wants comes from the Rush/Beck/Hannity school of discourse, not from any actual exposure to the left's ideas on his part.
I still support his right to be angry however. I mean, Americans are really, really, really being screwed over. I have lived in Britain, in two different provinces in Canada (and have connections to / family in / lived on the doorstep of a third), and Germany. Yes, the people in those countries are more-or-less screwed over by their governments too, but in the US it is of epic proportions...
Whether it was always like this or not, I'd have to say: I suspect so. What is definite is that the last decade has been a complete disaster for the average person in the US.
What bothers me I guess is the implication that a Republican president (of a post-Bush type, presumably) would do more for the average person than Obama's administration. Obama simply does not have the stomach for what needs to be done. In this sense the criticism that he lacked experience (made during the election campaign) turned out right, in my view. This man will not go down as a leading light, not unless he shapes up fast; very fast.
But a Republican is extremely unlikely to shake things up either.
The Tea Partyers who are sick of poor government are right to be sick of it. But the idea that salvation will come from the Right is, well, just not borne out by the testament of history.
Presumably you are directing this response to the wrong post. But I will respond.
I actually *know* what the word "cyberattack" means. I was using a rhetorical device (if you know what that is).
I can in fact *spell* the word "government". Your implication that I can't is, I realize, also a rhetorical device. In this case the device is to imply that conservatives-rightists (what-have-you) are dumb, or uneducated; which is elitist, snobbish, and plays right into the hands of those who want to say that all liberals are elitist and snobbish. Worse, it implies that people who are uneducated shouldn't be part of the democratic process -- that, to me, flies in the face of the American ideal, which is supposed to be Government by (all of) the People (not just the educated, or those who see themselves that way).
As to your point as such, if the Internet goes down, whether to a "liberal guvment", a conservative "guvment", or Islamic space aiens, we are all a lot worse off. Ridiculing the debate is tantamount to ridiculing the ideals of freedom of association, freedom of public assembly, and freedom of speech, all of which are provided by the Internet with the most powerful platform the world has yet seen: why do you think the Chinese want to control it?
Thus, ANY potential tampering with Internet access is SERIOUS STUFF.
Anyway, I am not a liberal, though I do in fact possess many liberal values, I am not a Christian, I am not a member of the Tea Party, and I am not a conservative, though I do share some values with 'true' conservatives. I am not an Obama-hater, though I do think he is a big disappointment, and hardly better than what we have seen in the past (not counting Dick Cheney and the others in his administration of course). Hell, I am not even an American....
You are contributing to the tearing apart of your country with your condescending manner of responding. Call that engaged debate? How do you expect Tea Party supporters to respond to that? With an 'oh yes, you're right we're dumb heels -- thank you for pointing that out, oh enlightened person-I've-never-met-in-my-life' perhaps???
Come on.
You ssy this bickering is tearing you (collectively) apart. But you then in the next breath try to quantify hypocrisy... Good luck there with that one. Leftists, centrists, rightists, they`re all hypocrites sometimes. They are all shrill sometimes. There is no right-wing monopoly on shrillness.
Frankly, as an outsider, I`d say that the critics of the Tea Party remind me of some of the members of the Tea Party. Many Tea Party members hate Obama for reasons that have little to do with loving America, or Democracy. Similarly, many Tea Party critics are simply responding in their commentary to a reflexive rising of the heckles whenever thos 'dumb clucks' get out their placards. Same sentiment... tearing apart your own society based on unhelpful stereotyping: yep, couldn't agree more.
Finally, to reiterate what is, for me, as a non-American living in a free democracy, the MOST important point -- THE INTERNET NEEDS TO BE GUARDED FROM CONTROL AT ALL COSTS. Once we lose the ability to communicate with each other, we are royally, well and truly SCREWED.
It is not 'silly' -- but thanks for raising the possibility that it is, so that I can react so strongly to the statement that it might be.I agree that the Internet needs to be protected. It needs to be protected from big business and it needs to be protected from governments. That's exactly why it might need to be shut down in an emergency.
I AM a liberal, but not a lock-step non-thinker.
Yes, I was harsh toward the TP folks. I agree there is reason to be angry and actually I'm angry about some if the same issues. However, I see very little intelligence in the TP movement and far too much jingoism and proud flag waving nonsense. To me, most of it seems tailor made to attract and reward ignorance.
I wasn't implying that you can't spell and had no intent to sound condescending. I'm sorry you read it that way and apologize for that.
The first two items were statements of fact, provided to correct your misstatements, in case someone who actually wants to know the truth happens to be reading. The third was my opinion. You seem to throw around your opinions quite a lot, as well as statements of "fact" that turn out to be false. Is that spin, too?
What you don't seem to realize is how overwrought and paranoid you sound when you overstate your case and include lies and distortions to bolster it. Example: "This administration won't be happy until they have extinguisehed all free speech."
That statement, on top of your original lie, exemplifies why the Tea Party and those who claim to support its ideals are not taken seriously by so many. If you can't even get your facts straight, and you make ridiculous statements like that one, then you become a joke.
By the way, where did you hear that the bill had passed?You just said it didn't pass. I'll assume that's correct since I haven't bother to check. Secondly you said the bill doesn't contain that provision "in it's current form", again I'll take you at your word, but as you said a final bill hasn't been passed and we all know how Obama gets his way through bribes and payoffs, (see healthcare).
Okay admittedly I speak with a healthy degree of hyperbole, but certainly in no more measure then the rhetoric spewed by this President at every crisis manufactured or otherwise (see energy speech after the oil spill).
So please. , it's not paranoia, more government equals less freedom, less government equals more freedom. Power corrupts absolutely. The question you should be asking yourself is, what if Bush was passing these bills, would you still support them?The Obama administration has already said that they will not support Lieberman's idea...
The health care bill, as finally enacted, fell far short of what I would have wanted. I supported it because it was a step in the right direction. If Bush's congress had enacted it, I still would have felt it was better than nothing, which is how I feel about the one passed during Obama's administration.
With regard to the internet security bill, all I can say is that we need some kind of protection during a cyber attack. I am not enough of an expert to know exactly what form that should take, but I do agree that if a massive cyber-attack occurred, then the President should have the authority to respond in an emergency and seek congressional approval for any ongoing emergency measures beyond the initial response. I would support that with any President.Yes, I would.
I actually liked some of what Bush did. Until he took us to Iraq, I thought he was doing pretty well overall. There were things I didn't agree with, but I always felt he at least thought he was doing the right thing.
I wouldn't vote for him, but until Iraq, I did not dislike him.
So, in a time of national emergency, you want exactly how many people to argue about whether we should or should not?
Ooh, I have an idea: we can have a national referendum! That won't take long..Perhaps a quick survey of human history will reveal to you that this sort of one-man power is dangerous intrinsically. This is why in general other Western democracies don't given their leader quite as much power as the President seems to be able to get his hands on. Heck, Maggie Thatcher was expulsed by her OWN party mid-term...
This is not about Obama. Would you have wanted Bush Jr to have this power? How about Bush got knocked off and Cheney became president????
The Tea Party blames subprime borrowers for the housing ponzi scheme. They are liars and flakes. The cause of the ponzi housing loan scam were the banks, who were able to write swaps, ie, insurance, against bad loans. This was made possible by the Repeal of Glass-Steagall that separated banks from insurance. And it was made possible by Basel 2 in 1998 when they permitted off balance sheet banking.
The ponzi housing scheme was and is a scam. It is even worse in China where you can get a 255 year mortgage. You never own the house! The house will disintegrate before that.
I advocate walking away from debt. The reason why is that the Tea Party and others are blaming the wrong people. They divert attention from the scamming international banker cartel. The Fed is a private bank. Wake up hubbers."wake up" = liberalspeak for "agree with me or you're a dope"
All you have to do is study it Sab. You can choose to look the other way or you can blame the true culprits, the international banks. It is up to you. I emailed the founder of the Tea Party. He is a flake, I heard him on CNBC kissing up to Wall Street. He is a scamster, a flake, a liar, and and an immoral elitist:
This is the link if you want to understand ponzi's: http://hubpages.com/hub/Banking-Scam-El … et-Expense
I also have an article on the demise of the 30 year mortgage, which will go away if Fannie and Freddie go away, and on the Tea Party. As far as I am concerned, no one should get a recourse 30 year mortgage now.
And what happens when China's 255 year mortgage goes away? Crash.One lesson here, Sab. Nothing that happens in the financial world is by accident. We already have one world government. I wrote about that as well. It is because the financial world is an oligopoly and national sovereignty means nothing. Mainstreet is the victim of the scam.
I really wish people wouldn`t bandy about terms like 'One World Government'. It just confuses things.
We do NOT have One World Government. We simply don't. More importantly, I think, using a term like that suggests, in my opinion, that the powers that need to be resisted are anything like as powerful as they are assumed to be.
I am also not sure it cuts it, to be honest, to say that a Hub has already been written about it. Most of us will probably not search for that Hub. So your brief comment will stand on its own. And it is not clear what you mean.
The DISCLOSE act is designed to put a warning label on political advertising. What the teabaaggers are opposed to - what his law requires - is that if you are BP and you want to dontate 500 million to endorse a slate of pro-oil candidates, when you buy advertising as 'Citizens for the Gulf' at the end you have to admit the ad was PAID FOR BY BP....
The Supreme Court last year struck down limits on corporations to support (or oppose) in political advertising. The sky is the limit. The idea of the act is to make the sponsors DISCLOSE who they are.
The exemption is not intended for the Sierra Club or any liberal organization. NPR said the exemption was put in as a concession to the NRA, with the understanding the NRA would not oppose the law.Oh, so you are referring to the ruling that resulted in the quite unique insult paid to the Supreme Court by Obama last year.
And the law proposed to be passed under discussion by the OP must be real, or you would have exposed it as an idiot email farce, and you did not.
Did you really mean to say that?
With great interest I will read the rest of the responses to this topic.Let me try to explain this so you can understand. There is a bill called DISLOSE. That part is true. (Still with me?) The OP is a gross distortion of what the bill will do - and what its intent is.
Yes, this is about the Supreme Court ruling that President Obama disagreed with publicly. Under the SC interpretation of free speech, corporations are unrestricted in how much money they can throw into elections. DISCLOSE doesn't try to reverse the SC decision - but it requires you disclose in the ad where the money is coming from. So if a group called 'Citizens for the Environment' supports a gang of pro-drilling candidates - if the MONEY comes from BP, the ad has to say so.
The law doesn't propose to gag the Tea Party Movement at all - but if the s advertising in TP ads comes from Wall Street Bankers.. they will have to 'fess up in the ads. That would tear a hole in the 'grass roots' part of the con. That's the only way the law would cut into the TP (funny, that's how I list toilet paper when I'm shopping.) movement.Well, just how do you post multiple repetitive ROFL's? Do, help me to understand!
"The grass roots part of the con" , what telling words are at your fingers and in your mind, and how worried your betters are that the majority of Americans have realized the "con" of all time, and will vote against that "con" of fictitious hope and change that even our elderly bought into, to their great regret.
Far left indoctrinated Democrats should take some Milk of Magnesia to prep themselves for the coming days that will choke up their innards.
Go here to read the official summary:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show
Seems pretty tame to me.Haven't read it, but will follow your link, but the mere fact that it has occurred on the heels of the public insult to the Supreme Court on their ruling, tells me it is in no way 'tame'. I've no problem with corporations being required to disclose ads they pay for, doesn't even seem a new thing, lots of political ads say 'paid for by so and so', and Obama himself was a great great great recipient of corporate donations, so.......there must be more...of consequence to our country.
Thanks you Habee! I'll take a look at the actual text of the bill, and then compare it to the OP's assertions.
I would love it if all political ads had to disclose how they were paid for.
I'd like it even more if whenever a politician appears on TV, the networks will put their top five donors and how much they donated in the little scrolly text at the bottom of the screen. I think many Americans might vote differently if they had this information.
The real question we need to answer is why is this being done? What "problem" are we trying to fix? Why are we exempting some from the law? Whose idea was this bill? Who gains? Who loses?
This whole thing stinks if you ask me! It's another way politicians seek to quell free speech and hold onto power."The legislation is a response to the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case last January. That decision overturned a decades-old law banning political expenditures by corporate interests. The new Senate legislation would partly restore those limits – by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures – and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads."
http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324343&
Lee - I think that answers your questions. I have one for you. On what basis do you suggest that the law is about "politicians seek to quell free speech and hold onto power." Granted, the GOP oposses this bill on those grounds, but the actual bill does none of those things.On the bassis that the bill allows for a number of "exemptions", which is typical in a partisian bill such as this. The exemptions are used to garner support for a bill which isn't perfect, but when you're talking about election law, and transparency, then you ought to be sure the bill is perfect!
It's no wonder the bill has only partisian support.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/20 … e-act.htmlPerhaps if you posted a few "perfect" bills for us to examine it would help!
Perhaps if the democrats weren't obviously scum sucking, progressive, power hunger, american hating, intolerant, dictators, they could write one.
Well, you could post some perfect bills the cons wrote if you like. And why would democrats hate America? I hear this often from your ilk but, so far, none have given a good reason why we would hate our own country.
They seem to think we hate America because we do not agree with their ideas of how this country should be. We are allowed to have an opinion whether you like it or not, Lea! If it makes you and others feel better to resort to childish accusations, then by all means do so. Are you old enough to vote?http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philo … merica.htm
That pretty much sums it up for me, though there is much more evidence to support my view.
You could have your own show on Fox. You have exactly the intellect and temperment they look for.
I apologize for the outburst. Sometimes I get tired of debating the facts. That aside there is plenty of evidence to support the view that the current cast of democrats controlling our government are leaning too far left of the views of most Americans.
As i said I get tired of the debate. Those of you on the far left won't admit what is happening right before your eyes even as you don't agree with the assertions, so what's the point?
Maybe at some point in the future we'll be fighting on the same side, for now I guess I'll have to fight against you.You know, we are all fighting on the same side, whether you believe it or not. I have absolutely no beef with conservatives who are willing to work together with liberals to find solutions. But this kind of crap (and that really is the only accurate word for it) that you just spewed is par for the course from "your side." And I use the term "your side" only because you have made it clear that you perceive liberals/Democrats/progressives/whoever disagrees with you as the enemy.
I'm really tired of it, too. I'm especially tired of the intentional disregard or distortion of facts that comes from certain people, all for the sake of "winning." For whatever reason, call it the absurd worship of the truth, I can't look away when I see stupid and inaccurate statements on the forums. I always imagine that there is someone out there reading it, someone looking to understand the issues but too lazy or time-constrained to find out the facts for themselves, who will read the lies and crap posted here and assume it's true.
If you really want to fight on the same side, just do it. All you have to do is quit viewing people who disagree with you as "scum sucking, progressive, power hunger, american hating, intolerant, dictators." We're all Americans, and we all love this country and simply want to make it better. We just disagree on how to do it. Can't we disagree without viewing each other as the enemy? Nothing is ever going to get done unless we do, and it starts with each individual choosing to reject the hate and to acknowledge that disagreement will always exist among people who are passionate about their country.
I am an American, just like you. I celebrate the 4th of July, I value the constitution, and I teach my kids about the importance of being informed citizens and voting. I am the daughter of a veteran, and I am in love with a veteran of the Viet Nam war who retired from the military and who also happens to be a conservative Republican, yet I have been accused of hating the military and hating veterans. I am no less American than you are, and it is highly offensive for you to say that I am.
Yes, I'm tired of it, too. But I'm not going to sit back and let this kind of thing continue to get a pass.No, we don't disagree on just HOW to do it, we disagree on everything, the role of government, the meaning of the words in the constitution, the intent of the founders, capitalism, our role in the world, it goes on and on. My feeling is we were meant to be free, government is oppression, if you want more of it, then you want to take my freedom. I can NEVER agree with that. From my point of view if you really want to be dominated by a government, start a commune and live on with with like minded people. You should be free to sacrifice your freedom if that is what you wish just please, keep your hands off mine! Stop trying to tell me what's good for me. If you dems can do that, we'll get a long just fine.
Let's look at what a weak goverrnment will get you in today's world.. This is from CNN today.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/30/n … =allsearch
"Nigeria's Niger Delta is one of the most oil-polluted places on the planet with more than 6,800 recorded oil spills, accounting for anywhere from 9 million to 13 million barrels of oil spilled, according to activist groups.
But occurring over the 50 years since oil production began in the Delta, this environmental disaster has never received the attention that is now being paid to the oil-spill catastrophe hitting the U.S. Gulf coast."
You want to try a small, weak government, try Nigeria. But don't plan on fishing - there aren't any fish. The oil has killed them. It's speculation, but I would guess that big oil bought anyone in the Nigerian government with the authority to threatent the oil companies. That's small government for you.
The residents of the Gulf will get swift, just, relief ENTIRELY because a strong federal government is requiring in addition to the cleanup - $20 Billion in releif that won't be tied up by the court system. There's one reason that makes a strong federal govenment essential today in a way that wasn't true 200 years ago. Huge multinationals - global banks, and insurance cartels are pulling the strings and they salivate at the idea of a free market with no government constraints. Most teabaggers don't know that they are being used by big business to forge stronger chains to hold back representative government. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
The topic of this post is a classic example of how big business owns the tea party movement and conservatives- proven by the OP exerpt from a tea party letter and ridiculous statements from Bohner laced with false claims about a DISCLOSE - a bil that will expose who is paying for political advertising. There's no 'gag' order against the Tea Party. It does nothing to strengthen incumbents or disadvantage the new political player. It gives the VOTER information he deserves. That's all.
A few conservatives,like Ron, will look at this bill on its meritsand faults - not who sponsored it. The knee-jerk reaction to oppose all things Obama cause me to be merciless in ridiculing the ridiculous.I think if you move to Antarctica or some places in the Andes or the Himalayas you can live without government.
Most people want some government services and protection.
Let's start with your first false assumption. "those of you on the far left..."
Many of your mis-statements (and much of your frustration that leads to your emotional outbursts) stem from your view that anyone who isn't a Teabagger, John Bircher, or Ditto head is "far left". A person of the far left would presumeably vote for Democrats at least occassionally. I never have, though I will gladly contribute to Obama's landslide victory in 2012. I have voted and supported mostly Libertarian and Republican candidates all of my life and have argued conservative points to true leftists.
To paraphrase recently retired justice John Paul Stevens, I haven't moved to the left, the right has simply moved to the extreme, absurd edge. I can't support the so-called conservative viewpoints expressed in these forums such as:
The constitutional right for individuals to own nuclear weapons.
The intellect of Sarah Palin is an awesome thing to behold.
Gays are second class citizens that must be saved from their own nature.
Obama is a Socialist because Glenn Beck says so.
It is because of this putrid tripe regurgitated by today's moronic conservatives that I automatically reject any and all of their views.The Tea Party is a menace that may destroy the GOP.
They certainly have them at the brink of disaster.
I totally agree, Ron! I voted independent for most of my years but now it is for the lesser of two evils for the most part. I do not agree with either party totally.
The republican party has changed into something I dislike. Or perhaps it hasn't changed enough and had remained mired in the past. The last administration was the final straw! Either way, it is my choice to support who I want for office, despite the wishes of others.
I think the exemptions are an example of post-partisan politics, not partisan politics.
However, in addition to this Bill, I think a Constitutional Amendment should be put forward, preventing corporate sponsorship in elections. In my opinion, the argument that such an amendment would be difficult to ratify (it would be) should not be accepted as a reason for not trying to do it.
Related Discussions
- 40
Do political candidates need to fully disclose their past finances?
by Dennis L. Page 12 years ago
Do political candidates need to fully disclose their past finances?Should political candidates be required to fully disclose their past finances and if so, how many years back do we need to go?
- 48
Church's Military Funeral Protests OK Says SCOTUS. Your thoughts?
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
Free speech is alive and well in America. The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 (dissenter was Samuel Alito) that Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to picket military funerals. The church contends military deaths are God's revenge for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. So expect...
- 17
Corporation as Person - Right or Wrong?!
by LiamBean 14 years ago
The Supreme Court recently voted 5:4 to grant corporations unlimited rights toward funding political activities. Should this sort of right be limited to living breathing citizens of the United States or should any legally defined entity have that right?In choosing your answer please consider that...
- 14
Secret Offshore $ Contributors to Republican Campaigns
by Susan Reid 14 years ago
Where in the Constitution does it allow foreign BUSINESSES to directly influence US elections? This doesn't sound very Constitutional to me. Nor ethical. Nor legal.News recently broke that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce�one of the biggest sources of corporate cash backing Republicans this...
- 12
What does uncontested elections mean? Does it matter? Democracy?
by Tim Mitchell 7 months ago
Analysis of uncontested elections, 2024 by Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_unc … E7DC8C18A4"An uncontested election is one where the number of candidates on the ballot is less than or equal to the number of seats up for election. Candidates running in uncontested...
- 19
Advertising limits on campaigning
by Kathleen Cochran 14 months ago
No political advertisingWhat if instead of a presidential candidate spending millions on advertising to prove he or she wants to be elected, we just made them say where they stand on the issues? What if all a candidate was allowed to do to promote her or his campaign was to sit for media...