- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
But the bill does nothing to curb union spending. Which is at least as threatening as corporate spending where elections are concerned.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But the bill does nothing to curb union spending. Which is at least as threatening as corporate spending where elections are concerned.
First, you have to look at the legislation. Congress wants it to rollback the decision by the Supreme Court on campaign financing rules. The problem with what the Supreme Court did was that it opened the doors to elections being bought. Imagine powerful, deep pocket interests with views that are adverse to yours putting up a candidate and not having to divulge that the candidate was being funded (via corporations) almost exclusively by interests with ties to China. -Many would consider that a problem. That can be done right now without any problem so the current law needs to be fixed.
With the exemption, you're looking at the NRA's desire for self-preservation not a desire to "silence grass roots gun groups." If you would look at the legislation it does not just pertain to gun groups. It covers a lot of groups regardless of their politics. And the NRA is not supporting the bill's passage. It's just with the exemption they are not going to oppose it because it no longer pertains to them. Is the NRA being selfish? Absolutely, but they're not going to fund a fight and flex political muscle to protect other groups they don't care about. That's normal. When did you see the M.A.D.D. deciding to fight some piece of legislation on behalf of the NRA?
The exemption the NRA lobbied for covers any group that has over one million dues paying members that has been in existence for over ten years. The Sierra Club also falls into that category.
No one is debating your dedication to guns, but you're being manipulated. GOA hits the panic button and you turn into Chicken Little shouting, the "Sky is falling!" regardless of what the facts are.
Hey I'm willing to learn, please explain why OFF and GOA is hitting the "panic button"
Money, honey. Causes bring in money.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste, even if you have to manufacture the crisis or even fudge the truth about it."
The more I see of them, the more I'm convinced that OFF's best talent is crying wolf in a sensationalized manner, all in the interest of raising money.
I'll never believe another thing they say. I'm completely tired of their ch@t.
Am I the only one who's perceiving them as being full of BS?
Hey I'm willing to learn, please explain why OFF and GOA is hitting the "panic button" if this bill doesn't affect them ? Why is it being "pushed" with such urgency before the Nov. elections ? Could be you're the one being manipulated, believing this legislation is harmless to gun owners and free speech ......
From Kevin Starrett, @ OFF
I am always amused by folks who claim we are :
1) lying
2) sensationalizing
3) just trying to raise money
But never give examples. The last few requests for funds have been 100% for others, and we rarely do it in our e-mail alerts.
I did not say the legislation is harmless or that the bill would not affect the GOA or OFF but like the other stuff, your reading comprehension is lacking. As for being willing to learn, you have demonstrated a resolute unwillingness to learn. You post GOA propaganda every chance you get even though you have been shown repeatedly that the information you are posting is almost always misleading and often incorrect.
You asked why GOA and OFF hit the panic button. GOA and OFF do it because by getting you (and other drones) to fire off a form email, it is a way for them to demonstrate their organizational influence. You trust whatever they say (without bothering to verify it) and you do whatever they direct (without thinking about it). If they get enough people like you, politicians have to take notice.
You're amused? What an odd reaction.
I'm not amused.
If you read the threads, I gave lots of examples of why I believe you sensationalize and even give "facts" which you know nothing about in an attempt to raise money and to raise your profile as big shots.
BTW, you forgot to end your post by asking for money so I'll help you out here with a reminder.
I'll give you $10.00 if you can show me the down side of "politicians have to take notice."If they get enough people like you, politicians have to take notice.
Good job gunner!! He's most likely raising money for other people involved in the battle over gun rights.BTW, you forgot to end your post by asking for money so I'll help you out here with a reminder.
You ain't got nothing, Jeez...............
But the bill does nothing to curb union spending. Which is at least as threatening as corporate spending where elections are concerned.
No it isn't. Unless you are blinded by the promise of "hope and change!" And continue to vote the party line, as I believe most dems do, regardless of threats to their gun rights.Of course unions wouldn't be impacted, because that is the bread and butter of the administration! Come on guys. Is it that hard to see?
I am curious how many of the people freaking out in this thread have actually read even a portion of that bill? Anyone? If you haven't already maybe you should google search HR 5175. The text is pretty easy to find, and you may be suprised by what you find in it.
I am curious how many of the people freaking out in this thread have actually read even a portion of that bill? Anyone? If you haven't already maybe you should google search HR 5175. The text is pretty easy to find, and you may be suprised by what you find in it.
There are two camps here. There are some who seem to think they know what and why, and the questions of lawfulness of what happened to Pyles. OFF almost immediately posted a long and adamant rant on their web site, putting them in that camp.
Then there are those who know that Pyles' personnel records (he was fired) and his psychiatric records and the details of the police record are sealed from the public by law. Those people know we don't have the whole story.
OFF's rant was a statement of "fact" wholly supportive of Pyles and cop-bashing. Go to their site and read it. It was totally irresponsible, based on speculation which they called facts, and it did of course ask for money. As I've said before, if Pyles is so badly wronged, a big law firm will take his case on a contingency and he doesn't need a legal fund.
For all we or OFF know, Pyles could be Jack The Ripper or he could be a really nice guy. The point is we don't know and neither does OFF. OFF sure as heck didn't know the facts about Pyles when they posted the very irresponsible rant about what happened to him as if they did know the facts. They were irresponsible in bashing the cops before they had the facts.
OFF will never build relationships with our legislature or our police departments with that behavior. They might raise some money and gain some members, but that won't do any good if they act like kooks.
If in your mind that's "nothing," then so be it. We are simply in two different camps on this.