Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:17 am**

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

With that said...

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/a ... me_oneline

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:22 am**

Iron Butterfly wrote:The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

With that said...

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/a ... me_oneline

Yup. Obama allows his OWS minions to camp outside private businesses for months while they harass people and rape women. But dare to speak out against him and its a felony. That's some serious ass deuchery.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:28 am**

Just wait until we get a republican president again. He'll be doing the same shit that Obama is doing now. It's the government as a whole that's heading in this direction, not just the democrats.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:29 am**

The left has tried to change freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I suppose next they will try freedom from speech.

Don't doubt it

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:30 am**

Phatscotty wrote:The left has tried to change freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I suppose next they will try freedom from speech.

Don't doubt it

Yeah, it's just the left. It's not the entire damn government. :roll:

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:34 am**

tkr4lf wrote:Just wait until we get a republican president again. He'll be doing the same shit that Obama is doing now. It's the government as a whole that's heading in this direction, not just the democrats.

That's because they are both progressives. Most people know there is little difference from a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat, most people do not know what progressive actually means in the political context, so we keep getting progressives that keep doing the same shit.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:35 am**

tkr4lf wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The left has tried to change freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I suppose next they will try freedom from speech.

Don't doubt it

Yeah, it's just the left. It's not the entire damn government.

my post is not directly related to the article, just the reality of what is happening to the first amendment.

It's the Progressives, which happen to be a super majority in the entire damn government, and are diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:59 am**

Phatscotty wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The left has tried to change freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I suppose next they will try freedom from speech.

Don't doubt it

Yeah, it's just the left. It's not the entire damn government.

my post is not directly related to the article, just the reality of what is happening to the first amendment.

It's the Progressives, which happen to be a super majority in the entire damn government, and are diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

Ok, then you should say "The progressives have tried to change...." instead of "The left has tried to change...".

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:30 am**

tkr4lf wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The left has tried to change freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I suppose next they will try freedom from speech.

Don't doubt it

Yeah, it's just the left. It's not the entire damn government.

my post is not directly related to the article, just the reality of what is happening to the first amendment.

It's the Progressives, which happen to be a super majority in the entire damn government, and are diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

Ok, then you should say "The progressives have tried to change...." instead of "The left has tried to change...".

Who's in power right now? Who is this article about? I'm just using present tense. But if you want to go there, how many on the right argue for freedom from religion?

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:38 am**

, H.R. 347 was approved unanimously by the Senate, the House by 388-3 — only Ron Paul and two other Republicans objected — and signed into law Thursday by President Barack Obama.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:43 am**

Phatscotty wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The left has tried to change freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I suppose next they will try freedom from speech.

Don't doubt it

Yeah, it's just the left. It's not the entire damn government.

my post is not directly related to the article, just the reality of what is happening to the first amendment.

It's the Progressives, which happen to be a super majority in the entire damn government, and are diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

Ok, then you should say "The progressives have tried to change...." instead of "The left has tried to change...".

Who's in power right now? Who is this article about? I'm just using present tense. But if you want to go there, how many on the right argue for freedom from religion?

Who's in power right now? A politician. The left/right spectrum is an illusion in our government. It's there to polarize people and get them to fight each other, instead of realizing that our country is slowly but surely turning into a police state. By buying into the bullshit and constantly disparaging "the left", you are enabling yourself to be used as a pawn. There is de facto only one political party in our nation.

Also, what BBS said.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:46 am**

Yeah, and what tkr4lf. BOOYA, BITCH!

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:46 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Yeah, and what tkr4lf. BOOYA, BITCH!

What what! in the butt?

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:23 am**

Phatscotty wrote:It's the Progressives, which happen to be a super majority in the entire damn government, and are diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

First, The Democrats are progressive? Obama has been the most middle of the road, all words and no action, milquetoast president in decades. Let's review his supposedly progressive policies:

1. Expands the military and involvement in Afghanistan. Corporate Friendly
2. Puts out a health care bill that would have been touted by the crony capitalist (the supposed "big government") Republicans if they had written it. Is a big time victory for insurance companies, as their customer base is forcibly increased. Corporate Friendly
3. Lets the federal reserve print money to prop up the criminal banking industry. Corporate Friendly
4. Gives large amounts of money to General Motors. Corporate Friendly
5. Used government money to address the current depression. Plan did not involve throwing money at rich people. Evil Socialism, Apparently

If you can think of something else that was progressive let me know. I've been trying to find a single positive thing that Obama has done that involves more than empty pontificating and fluff, and I have yet to think of anything.

Second, why is it that only the Democrats are anti-Constitution? Last I checked the Patriot Act has bi-partisan support, and that's the biggest Constitutional assault in recent history.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:05 pm**

4. is corporate and union friendly.
5. is Keynesian. It's expansive monetary and fiscal policy designed to magically stimulate the economy.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:31 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
, H.R. 347 was approved unanimously by the Senate, the House by 388-3 — only Ron Paul and two other Republicans objected — and signed into law Thursday by President Barack Obama.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought all those tea party guys were supposed to be different? Are you telling me they're just like the rest of the republican party?

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:19 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
, H.R. 347 was approved unanimously by the Senate, the House by 388-3 — only Ron Paul and two other Republicans objected — and signed into law Thursday by President Barack Obama.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought all those tea party guys were supposed to be different? Are you telling me they're just like the rest of the republican party?

What a surprise...

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:33 pm**

I wonder who the two other Republicans are! Any easy way to discover this?

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:51 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:I wonder who the two other Republicans are! Any easy way to discover this?

Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
Nay MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:56 pm**

thx! <googling these names>

The non-Ron Paulians are Tea Party guys. So, there's at least them who actually believe in their principles.

Isn't that interesting? What does this voting behavior of the legislators say about US culture? Are most Americans complacent, annoyed yet powerless, uninformed, or what?

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:23 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:thx! <googling these names>

The non-Ron Paulians are Tea Party guys. So, there's at least them who actually believe in their principles.

Isn't that interesting? What does this voting behavior of the legislators say about US culture? Are most Americans complacent, annoyed yet powerless, uninformed, or what?

What really amazes me is you hear absolutely nothing form the media on both sides. Nothing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:09 pm**

Iron Butterfly wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:thx! <googling these names>

The non-Ron Paulians are Tea Party guys. So, there's at least them who actually believe in their principles.

Isn't that interesting? What does this voting behavior of the legislators say about US culture? Are most Americans complacent, annoyed yet powerless, uninformed, or what?

What really amazes me is you hear absolutely nothing form the media on both sides. Nothing.

That's because the whole idea of there being "sides" is an illusion. A handful of wedge issues are played up to the extreme while both parties push forward roughly the same agenda while they are in power. Laws like the current one are passed with massive bipartisan support because it helps keep the current system of two parties with one platform rolling.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:18 pm**

Yeah, well, that's how this country's mainstream media works. Thankfully, we have youtube, blog websites, and NPOs who care enough to provide this information. But still, can they reach the masses? :/

And what Frigidus said. Most people don't actually realize how similar the two parties are.

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:28 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
, H.R. 347 was approved unanimously by the Senate, the House by 388-3 — only Ron Paul and two other Republicans objected — and signed into law Thursday by President Barack Obama.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought all those tea party guys were supposed to be different? Are you telling me they're just like the rest of the republican party?

What a surprise...

Ron Paul is my 100% vision of what the Tea Party is and stands for. He did exactly what I would do and what the Tea Party would support our leaders to do.

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:30 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:thx! <googling these names>

The non-Ron Paulians are Tea Party guys. So, there's at least them who actually believe in their principles.

Isn't that interesting? What does this voting behavior of the legislators say about US culture? Are most Americans complacent, annoyed yet powerless, uninformed, or what?

I'm pretty sure such a large segment American people are so fucking unplugged that we don't give them much of a reason to respect us, and it's as simple as that.

Conquer Club

First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterday.

First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterday.

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd

Re: First amendment? What first amendment? That's so yesterd