House Passes Most Important Legislation Since 1965 Civil Rights Act

[Uncensored2008]

Actually I have and unlike you, I know what it says, not what I want it to say.

Trump is wrong and there is nothing unconstitutional about this bill. Disliking racists is not disliking whites. Unless you're telling me everybody white is a racist..

Ah, so this is just what I want it to say...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You ignorant, racist pile of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



You ******* retard.

This bill does not violate the first Amendment.

or abridging the freedom of speech

You ******* racist moron.

Outlawing political speech is a direct violation of the 1st.

-----------------


“(A) PROHIBITION.—No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, communicate, or cause to be communicated, a materially false statement about an endorsement, if such person—

“(i) knows such statement to be false;



“(B) DEFINITION OF materially false.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a statement about an endorsement is ‘materially false’ if, with respect to an upcoming election described in paragraph (5)—
“(i) the statement states that a specifically named person, political party, or organization has endorsed the election of a specific candidate for a Federal office described in such paragraph; and
“(ii) such person, political party, or organization has not endorsed the election of such candidate.


This outlaws speech against the Reich.

 

[francoHFW]

It was probably because

P intelligent people like the views of foreign people

.That’s interesting considering all the immigrants in my family tree came here and promptly cut off ALL communications with their families back in Europe.

It was probably because they were illiterate. Seriously when was that lol? My mother was English and my father joined the British army before Pearl harbor to fight the Nazis. Many thanks to the GOP for always being wrong and disastrous.....

 

[Anathema]

It was probably because they were illiterate. Seriously when was that lol? My mother was English and my father joined the British army before Pearl harbor to fight the Nazis. Many thanks to the GOP for always being wrong and disastrous.....

The ones in the 1600s and early 1700s, yeah. The more recent ones were literate and fairly well educated. The most recent ones - 1910 spoke 6 languages and read/wrote three (including English) when they got here.

 

[Vrenn]

I've read the entire Constitution and I find your views tell me that you aren't correct and haven't read the same document you keep saying that everything someone says is unconstitutional that disagrees with your own personal opinions.

Ah, you've read it but didn't grasp that the 1st Amendment is actually an important part of it - you thought the 1st Amendment was my personal opinion....

The ignorance of Nazis is only exceeded by the hostility you have for our Republic and the Constitution it is based upon.

Do you mean you have a problem of removing the Corporations to do unlimited campaign donations even under the table? Or how about the lobbyists that are paid better than the Congress Critters they are influencing being reigned in a bit? Forcing the political ads to be truthful? And a whole host of other things that are in there. None of which is against the 1st amendment.

Now, show that you have read it and give me the areas that you actually disagree with. But remember, I fact check.

 

[Vrenn]

I read the bill. It's about a lot of things. If you mean taking things like gerrymandering and graft out of politics means that Republicans can't get elected then you would be correct. I am not supporting the Democrats that are trying to do the same thing but using other methods. Both are equally dangerous. But if the Republicans want what;'s right, they will trim the bill rather than discount the whole thing. The problem is, the Reps like it like it is no matter how destructive it is. Rather than change the "Party" for the good of the people, they changed the systems for the power of the party.

******* liar.

Text - H.R.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

just about 1800 pages of gobbledygook

No one has read that bill. We all deal with sections.

I read enough of it to know you are trying to pull a fast one. Like everyone else, I skimmed it looking for items I would disagree with. I caught a few, but for the most part, it's been a long time coming because we have let things go for so long and get so bad that YOU think it's the norm. The sad part is, it has become the norm and we need to change the norm. The system is terminally broken.

 

[francoHFW]

It was probably because they were illiterate. Seriously when was that lol? My mother was English and my father joined the British army before Pearl harbor to fight the Nazis. Many thanks to the GOP for always being wrong and disastrous.....

The ones in the 1600s and early 1700s, yeah. The more recent ones were literate and fairly well educated. The most recent ones - 1910 spoke 6 languages and read/wrote three (including English) when they got here.

I think back in those days people just grew apart when it was a month or two passage etc. I can see we are growing apart now as we are only cousins not siblings...
And I love all viewpoints and all media. Rupert Murdock is a scumbag however.

 

[francoHFW]

There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



You ******* retard.

This bill does not violate the first Amendment.

or abridging the freedom of speech

You ******* racist moron.

Outlawing political speech is a direct violation of the 1st.

-----------------


“(A) PROHIBITION.—No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, communicate, or cause to be communicated, a materially false statement about an endorsement, if such person—

“(i) knows such statement to be false;



“(B) DEFINITION OF materially false.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a statement about an endorsement is ‘materially false’ if, with respect to an upcoming election described in paragraph (5)—
“(i) the statement states that a specifically named person, political party, or organization has endorsed the election of a specific candidate for a Federal office described in such paragraph; and
“(ii) such person, political party, or organization has not endorsed the election of such candidate.


This outlaws speech against the Reich.

Most people have a problem with lies and disinformation that is the basis of the new b******* GOP. Rupert Murdock is a scumbag.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you mean you have a problem of removing the Corporations to do unlimited campaign donations even under the table? Or how about the lobbyists that are paid better than the Congress Critters they are influencing being reigned in a bit? Forcing the political ads to be truthful? And a whole host of other things that are in there. None of which is against the 1st amendment.

Now, show that you have read it and give me the areas that you actually disagree with. But remember, I fact check.

Corporations my ass. The Reich seeks to silence PACs, which are collections of peasants pooling their resources for a common cause. This unconstitutional pile of shit silences all voices save the Reich controlled press for 60 days prior to an election - it outlaws political speech for anyone but the minions of the Reich in the corrupt press.

Jeff Bezos can buy elections with his Washington Post, but regular Americans will go to jail if we speak against Reich candidates.

This abortion of civil rights won't get past the Senate, but the fact that the Nazis in the house passed it is a clear warning to all of America just how hostile the filthy democrat party is to our Constitution and to the most fundamental civil rights decent people support.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I read enough of it to know you are trying to pull a fast one. Like everyone else, I skimmed it looking for items I would disagree with. I caught a few, but for the most part, it's been a long time coming because we have let things go for so long and get so bad that YOU think it's the norm. The sad part is, it has become the norm and we need to change the norm. The system is terminally broken.

You lied.

You haven't read this abortion of civil rights, no one has.

This is a typical maneuver by the Reich to obfuscate what they are pulling.

The ******* Nazis are devious, dishonest, and flat out evil.

-------------------



“(A) PROHIBITION.—No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, communicate, or cause to be communicated, a materially false statement about an endorsement, if such person—

“(i) knows such statement to be false;



“(B) DEFINITION OF materially false.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a statement about an endorsement is ‘materially false’ if, with respect to an upcoming election described in paragraph (5)—
“(i) the statement states that a specifically named person, political party, or organization has endorsed the election of a specific candidate for a Federal office described in such paragraph; and
“(ii) such person, political party, or organization has not endorsed the election of such candidate.


This outlaws speech against the Reich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Most people have a problem with lies and disinformation that is the basis of the new b******* GOP. Rupert Murdock is a scumbag.

Nazi to English Dictionary:

Lie n. Any statement that opposes, exposes, or impugns the Reich.

 

[francoHFW]

Most people have a problem with lies and disinformation that is the basis of the new b******* GOP. Rupert Murdock is a scumbag.

Nazi to English Dictionary:

Lie n. Any statement that opposes, exposes, or impugns the Reich.

As Fox lawyers say all the time, it's only opinion and no rational person believes this crap lol. Seriously. only Rupert Murdoch media agrees with you in the entire world and he is a well-known scumbag just like Roger ailes and Big Bill O'Brien etc. Only an ignoramus believes that crap. Ask the BBC for God's sake.

 

[Vrenn]

Do you mean you have a problem of removing the Corporations to do unlimited campaign donations even under the table? Or how about the lobbyists that are paid better than the Congress Critters they are influencing being reigned in a bit? Forcing the political ads to be truthful? And a whole host of other things that are in there. None of which is against the 1st amendment.

Now, show that you have read it and give me the areas that you actually disagree with. But remember, I fact check.

Corporations my ass. The Reich seeks to silence PACs, which are collections of peasants pooling their resources for a common cause. This unconstitutional pile of shit silences all voices save the Reich controlled press for 60 days prior to an election - it outlaws political speech for anyone but the minions of the Reich in the corrupt press.

Jeff Bezos can buy elections with his Washington Post, but regular Americans will go to jail if we speak against Reich candidates.

This abortion of civil rights won't get past the Senate, but the fact that the Nazis in the house passed it is a clear warning to all of America just how hostile the filthy democrat party is to our Constitution and to the most fundamental civil rights decent people support.

Newsflash: There are many times more money coming in from Dark sources than recorded sources. Most PACs don't have to say where the money is coming from. And Corporations donate billions to the PACs because of that. Imagine if all the PACs had to declare where the money came from.

 

[Vrenn]

I read enough of it to know you are trying to pull a fast one. Like everyone else, I skimmed it looking for items I would disagree with. I caught a few, but for the most part, it's been a long time coming because we have let things go for so long and get so bad that YOU think it's the norm. The sad part is, it has become the norm and we need to change the norm. The system is terminally broken.

You lied.

You haven't read this abortion of civil rights, no one has.

This is a typical maneuver by the Reich to obfuscate what they are pulling.

The ******* Nazis are devious, dishonest, and flat out evil.

-------------------



“(A) PROHIBITION.—No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, communicate, or cause to be communicated, a materially false statement about an endorsement, if such person—

“(i) knows such statement to be false;



“(B) DEFINITION OF materially false.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a statement about an endorsement is ‘materially false’ if, with respect to an upcoming election described in paragraph (5)—
“(i) the statement states that a specifically named person, political party, or organization has endorsed the election of a specific candidate for a Federal office described in such paragraph; and
“(ii) such person, political party, or organization has not endorsed the election of such candidate.


This outlaws speech against the Reich.

You can't friggin read. What it does is puts the political ads in the last 60 days under the truth in advertising rules. You can lie your ass off before the 60 days but when the 60 days start, you have to tell the truth about your opponent and all other things. Imagine trying to cram down the "It's a Steal" during the 60 days when you have to actually prove it in court. And when you can't prove it, you have just disqualified yourself from office. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As Fox lawyers say all the time, it's only opinion and no rational person believes this crap lol. Seriously. only Rupert Murdoch media agrees with you in the entire world and he is a well-known scumbag just like Roger ailes and Big Bill O'Brien etc. Only an ignoramus believes that crap. Ask the BBC for God's sake.

As Snopes lawyers say all the time, "we cater to the stupid, to the far left. They like being lied to for their party."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Newsflash: There are many times more money coming in from Dark sources than recorded sources. Most PACs don't have to say where the money is coming from. And Corporations donate billions to the PACs because of that. Imagine if all the PACs had to declare where the money came from.

Dark money is already illegal, though the Reich certainly uses a great deal since democrats are not subject to laws.

Most political action committees are individuals pooling funds to provide an alternative voice to the Oligarchs, and the Oligarchs - Soros, Bezos, Gates, Cook, Zuckerberg - the tech fascists of the Nazi democrat Reich, don't like it. FascistBook and Twatter crush free speech, engage in restraint of trade and form illegal trusts to ensure the absolute dominance of the fascist left. Silencing opposing views is the #1 priority of the Nazi democrat Reich. This abortion of civil rights is another assault on freedom of speech.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't friggin read. What it does is puts the political ads in the last 60 days under the truth in advertising rules. You can lie your ass off before the 60 days but when the 60 days start, you have to tell the truth about your opponent and all other things. Imagine trying to cram down the "It's a Steal" during the 60 days when you have to actually prove it in court. And when you can't prove it, you have just disqualified yourself from office. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

It allows the Reich to directly control what can or cannot be said during election cycles. This is a direct assault on political speech.

We've seen politifraud and the ******* lying scum of Snopes - we know what passes for "fact checking" with the Reich.

The Nazi party is moving to outlaw political speech contrary to the interests of the Reich. It's fascist bullshit and the Reich must not be allowed to get away with it.

Never again.

 

[francoHFW]

As Fox lawyers say all the time, it's only opinion and no rational person believes this crap lol. Seriously. only Rupert Murdoch media agrees with you in the entire world and he is a well-known scumbag just like Roger ailes and Big Bill O'Brien etc. Only an ignoramus believes that crap. Ask the BBC for God's sake.

As Snopes lawyers say all the time, "we cater to the stupid, to the far left. They like being lied to for their party."

, All law enforcement and respected media in the world agree with Snopes and the Democrats, while the GOP has its garbage propaganda machine from scumbag Rupert Murdoch and that is all. Some Rupert Murdoch newspapers and the Washington examiner and Washington times fake newspapers. Only ignoramuses would believe the latter.

 

[Vrenn]

Newsflash: There are many times more money coming in from Dark sources than recorded sources. Most PACs don't have to say where the money is coming from. And Corporations donate billions to the PACs because of that. Imagine if all the PACs had to declare where the money came from.

Dark money is already illegal, though the Reich certainly uses a great deal since democrats are not subject to laws.

Most political action committees are individuals pooling funds to provide an alternative voice to the Oligarchs, and the Oligarchs - Soros, Bezos, Gates, Cook, Zuckerberg - the tech fascists of the Nazi democrat Reich, don't like it. FascistBook and Twatter crush free speech, engage in restraint of trade and form illegal trusts to ensure the absolute dominance of the fascist left. Silencing opposing views is the #1 priority of the Nazi democrat Reich. This abortion of civil rights is another assault on freedom of speech.

Oh, I see. If the Dems or the RINOs use it it's Dark Money and should be illegal but if Rump or someone he supports benefits from it then it's called creative campaign financing.

 

[Vrenn]

You can't friggin read. What it does is puts the political ads in the last 60 days under the truth in advertising rules. You can lie your ass off before the 60 days but when the 60 days start, you have to tell the truth about your opponent and all other things. Imagine trying to cram down the "It's a Steal" during the 60 days when you have to actually prove it in court. And when you can't prove it, you have just disqualified yourself from office. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

It allows the Reich to directly control what can or cannot be said during election cycles. This is a direct assault on political speech.

We've seen politifraud and the ******* lying scum of Snopes - we know what passes for "fact checking" with the Reich.

The Nazi party is moving to outlaw political speech contrary to the interests of the Reich. It's fascist bullshit and the Reich must not be allowed to get away with it.

Never again.

You mean political Lying. Having to run a campaign that tells the truth for a change in the last 60 days of the election. Lying about you opponent can end you up in front of a federal judge and if you are found guilty of libel or slander then you are automatically disqualified to run on that office. And the Civilian court after that where financial damages can be assessed.

Instead of doing it after the person leaves office, it would be done at the time of the infraction. I don't know about where you are but we just went through a huge dirty campaign where the dirtiest campaign won. Then that elected "Official" goes to DC and continues to be a nightmare. This goes for both sides. But right now, the biggest nightmare campaigns are coming from the Party of the Rumpsters.