|
Should Barack Obama be prohibited from giving speeches?
It dawned on me the other day that Barack Obama is well on his way to becoming one of the most popular Presidents in U.S. history. This makes the Conservatives look irrelevant in contrast because they look like they are either behind the times or want to ruin everyone’s optimism. Fact is, Barack Obama’s main source of power, in terms of popularity, is his ability to give effective speeches. The only feasible way to stop his rising popularity is to stop him from giving speeches. Should the Republicans try to pass a bill that would prohibit the President from giving speeches and having so much influence over the masses? |
strip him of his first amendment right to free speech.
Maybe if conservatives like yourself didn’t try so hard to remove the first amendment then they wouldn’t be so "irrelevant."
respond with this
I agree that it’s stupid to want to prohibit him from making speeches, but the First Amendment is a protection afforded to citizens. The Bill of Rights were not written to protect the government or government employees on official government business, douche.
By your idiotic line of reasoning, the President should be able to integrate his religious convictions in with official state business, lest we violate his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.
|
I agree that it’s stupid to want to prohibit him from making speeches, but the First Amendment is a protection afforded to citizens. The Bill of Rights were not written to protect the government or government employees on official government business, douche.
By your idiotic line of reasoning, the President should be able to integrate his religious convictions in with official state business, lest we violate his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. |
The President does not have free speech, his speech is regulated. Article II section 3 outlines where the Constitution speaks to when he should give speeches
|
I agree that it’s stupid to want to prohibit him from making speeches, but the First Amendment is a protection afforded to citizens. The Bill of Rights were not written to protect the government or government employees on official government business, douche.
By your idiotic line of reasoning, the President should be able to integrate his religious convictions in with official state business, lest we violate his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. |
No. He has a right to give speeches just like he has a right to go to church. He doesn’t lose either right just because he is president or a member of the government.
I dont get it. Yes that is the most retarded as fuck idea I have ever heard. On the other hand, I am sure if we cruised on over to the liberal forums we would find equally retarded ideas.
Delivering the state of the Union to Congress has nothing to do with giving a speech. (even though in modern times they do, of course, give a speech.) That just requires him to submit a letter to Congress with the state of the union. Aside from also giving him the power to convene either/both houses… I don’t see anything in there that regulates a presidents speech.
Yes, easily.
So, we get one ‘conservative’ idiot (not even anyone in power, just a douche) talking about censoring one public servant, which is wrong.
or,
We have liberals talking about censoring the masses, controlling the media (Fairness Doctrine) and limiting access to certain entertainment (game censorship), which is a travesty.
STFU libs.
|
Yes, easily.
So, we get one ‘conservative’ idiot (not even anyone in power, just a douche) talking about censoring one public servant, which is wrong. or, We have liberals talking about censoring the masses, controlling the media (Fairness Doctrine) and limiting access to certain entertainment (game censorship), which is a travesty. STFU libs. |
|
Yes, easily.
So, we get one ‘conservative’ idiot (not even anyone in power, just a douche) talking about censoring one public servant, which is wrong. or, We have liberals talking about censoring the masses, controlling the media (Fairness Doctrine) and limiting access to certain entertainment (game censorship), which is a travesty. STFU libs. |
is this shit really going on?
|
Yes, easily.
So, we get one ‘conservative’ idiot (not even anyone in power, just a douche) talking about censoring one public servant, which is wrong. or, We have liberals talking about censoring the masses, controlling the media (Fairness Doctrine) and limiting access to certain entertainment (game censorship), which is a travesty. STFU libs. |
Well, may be it’s time to realize that conservatives haven’t conserved a goddam thing and the liberals haven’t liberated anything or anybody since the sixties, and that we need another political current cough-cough-3rd party-cough-cough…in our stream.
Just a though…..
|
Well, may be it’s time to realize that conservatives haven’t conserved a goddam thing and the liberals haven’t liberated anything or anybody since the sixties, and that we need another political current cough-cough-3rd party-cough-cough…in our stream.
Just a though….. |
yeah, exactly, blah-blah
|
Well, may be it’s time to realize that conservatives haven’t conserved a goddam thing and the liberals haven’t liberated anything or anybody since the sixties, and that we need another political current cough-cough-3rd party-cough-cough…in our stream.
Just a though….. |
You’ll get no argument from me. The "2 factions of one shitty party" system we have now is a joke.
Related posts:
- So there’s a presidential debate forum on right now. Fuck, they're not answering questions together. /thread faillol @ OT thinking a black man will win at least we know...
- Obama’s Civilian Police Task Force vs. The Hannity GOP Knights *PICS* Who would you take in an all-out battle for political survival? VS Knights, for sure Liberals probably slap a lot...