Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
69 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The Trespass Bill. Adios 1st Amendement rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Chapel! Here's what I was referring to in the thread I tried to derail:

Quote:
Congress has overwhelmingly approved legislation that will keep the public not just at arms' length distance but a football field away by making it a federal crime to protest or assemble in the vicinity of protected government officials. The Trespass Bill (the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) creates a roving "bubble" zone or perimeter around select government officials and dignitaries (anyone protected by the Secret Service), as well as any building or grounds "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

The bill's language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of only three members of the House of Representatives to vote against the legislation.


While I'm sure that Rick Santorum is an awful human being and if he gets the nomination and then beats Obama he will, no doubt, turn America into a Catholic Theocracy within the first few weeks of his inauguration. But we still have almost a year of freedom until President Santorum makes porn a capital offense and we have an actual president who is systematically removing the protections and rights he was elected to uphold.

I find what is happening to me a much more interesting topic than what might happen in some fantasy future. Here's the article:

Trespass Bill
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I also oppose this legislation, but you can't legitimately hang it on Obama until he signs it.

Also, Santorum is unlikely to install a truly Catholic theocracy, when his right-wing policies diverge from the Church's positions in so many ways—on torture, the environment, the death penalty, &c., &c.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And again, it's just cleaning up wording on old existing laws.

Tempest in a tea pot.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tripp;

Does the blog you linked to ever actually get to the point of how this law would destroy free speech specifically?

|TThe flu makes me impatient.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
And again, it's just cleaning up wording on old existing laws.

Tempest in a tea pot.



You're probably right. Taking a restrictive law and expanding the restrictions along with expanding the ability to suppress free speech and prosecute citizens isn't a big deal. Neither is the Patriot Act because it merely exists to protect us.

Nothing here to see. Move along.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Information:



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h347:


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-347

Quote:
(c) In this section--

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.


So, what's a "building or it's grounds"? Sidewalk? Across the street? On the closed off road in front of it?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It means anything the gov't wants it to of course.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hermann Huth
Germany
Stuttgart
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
...freedom until President Santorum makes porn a capital offense...


You, sir, seem to have sudden new unexpected problems.
Right?

Greetings from Europe!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Do you think this has something to do with it?








The discontent here has to do with Montreal's annual police brutality march, which conveniently creates images for the following year's march. If you notice faces covered, that is because in 2009 the city of Montreal and the city's police service considered banning hoodies and other face coverings. They decided against it as it might impinge on civil liberties.

This year, they married the police march with a protest by students over the provincial government's plan to raise university tuition fees. That is to say, the fees left over after the government already payed 90% of the cost, and the automatic loans and bursaries that cover the last 10%, and further loans and bursaries to cover minor school supplies like a computer. Quebec is the single least expensive jurisdiction in North America to attend university, so naturally the discontent is clear.

As an aside, if I were in the government, I would immediately announce that it had changed policy and they will not be raising tuition fees. However, that added cost will now be directed toward paying for the city of Montreal's police overtime, clean-up, compensation for the injured, compensation for wrecked and looted businesses, and replacing anything else destroyed. Responsibility for one's actions--the horror!
.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robigo wrote:
I also oppose this legislation, but you can't legitimately hang it on Obama until he signs it.

He already signed it. Although a veto would have done nothing to stop the bill as it passed both houses of Congress with veto proof majorities. The House version (H.R. 347) was sponsored by a Republican, the Senate version (S. 1794) was sponsored by a Democrat.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
robigo wrote:
I also oppose this legislation, but you can't legitimately hang it on Obama until he signs it.

He already signed it. Although a veto would have done nothing to stop the bill as it passed both houses of Congress with veto proof majorities. The House version (H.R. 347) was sponsored by a Republican, the Senate version (S. 1794) was sponsored by a Democrat.


He did indeed sign it. And he would not have vetoed it anyway. Obama takes everything I personally felt Bush was doing wrong and does the old double-down. From national debt to employment numbers to bail-outs to assaults on our freedom of speech and movement Obama makes Bush look like a novice.

The most astounding aspect of his political instinct is that even supposedly rational, freedom-loving educated upper-middle class to upper class denizens of this site are seemingly unable to even comprehend the most basic elements of how they have been robbed and are continuing to be robbed.

The two people on the phone in this commercial are liberal elitists who will vote for Obama again and the thieves are Obama and his posse. This is exactly how I see you guys:

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
And again, it's just cleaning up wording on old existing laws.

Tempest in a tea pot.



"Cleaning up wording" is a euphemism for "making it easier to use those old laws to clamp down on legitimate protests," right? Because that's pretty much what your linked article says.

HR 347 gives the government the right to define "restricted areas," and then to arrest people who don't leave those areas when told, regardless of what they are doing there. The bit about Secret Service protection means they can prohibit protesters - even peaceful ones - from coming anywhere near a presidential candidate (for instance).

It's a crappy law, even if it does just "clean up" wording on old crappy laws, and it's emblematic of the erosion of civil liberties and the First Amendment that has been happening over the past, oh, let's say 30 years.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

It's human nature, isn't it. The libs are so morally invested in Obama that they can't disassociate with their support for him. If they do it intellectually honestly then they have to admit to the right that they were dead wrong, as people had been screaming at them all along (e.g. DWTripp on some gaming site). They'd rather take a ride down a razor slide. On the flip-side, the left, for whom history starts afresh every morning, can't even do it dishonestly without looking mentally unstable.


.
9 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
On the flip-side, the left, for whom history starts afresh every morning, can't even do it dishonestly without looking mentally unstable.


Nicely said. But, if a person "looks" mentally unstable then it's probably a good bet they are. As my old Gramps used to say back on the ranch in Texas, "Boy, if it looks like shit and smells like shit you'd have to be a democrat if you need to taste it to make sure."


















*disclaimer* My grandpa never actually said that. He was not a good English speaker so whatever he normally said was pretty much in German and mostly we had no idea what we'd done wrong. It wasn't an actual ranch, more like a farm/ranch combo. He did yell at me when I was maybe 4 because I kept picking up goat turds trying to figure out what they were. If you've ever seen a goat turd then you'll understand, to a 4 year old they look remarkably like huge chocolate covered raisins.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Looking at all the peacable assemblies of every time G-N assembles, when Europeans realize that time has come to pay the piper, young people anytime for whatever raison du jour, etc., are you truly surprised by this legislation?

If all of these protests were actually peacable in addition to the many that actually are, do you tink that this new legislation would even have been broached.

This legislation is exactly in line constitutionally. I don't need to quote a particular one because it is everywhere in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, that the founders were anti-mob. The entire revolutionary movement was founded on reason over the mob. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It's peaceably assemble!
.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:

It's human nature, isn't it. The libs are so morally invested in Obama that they can't disassociate with their support for him. If they do it intellectually honestly then they have to admit to the right that they were dead wrong, as people had been screaming at them all along (e.g. DWTripp on some gaming site). They'd rather take a ride down a razor slide. On the flip-side, the left, for whom history starts afresh every morning, can't even do it dishonestly without looking mentally unstable.


I'm almost certain you have a point here, but fuck if I can tell what it is. It's almost as if you can't fathom the idea that some people might support Obama despite the fact that we disagree with him or his policies in some instances. Or that everybody who has been "screaming" about how Obama is The Debbil! for four years was 100% absolutely, incontrovertibly correct because some of his policy choices suck.

Here's the reality: Some of us supported Obama because we thought he would be a welcome change from the eight years of Bush-Cheney-Rove that we had just been through; and that he would be a better choice than John McCain for fixing the economic and foreign policy messes that were so glaringly present in 2008. Some of us continue to support Obama because we think that, on balance, his positives outweigh his negatives (of which we recognize that there are several); and because he is still a better choice than anybody the GOP might put up.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:

It's human nature, isn't it. The libs are so morally invested in Obama that they can't disassociate with their support for him.


How about us that voted for Obama that aren't complete libertarian nor liberal? You know, the moderates. I don't have issues with how Obama is handling these kind of issues, because we moderates may not see them as wholesale loss of constitutional rights, but instead a pragmatic solutions to the crap from people who hide behind them.

So how do you answer that when you can't label us "libs"?

I as a moderate don't use wholesale terms. Those are for talking heads on blogs.



6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
isaacc wrote:

It's human nature, isn't it. The libs are so morally invested in Obama that they can't disassociate with their support for him.


How about us that voted for Obama that aren't complete libertarian nor liberal? You know, the moderates. I don't have issues with how Obama is handling these kind of issues, because we moderates may not see them as wholesale loss of constitutional rights, but instead a pragmatic solutions to the crap from people who hide behind them.

So how do you answer that when you can't label us "libs"?

I as a moderate don't use wholesale terms. Those are for talking heads on blogs.


Patriot Act.
.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:


Patriot Act.
.


You mean the law that was enacted in 2001 that was supposed to spiral us into a complete police state. How's that affected you so far?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
isaacc wrote:

It's human nature, isn't it. The libs are so morally invested in Obama that they can't disassociate with their support for him.


How about us that voted for Obama that aren't complete libertarian nor liberal? You know, the moderates. I don't have issues with how Obama is handling these kind of issues, because we moderates may not see them as wholesale loss of constitutional rights, but instead a pragmatic solutions to the crap from people who hide behind them.

So how do you answer that when you can't label us "libs"?





You know full well Chapel that in RSP all things are black & white. If you're a moderate and not a liberal and I'm a conservative but not a republican then how are we going to be attacked? By compartmenting people into two or three easily identifiable boxes it's far easier to marginalize them in volume.

Now, lets get to the compartmenting portion - I see moderates like you as essentially the same poison that liberals are. Both groups are more than happy to cheerfully give up one right and one freedom after another because, as they see it, it's a pragmatic approach to the problem of unruly folks who disagree with them. Eventually, if this continues, there will be no unruly folks, only pragmatic restrictions on speech, mobility and abundance.

Well done. Vote for civility. Vote for pragmatism. Vote to re-interpret that pesky old document.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
isaacc wrote:

It's human nature, isn't it. The libs are so morally invested in Obama that they can't disassociate with their support for him. If they do it intellectually honestly then they have to admit to the right that they were dead wrong, as people had been screaming at them all along (e.g. DWTripp on some gaming site). They'd rather take a ride down a razor slide. On the flip-side, the left, for whom history starts afresh every morning, can't even do it dishonestly without looking mentally unstable.


I'm almost certain you have a point here, but fuck if I can tell what it is. It's almost as if you can't fathom the idea that some people might support Obama despite the fact that we disagree with him or his policies in some instances. Or that everybody who has been "screaming" about how Obama is The Debbil! for four years was 100% absolutely, incontrovertibly correct because some of his policy choices suck.

Here's the reality: Some of us supported Obama because we thought he would be a welcome change from the eight years of Bush-Cheney-Rove that we had just been through; and that he would be a better choice than John McCain for fixing the economic and foreign policy messes that were so glaringly present in 2008. Some of us continue to support Obama because we think that, on balance, his positives outweigh his negatives (of which we recognize that there are several); and because he is still a better choice than anybody the GOP might put up.


Sorry, not buying it. As Tripp has pointed out several times, for less offence, Bush was the harbinger of the end of civilization. You guys were almost hysterical about he Patriot Act to name just one instance of near-hysteria.

With respect to President Obama your attitude is, meh, he's still a cool guy.

With respect to voting for Obama because he's still better than anything GOP, point taken even if I don't agree with it.
.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Vote to re-interpret that pesky old document.


That's what is made made for. It's even got those pesky "amending" powers built in.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

This is our former prime minister, Jean Chrétien when a protester got right into his face.



Don't screw with a French-Canadian!

Oh yeah, this is him with his helmet on backwards.


.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Vote to re-interpret that pesky old document.


That's what is made made for. It's even got those pesky "amending" powers built in.

They're not being used though. There's nothing approaching enough of a consensus to actually amend the Constitution. Instead each president attempts to use his power to appoint judges and justices who slowly ratchet things toward his view by "interpreting" what the Constitution has really meant all along.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:

They're not being used though. There's nothing approaching enough of a consensus to actually amend the Constitution. Instead each president attempts to use his power to appoint judges and justices who slowly ratchet things toward his view by "interpreting" what the Constitution has really meant all along.


That too is also a built in feature of the constitution.

But you're right, there just isn't enough consensus to make the radical changes the talking heads on blogs are decrying.

Life is just too good around here for most.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.