Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)
FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940941-960961-980 ... 1,941-1,949 next last
To: Howlin
So exactly how could Gore done worse than sign the bill? Perhaps your definition of delusional is different than mine.
941 posted on 12/10/2003 10:52:38 AM PST by stljoe71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 936 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I frankly don't know what to do anymore. When the people responsible for upholding the fundamental values and rights, deriving not from any man, but from our Creator, fail to do carry out their duty, and instead deny us our natural human rights...I really don't know where to go to fix things. We have no recourse, it seems, other than civil disobedience.
942 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:00 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
The Constitution says what it says; regardless of what the current crop of politicians tell us.

Yes it does, and this bill has met the test set forth by the founding fathers as constitutional. We may not like the result, but its certainly constitutional. The only remaining recourse that our constitution has set forth is amendment.

Absent working within the constitution, the other remaining recourse is to overthrow this constitutional gov't and replace it with a new one.

943 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:14 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Hi bvw, give a polite hello to todd for me over at malcontent central.
944 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:24 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane
"Imagine a show called America Fights Back, where law abiding gun owners tell how they stopped criminals [using their firearms] through re-creations."

I love that idea...hope somebody--e.g. the NRA--picks up on it...MUD

945 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:27 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: dixie sass
Fer shure...this whole thing is totally NUTZ!!!

I lovya Dubya, but this was one HUGHE mistake on his part...

Now the politicos can't be criticized...ever...

MERRRY CHRISTMAS!!
GRRRRR
946 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:35 AM PST by GRRRRR (If the GOP could just send in the Marines against the Demokrats now....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
No kidding. I can understand some degree of pragmatism, but it has gotten way out of hand.
947 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:42 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 939 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
He did? I did not know that. You should have said something before now.
948 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:46 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
the case(s) hasn't been filed yet, give it time, this snowball is just starting to roll. you can bet that every liberal group in the US is tooling up their lawyers right now.
949 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:55 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion; Mo1
You are correct, we could have the Florida justices on the USSC instead.

As Mo1 asked earlier, when all these people sit home and don't/won't for Bush, and one of the Dems that are running is elected, do you think the UN will let us keep the USSC?

950 posted on 12/10/2003 10:54:53 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
You'll be sorry you said that, man!
951 posted on 12/10/2003 10:55:18 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
OK...how about oligarchy? :-)
952 posted on 12/10/2003 10:55:28 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 935 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Since you quoted me I would have hoped you understood the quote. Nothing in there supports your contention that anything to contradict your statement was said by me. Reread it again more carefully.
953 posted on 12/10/2003 10:55:50 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Lots of complaints, few solutions.

The solution is simple, the fact that you can't see the obvious doesn't change that.

954 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:08 AM PST by Protagoras (Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
I have urgent questions.

(1) Does this apply only to Federal candidates or to ALL State & Local candidates?

(2) Can Political Parties continue to run ad's immediately before an election? If not, what are the time frame limits?

(3) Do Political parties have to remove their web-sited during the banned time period?
955 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:26 AM PST by rapture-me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
How about congress's right to establish rules regarding the elections of its members ?

If they can make it illegal to criticize the candidate in a commercial ad, why not just make it illegal not to vote for the candidate? Who needs pesky election anyway?

Your interpretation of Article I is quite broad. You should read it. It mentions the "time, place and manner" of elections." I don't see that as allowing banning political speech via commercial ads. Furthermore, the main power to regulate elections is given to the state legislatures-- not Congress.

956 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:34 AM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
that's exactly right, the liberal papers aren't even going to run your ad. but you can bet they will help moveon.org craft an ad and run that one. and who is going to do anything about it?
957 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:35 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
who is watching WNRA?

It will depend on there content. If they go for the calendar babes with guns, just about every male in the country who presently watches the Spanish station (guys know what i mean).

958 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:35 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
who is going to stop the NYT from taking a moveon.org ad?

Bias from the leftist media generally takes on more subtlety. Spiking, mischaracterization, buzzwords, angle, etc. Taking a frontal approach by placing TV ads would blow their tenuous plausible deniability on the issue. Of course, they could, but I doubt strongly they would take that approach.

I almost wish they would. It would give the right hard core proof that even the most skeptical could understand. It is my opinion that the left media already suffers from at best a suspicion of bias by the middle road voters. The net effect is a watering down of their ability to influence. All it needs is some blatant moves on their part to ruin what credibility they have left with all but the most jaded dems.

959 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:38 AM PST by Bob J (www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I don't have the answer; but I am certainly not going to go into knee-jerk-defend-the-GOP mode

Of course you don't. You go into "knee-jerk-blame-the-GOP mode".

Of course my question of what of what may have happened if Ginsburg or Breyer had not been appointed by a President Clinton goes unanswered.

960 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:53 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940941-960961-980 ... 1,941-1,949 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson