PDA

View Full Version : Anther ???? Obama appointment



Golddogs
02-05-2009, 10:21 AM
By
Neal Boortz
@ February 5, 2009 8:05 AM Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Today at 2pm a Senate committee is going to vote on the nomination of Obama's labor secretary, California Democrat Rep. Hilda Solis. As of right now, her nomination is being blocked in the Senate. Any guesses as to why?

Well to start .. though this not why she is being blocked .. Hilda was a co-sponsor in 2007 of this asinine card check bill, otherwise known as the "Employee Free Choice Act." This would essentially destroy secret ballot union elections in this country. She was also the co-sponsor of another bill that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions.

But here's where it gets interesting. At the time that Hilda was co-sponsoring all of these union bills, she was the board member of a pro-union organization called American Rights at Work. This organization had been lobbying Congress to pass these bills .. the very ones that she was responsible for co-sponsoring. And not only was Hilda a director of this organization, but we have now come to find out that she was actually the treasurer. She was in charge of all of the spending by this organization. And if that isn't bad enough, she did not reveal this information on any House financial disclosure forms.

So here we have a woman, nominated by Barack Obama to be the Secretary of Labor. She co-sponsors two union bills in the House. At the time that she is working - basically as a lobbyist -- to get these bills passed in the House, she is also the treasurer of a lobbying group that is working to gain support for her co-sponsored legislation. And then on top of it all, she kept her involvement in the lobbying firm a secret. That was until now, that she is nominated to be secretary of labor.

The Weekly Standard has more details, but here is yet another appointment by Barack Obama that isn't passing the smell test.

YardleyLabs
02-05-2009, 11:02 AM
By
Neal Boortz
@ February 5, 2009 8:05 AM Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Today at 2pm a Senate committee is going to vote on the nomination of Obama's labor secretary, California Democrat Rep. Hilda Solis. As of right now, her nomination is being blocked in the Senate. Any guesses as to why?

Well to start .. though this not why she is being blocked .. Hilda was a co-sponsor in 2007 of this asinine card check bill, otherwise known as the "Employee Free Choice Act." This would essentially destroy secret ballot union elections in this country. She was also the co-sponsor of another bill that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions.

But here's where it gets interesting. At the time that Hilda was co-sponsoring all of these union bills, she was the board member of a pro-union organization called American Rights at Work. This organization had been lobbying Congress to pass these bills .. the very ones that she was responsible for co-sponsoring. And not only was Hilda a director of this organization, but we have now come to find out that she was actually the treasurer. She was in charge of all of the spending by this organization. And if that isn't bad enough, she did not reveal this information on any House financial disclosure forms.

So here we have a woman, nominated by Barack Obama to be the Secretary of Labor. She co-sponsors two union bills in the House. At the time that she is working - basically as a lobbyist -- to get these bills passed in the House, she is also the treasurer of a lobbying group that is working to gain support for her co-sponsored legislation. And then on top of it all, she kept her involvement in the lobbying firm a secret. That was until now, that she is nominated to be secretary of labor.

The Weekly Standard has more details, but here is yet another appointment by Barack Obama that isn't passing the smell test.

I assume you noticed that throughout his campaign Obama repeatedly and clearly stated that he would support the Employee Free Choice Act. Did you think he changed his mind? That's similar to those who complain that his nominee for Attorney General actively promoted abortion rights and gay rights, two other causes Obama consistently promised to support.

Golddogs
02-05-2009, 11:28 AM
I assume you noticed that throughout his campaign Obama repeatedly and clearly stated that he would support the Employee Free Choice Act. Did you think he changed his mind? That's similar to those who complain that his nominee for Attorney General actively promoted abortion rights and gay rights, two other causes Obama consistently promised to support.

Not the issue Jeff. It is sitting on the BOD and handling the money while a Rep in office supposedly looking out for the good of the people. Essentially a lobbiest while in office. Doesn't even come close to passing a smell test.

badbullgator
02-05-2009, 11:38 AM
Not the issue Jeff. It is sitting on the BOD and handling the money while a Rep in office supposedly looking out for the good of the people. Essentially a lobbiest while in office. Doesn't even come close to passing a smell test.


Come on, you mean that is a BIG deal :D:D

kjrice
02-05-2009, 11:59 AM
Change you can believe in.

Franco
02-05-2009, 12:33 PM
Change you can believe in.

Good one Kevin because that's all will have left is change as in .23 cents! Didn't you pay attention to the campaign? Obomo said he was going to redistribute the wealth. By the time he's done, we'll be looking to Cuba for loans!

YardleyLabs
02-05-2009, 12:45 PM
Solis is a member of the Board of a non-profit labor group. The position is unpaid. She volunteers as treasurer. The organization takes public positions on labor related issues. None of that is a conflict of interest in her position as a member of congress and none of it makes her a lobbyist. Is Senator Larry Craig of Idaho a lobbyist? What about Rep Babara Cubin (WY) or Alaska's Rep. Donald Young? All three are members of the NRA Board of Directors.

Eric Johnson
02-05-2009, 04:52 PM
Solis is a member of the Board of a non-profit labor group. .... All three are members of the NRA Board of Directors.

There's a bit of difference between being a mere member of a group and being an officer and member of the board. In the former you get to send in your dues and read a magazine. In the latter you collect and decide how to spend the dues and you get to determine what goes into the magazine.

Eric

Cody Covey
02-05-2009, 05:04 PM
Obama actually said he didn't support gays right to marry. what other rights do Gays not have?

Uncle Bill
02-05-2009, 06:41 PM
Solis is a member of the Board of a non-profit labor group. The position is unpaid. She volunteers as treasurer. The organization takes public positions on labor related issues. None of that is a conflict of interest in her position as a member of congress and none of it makes her a lobbyist. Is Senator Larry Craig of Idaho a lobbyist? What about Rep Babara Cubin (WY) or Alaska's Rep. Donald Young? All three are members of the NRA Board of Directors.


Is there nothing in the leftist program that won't make you WANT to fall on the sword?

With that thinly veiled 'attack' on the NRA, (which I happen to be a life endowment member, BTW) please tell us what you meant by that? Are you now willing to come out of the closet and reveal your real views of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution?

Are you also in the New York Governors program to push for all the linguini-spined mayors in this nation to impose their big-city gun laws on all of us?

(Incredible as this may sound, that loonie ignoramus was able to persuade the mayor of the peoples republic of Sioux Falls to ban the carrying of firearms on that cities public property. Go figure)

So, even we in the state of South Dakota need to keep our guard up. But I'm just curious where you stand on this issue, Yardley? I understand your leftist views, your being in the tank for Obama, and your hatred of previous President Bush. But where are your loyalties concerning gun ownership in this nation?

Are we to expect you to fall in line with the Schumers, Clintons, Feinsteins, Rangels, and Boxers of this country? If so, please fess up. If you are in thaty camp, I'll stop communicating with you totally, for I will have to view you as a complete socialist, beyond any reason to acknowledge as an American.

A litmus test you say??? Damn right. If you can't pass that one, you are in the camp of the enemy, not just with your camels nose under the flap, you are part of what will totally kill this nation, as suredly as any of the towel-heads that struck us on 9/11.

What say you, Mr. Photog?

UB

YardleyLabs
02-05-2009, 07:53 PM
Is there nothing in the leftist program that won't make you WANT to fall on the sword?

With that thinly veiled 'attack' on the NRA, (which I happen to be a life endowment member, BTW) please tell us what you meant by that? Are you now willing to come out of the closet and reveal your real views of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution?

Are you also in the New York Governors program to push for all the linguini-spined mayors in this nation to impose their big-city gun laws on all of us?

(Incredible as this may sound, that loonie ignoramus was able to persuade the mayor of the peoples republic of Sioux Falls to ban the carrying of firearms on that cities public property. Go figure)

So, even we in the state of South Dakota need to keep our guard up. But I'm just curious where you stand on this issue, Yardley? I understand your leftist views, your being in the tank for Obama, and your hatred of previous President Bush. But where are your loyalties concerning gun ownership in this nation?

Are we to expect you to fall in line with the Schumers, Clintons, Feinsteins, Rangels, and Boxers of this country? If so, please fess up. If you are in thaty camp, I'll stop communicating with you totally, for I will have to view you as a complete socialist, beyond any reason to acknowledge as an American.

A litmus test you say??? Damn right. If you can't pass that one, you are in the camp of the enemy, not just with your camels nose under the flap, you are part of what will totally kill this nation, as suredly as any of the towel-heads that struck us on 9/11.

What say you, Mr. Photog?

UB

What I say is that I used an example that I suspect most of us, including me, would consider completely appropriate (being a Board member for the NRA) to show that the criticism of Solis' relationship to a labor group is based on disagreement with the purpose of the group rather than disagreement with having a congressman serve of the Board of a non-profit, politically active organization. As was noted in an earlier post, the opposition doesn't pass the smell test.

Personally, I was a member of the NRA for ten years. I quit when the NRA decided that it was more important to pursue a radical conservative agenda on a broad front than to address issues of gun ownership and gun training without regard to other issues. When Wayne LaPierre and similar idiots are gone, I will rejoin.

Mike Noel
02-05-2009, 09:38 PM
Solis is a member of the Board of a non-profit labor group. The position is unpaid. She volunteers as treasurer. The organization takes public positions on labor related issues. None of that is a conflict of interest in her position as a member of congress and none of it makes her a lobbyist. Is Senator Larry Craig of Idaho a lobbyist? What about Rep Babara Cubin (WY) or Alaska's Rep. Donald Young? All three are members of the NRA Board of Directors.

What kind of uproar would there be if those NRA board members "forgot" disclose their positions like Ms. Solis?

From the LA Times article today:

In disclosure forms filed with the House from 2004-07, Solis omitted any mention of American Rights at Work. She sent a letter to the House clerk on Jan. 29 correcting those documents, saying she was both a board member and treasurer.

I guess it finally dawned on her that she should correct that.....just like her husband thought after 16 years its time to pay his taxes so those pesky liens can be removed from his buisness.

According to Joe Biden, we have 4 new "patriots", since we have 4 new current taxpayers on the rolls.....Geithner, Daschle, Killefer, Mr. Solis.

Pathetic.

Uncle Bill
02-06-2009, 11:08 AM
Personally, I was a member of the NRA for ten years. I quit when the NRA decided that it was more important to pursue a radical conservative agenda on a broad front than to address issues of gun ownership and gun training without regard to other issues. When Wayne LaPierre and similar idiots are gone, I will rejoin.




As I suspected. Always nice to find the enemy has a uniform. When all of us "IDIOTS" are gone, there will be nothing for you to join, you imbicile.

Like the rest of your socialistic followers that think they can blindly support an Obama administration, that is hellbent on destroying the American form of Democracy, but have the 'rights' they find worthy kept in force, is just remarkable. With your heads in the sand, does it ever occur to you why you are such an easy ass-kicking target?

Just remember, when the dust settles and the true Americans gather together and realize what your voting has done to this nation, we won't just hone in on Soros and company...we'll recall all those that were only too happy to sell the nation out.

When the pendulum starts swinging back to the right, don't be standing in it's way, Mr. Leftist. It cuts a larger swath than a sword.

UB

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 11:34 AM
What kind of uproar would there be if those NRA board members "forgot" disclose their positions like Ms. Solis?

From the LA Times article today:

In disclosure forms filed with the House from 2004-07, Solis omitted any mention of American Rights at Work. She sent a letter to the House clerk on Jan. 29 correcting those documents, saying she was both a board member and treasurer.

I guess it finally dawned on her that she should correct that.....just like her husband thought after 16 years its time to pay his taxes so those pesky liens can be removed from his buisness.

According to Joe Biden, we have 4 new "patriots", since we have 4 new current taxpayers on the rolls.....Geithner, Daschle, Killefer, Mr. Solis.

Pathetic.

You are absolutely correct that it should have been on her disclosure forms. You are wrong if you are trying to imply it was some form of secret since it shows up in her Wikipedia biography and on the American Right at Work web sites among other places.

Edit: BTW, the original post was suggesting that it was inappropriate for her to be a member of Congress while serving on the Board and as Treasurer for American Rights at Work. It is as appropriate as the services of the NRA Board members and members of other board who are ember of Congress.

Julie R.
02-06-2009, 11:45 AM
Come on, you mean that is a BIG deal :D:D


Only if you get caught! ;-)

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 11:48 AM
As I suspected. Always nice to find the enemy has a uniform. When all of us "IDIOTS" are gone, there will be nothing for you to join, you imbicile.

Like the rest of your socialistic followers that think they can blindly support an Obama administration, that is hellbent on destroying the American form of Democracy, but have the 'rights' they find worthy kept in force, is just remarkable. With your heads in the sand, does it ever occur to you why you are such an easy ass-kicking target?

Just remember, when the dust settles and the true Americans gather together and realize what your voting has done to this nation, we won't just hone in on Soros and company...we'll recall all those that were only too happy to sell the nation out.

When the pendulum starts swinging back to the right, don't be standing in it's way, Mr. Leftist. It cuts a larger swath than a sword.

UB

UB,

I think you're crossing some lines with this post, but I guess that ad hominem attacks (a fancy way of saying name calling) and threats are easier than logic and facts.

Henry V
02-06-2009, 12:06 PM
UB,
Since you and others keep bring up the word and are clearly against "socialist" programs, I was wondering if you all will stop taking social security once you get back what you put in with interest and will you refuse medicare (which was incredibly expanded under a Republican president and both houses of congress) in favor of market based insurance options?

greg ye
02-06-2009, 02:47 PM
Face it Henry, the Big Boys drive the bus. We are all free to fail, ride or drive. It's the way our system works.

Cody Covey
02-06-2009, 04:51 PM
UB,
Since you and others keep bring up the word and are clearly against "socialist" programs, I was wondering if you all will stop taking social security once you get back what you put in with interest and will you refuse medicare (which was incredibly expanded under a Republican president and both houses of congress) in favor of market based insurance options?
Please explain how something we pay into (social security) is a socialist program? being forced into is stupid but of course most government programs are. Still doesn't change the fact that we pay into and are taxed on it. We arent jobless and hoping the government will cut us a check for someone elses work. We go to work and it is deducted from our check in hopes that it will be there later. To bad by the time I retire democrats will have broken into my "lockbox" of social security and i wont have a check coming to me.

Uncle Bill
02-06-2009, 05:23 PM
UB,

I think you're crossing some lines with this post, but I guess that ad hominem attacks (a fancy way of saying name calling) and threats are easier than logic and facts.

Ah yes! But if you read YOUR post, the first ad hominem, was slung by you. But then leftists find calling someone 'stupid' is not considered name calling...they got so used to it in their Bush-bashing.

Just be thankful your name hasn't been mentioned to Obama as a possible cabinet member. Then you'd have to answer for your IRS 'forgetfullness'.

UB

Uncle Bill
02-06-2009, 05:38 PM
UB,
Since you and others keep bring up the word and are clearly against "socialist" programs, I was wondering if you all will stop taking social security once you get back what you put in with interest and will you refuse medicare (which was incredibly expanded under a Republican president and both houses of congress) in favor of market based insurance options?

Silly me, Henry. Being a military pensioner and card carrying member of the DAV, my medical program is through the VA. So I'm getting into your wallet with a double whammy. Aren't you happy you asked?

But listen, during my entire military career, at no time did I consider that I was not serving on your behalf, along with the rest of your ilk. It would have lightened my load considerably, however, had I known you didn't need anyone to fight for your freedoms. Wish I'd known then that you and the rest of the leftists would willingly stand by and watch their freedoms get legislated away.

The only part of this current fiasco I am livid over, is how much of a burden you are willing to place on my grandkids and their offspring. For that, I will never forgive you or your party.

UB

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 05:49 PM
Ah yes! But if you read YOUR post, the first ad hominem, was slung by you. But then leftists find calling someone 'stupid' is not considered name calling...they got so used to it in their Bush-bashing.

Just be thankful your name hasn't been mentioned to Obama as a possible cabinet member. Then you'd have to answer for your IRS 'forgetfullness'.

UB

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about.

Is your name Wayne LaPierre? That's the only person I insulted and it's nothing compared with the insults thrown at every liberal politician in comments on this forum. I tend to think politicians are open game since their roles have already turned them into caricatures, be they liberals or conservatives. But if you take my classification of Wayne LaPierre and his ilk at the NRA as idiots as a personal insult directed at you, than I am truly sorry for your misunderstanding.

And I continue to believe that Wayne LaPierre is an idiot who has undermined an otherwise legitimate organization by turning it into his personal political playpen.

Henry V
02-06-2009, 06:35 PM
Silly me, Henry. Being a military pensioner and card carrying member of the DAV, my medical program is through the VA. So I'm getting into your wallet with a double whammy. Aren't you happy you asked?

But listen, during my entire military career, at no time did I consider that I was not serving on your behalf, along with the rest of your ilk. It would have lightened my load considerably, however, had I known you didn't need anyone to fight for your freedoms. Wish I'd known then that you and the rest of the leftists would willingly stand by and watch their freedoms get legislated away.

The only part of this current fiasco I am livid over, is how much of a burden you are willing to place on my grandkids and their offspring. For that, I will never forgive you or your party.

UB
UB, I greatly appreciate your service. Why is it that you divert this discussion and assume that I am not just as much a patriot as you are because my views differ from yours? I too am greatly concerned about my childrens' and presumed grandchildrens' future. The last 8 years has resulted in a tremendous financial burden on your grandchildren. Obama has been in the office only two weeks and he is the problem because he is doing what most folks say is the right thing to do? Come on. That is just the kind of thinking which has caused the republicans to lose in the past two elections.

I have been worried for several years about our financial situationas the previous administration fully bought into a trickle down approach to economics and the associated tax breaks. What was the quote from Cheney "deficits don't matter". Well, he certainly lived that philosophy. A stimulus package is needed. This one is probably too large and has some stuff that isn't worthy, but it should help get us out of the rut we are in. More than one third is tax breaks. I am more worried about what this president will do two years from now when we are hopefully back on the right track economically.

Cody Covey
02-06-2009, 06:48 PM
Henry please explain to me how to have an economy any way other then trickle down. please tell me where the money comes from if not from the top. Please let me know how homeless and people in section 8 housing are going to provide anything to trickle up? It starts at the top for a reason because thats where the ideas and people with enough courage to sacrifice their own time and money to start a business. When was the last time you got a job from a poor person?

Henry V
02-06-2009, 07:16 PM
There needs to be a balance between trickle down and bottom up. It is not as simple as all one way or the other. IMHO, we are living through what can happen when things get out of balance. As Jeff has posted, the income disparity between top and middle has never been greater. More wealth has been distributed to the top end than ever before (funny, we don't call that wealth redistribution, just where did those people get all that money). If you believe in trickle down then all should be rosy right now, right?. Where are all the benefits of trickle down? Bush and company just did the experiment for 8 years. What were the results? I keep wondering if the trickle is supposed to be warm, wet, and colored yellow? If so, now I get it.

Here is a very interesting article taking trickle down to task a year ago. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/the-economy-is-a-problem_b_82523.html
While this guy is probably as far left as the rabid trickle down folks are to the right, it is an interesting perspective.

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 07:40 PM
Henry please explain to me how to have an economy any way other then trickle down. please tell me where the money comes from if not from the top. Please let me know how homeless and people in section 8 housing are going to provide anything to trickle up? It starts at the top for a reason because thats where the ideas and people with enough courage to sacrifice their own time and money to start a business. When was the last time you got a job from a poor person?

The overwhelming bulk of the people in this country work and produce for a living. Are you suggesting that their incomes are charity?

The statistics on income distribution that I posted in a different thread suggest that our "experiment" in trickle down economics has failed miserably. While labor productivity has grown dramatically, labor wages have not grown significantly at all. Virtually all the benefits of these productivity improvements have accrued to the top 20%, and most have gone to the top one percent. Almost no improvements in real income have accrued to the rest (Less than 1% per year since 1979 for the lower 80% of the population versus about 4 times that for the top 20% and 10 times that for the top one percent).

We have moved from an economy where both labor and owners benefited from economic growth to one where only the wealthiest get the icing while others get the shaft. Before the attacks start, understand that I have had the privilege of being part of that top one percent for almost all of my career (I am now semi-retired). I believe that I would have done better personally if we had focused more on growing the pie for all rather than cutting smaller and smaller pieces for almost everyone so we could get more for ourselves.

My father's rule in our house was simple: one person got to cut the cake and the other got to choose the pieces. I'm not suggesting anything that simple. However, I believe our form of economy only works if the most important measure of growth is what happens to median income. If average income keeps rising faster than median income -- meaning that wealth is shifting to the richest -- our economy and our political system will inevitably fail.

cotts135
02-06-2009, 08:12 PM
I am afraid that UB has left this world as we know it. His post's on this forum have shown him to be a racist "Never has the term "spear-chucker" been so spot on.". Someone without a original thought in his head and unable to have a reasoned argument with someone without resorting to name calling and not so veiled threats.

"Like the rest of your socialistic followers that think they can blindly support an Obama administration, that is hellbent on destroying the American form of Democracy, but have the 'rights' they find worthy kept in force, is just remarkable. With your heads in the sand, does it ever occur to you why you are such an easy ass-kicking target?

Just remember, when the dust settles and the true Americans gather together and realize what your voting has done to this nation, we won't just hone in on Soros and company...we'll recall all those that were only too happy to sell the nation out."

UB your posts have been reduced just to amusement since any credibility you might have once had is gone. You would be better served to just lurk in the backround and keep your thoughts to yourself before you get in trouble with the law.

Mike Noel
02-06-2009, 10:44 PM
You are absolutely correct that it should have been on her disclosure forms. You are wrong if you are trying to imply it was some form of secret since it shows up in her Wikipedia biography and on the American Right at Work web sites among other places.

Edit: BTW, the original post was suggesting that it was inappropriate for her to be a member of Congress while serving on the Board and as Treasurer for American Rights at Work. It is as appropriate as the services of the NRA Board members and members of other board who are ember of Congress.

Jeff, I respect your intelligence too much to believe that you lean on any "Wiki" source.:razz: I am by no means a Wiki expert but couldn't that page have been updated on the same date as her disclosure to the house? Just sayin'.

YardleyLabs
02-07-2009, 05:31 AM
Jeff, I respect your intelligence too much to believe that you lean on any "Wiki" source.:razz: I am by no means a Wiki expert but couldn't that page have been updated on the same date as her disclosure to the house? Just sayin'. That element was actually updated in November when her appointment was first announced, meaning the information has been there throughout the review process.

Mike Noel
02-07-2009, 08:58 AM
That element was actually updated in November when her appointment was first announced, meaning the information has been there throughout the review process.

Exactly my point. Funny how all the rules get followed, and the truth comes out when the spotlights hit......and that goes for both sides of the aisle. What does that say about these folks that can't police their own actions or hold themselves accountable.

Its pretty simple to fill out that disclosure each year. I own a brokerage firm and I have to supply FINRA with a list of my outside business activities each year. I am a shareholder and board member of a private telecom company and it takes me about 2 minutes to fill that out on the forms. Call me a skeptic but if someone fails to disclose something that is supposed to pose no conflict of interest it leads me to believe it really DOES pose a conflict otherwise they wouldn't have a problem in the first place. I think our political leaders could all use a dose of skepicism from us.

As the great philosophers Cheech and Chong said, and I am paraphrasing: It looks like a dog turd, smells like a dog turd and tastes like a dog turd......IT MUST BE A DOG TURD!:-P

Uncle Bill
02-07-2009, 11:15 AM
I am afraid that UB has left this world as we know it. His post's on this forum have shown him to be a racist "Never has the term "spear-chucker" been so spot on.". Someone without a original thought in his head and unable to have a reasoned argument with someone without resorting to name calling and not so veiled threats.

"Like the rest of your socialistic followers that think they can blindly support an Obama administration, that is hellbent on destroying the American form of Democracy, but have the 'rights' they find worthy kept in force, is just remarkable. With your heads in the sand, does it ever occur to you why you are such an easy ass-kicking target?

Just remember, when the dust settles and the true Americans gather together and realize what your voting has done to this nation, we won't just hone in on Soros and company...we'll recall all those that were only too happy to sell the nation out."

UB your posts have been reduced just to amusement since any credibility you might have once had is gone. You would be better served to just lurk in the backround and keep your thoughts to yourself before you get in trouble with the law.

I apologize cotts 135...(that wasn't a name tag from a prison costume was it?)

I have no intention of 'lurking'...if for no other reason than to piss you off. Just think of it...after listening to you Bush-bashing for 8 years, we have just gotten started. Let the 'entertainment' begin.

UB

Raymond Little
02-07-2009, 05:57 PM
keep your thoughts to yourself before you get in trouble with the law.
Thought all you Progressives (SOCIALISTS) were for the 1st Amendment?

YardleyLabs
02-07-2009, 07:00 PM
keep your thoughts to yourself before you get in trouble with the law.
Thought all you Progressives (SOCIALISTS) were for the 1st Amendment?

And I assume these are examples of a more appropriate view of free speech and a country open to diverse opinions:

Originally Posted by Uncle Bill http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=396711#post396711)
When the pendulum starts swinging back to the right, don't be standing in it's way, Mr. Leftist. It cuts a larger swath than a sword.

UB


Alternatively, we have this one:

Originally Posted by Mr Booty http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=348719#post348719)
I just hope our military does not accept him [Obama] as Commander In Chief, if you catch my drift!

Personally, I don't look for anyone's opinions to be censored, including mine.;)

cotts135
02-08-2009, 06:59 AM
keep your thoughts to yourself before you get in trouble with the law.
Thought all you Progressives (SOCIALISTS) were for the 1st Amendment?
I am assuming from your post that you think it is alright to threaten people or make racist's remarks.
As is the case with most of the Constitutions Amendments their are limits to them. From my understanding of the First amendment it was written primarily to protect people who criticize the government. I am pretty sure the protection does not extent to people who threaten other people. If you feel it does. feel free to use your right to free speech and explain it to us
My post was also just a suggestion to UB since I would hate to find out that he had been outfitted with a pinstripe jumper, like he suggested that I was................................

subroc
02-08-2009, 07:57 AM
...Thought all you Progressives (SOCIALISTS) were for the 1st Amendment?

Not only are they not for free speech, they actively try to suppress it if the speech isn’t a liberal ideal. It is a claim they like to make but in application they are vehemently against any ideal being voiced that is counter to theirs.

The fairness doctrine is a recent example.

Let a conservative go to a college campus and they will be shouted down during their presentation, but let the most anti-American lefty show up and they will be lauded.

Al Gore, you know the debate is over Al Gore. If you don't believe in man caused global warming you are on the same plane as a holocaust denier. Free speech, yah, sure.

Free speech, to the left, means avocation of left leaning ideals, nothing more.