General Discussion

onenote

(42,685 posts)

7. It was proposed a year ago. Its not a major bill or a high priority.

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 09:57 AM

Mar 2012

So it took around a year.
As for why? Maybe because it was considered a good idea to close a weird loophole in the law under which it applied to places the President and VP "were temporarily visiting" but not to the WH or the VP's residence.

Whoop-de-fucking-do.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HB347 is a disturbing assault on the first amendment [View all] OKDem08 Mar 2012 OP

specifically aimed square unionworks Mar 2012 #1

+1 Le Taz Hot Mar 2012 #4

Funny it didn't come up when Occupy was having its rallies or any other rallies onenote Mar 2012 #8

you are certainly living up to your handle. ~nt 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #16

well, if there weren't so many folks on DU intent on perpetuating false facts about this bill, onenote Mar 2012 #18

see reply 19 n/t unionworks Mar 2012 #20

There's always the Internet Lawlbringer Mar 2012 #2

Ah ProSense Mar 2012 #3

see reply 19 n/t unionworks Mar 2012 #21

Fearmongering? Perhaps, but why this bill? Why now? Scuba Mar 2012 #5

It was proposed a year ago. Its not a major bill or a high priority. onenote Mar 2012 #7

Thank you. Scuba Mar 2012 #12

Classic line of bs: "Oh, it's just housekeeping. Not to worry. Nothing to see here." ~nt 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #35

Debunked a bunch of times already onenote Mar 2012 #6

Threads like this make the case for the return of unrec....nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #9

Exactly. There are also 3 variations of this post on DU at the moment. FSogol Mar 2012 #17

see reply 19 n/t unionworks Mar 2012 #22

3? More like 8 or 9. randome Mar 2012 #39

Yup, "Outrages" attempting to split the left just keep going, and going, and going.... FSogol Mar 2012 #42

I note that the article at the link does not discuss MineralMan Mar 2012 #10

see reply 19 n/t unionworks Mar 2012 #24

Only a few Republicans opposed it -- no Democrats. Courtesy Flush Mar 2012 #11

Why wouldn't Obama sign it? Does he hate the Vice President? onenote Mar 2012 #13

The Bill is already law 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #15

Oh come on ... you are just being hysterical and paranoid 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #14

never get a blueddog unionworks Mar 2012 #23

Suspiciously timed? onenote Mar 2012 #27

Thanks for the information. This is helpful to know. 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #29

For the 99th time: the only intent of this bill is to extend existing law to the WH and VP residence onenote Mar 2012 #31

The fact that we were already screwed 10 times over, before this bill added even more repressive 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #33

so you are opposed to making it unlawful to enter the WH and VP's residence without authorization onenote Mar 2012 #34

Ring!! Ring!!! This pretty much sums up my concerns. 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #36

FAIL onenote Mar 2012 #37

Your utter lack of concern about HR 347 is duly noted 99th_Monkey Mar 2012 #38

And your lack of interest in the facts and fact-based arguments is also duly noted onenote Mar 2012 #40

BULLSHIT unionworks Mar 2012 #19

This bill restates existing law in that regard. onenote Mar 2012 #26

gonna break my plastic scooper unionworks Mar 2012 #28

So you have no response to the fact that this is what the law has been for years onenote Mar 2012 #30

you sure got that right unionworks Mar 2012 #32

K&R Sounds like those in congress are passing unconstitutional bills? midnight Mar 2012 #25

There's a new assault on us every day. nt woo me with science Mar 2012 #41