Replies

I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. Perhaps you have never accepted the fact that politics means compromise and that you must appeal to millions of moderate voters to get any power. The far right will never find a candidate acceptable to them. Bush is the most conservative president we have had in a century (even Reagan who regularly compromised with the RATS) and no one more conservative would have even a slim chance. Since you have forgotten someone should remind you that he didn't even win a majority of the popular votes.

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.

Hysterical sputtering and whining never did anyone any good and any alternative to Bush is far too horrible to comtemplate. I have no regard for the minor leaguers regularly touted as saviours by the perpetually disgruntled who frequent these threads. Nor can they be counted on in a pinch since just about anything suffices to get their panties in a twist.

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

How about banning all criticism of incumbents?

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

Really!? This law says a 60-day limitation and that is OK in your opinion. So, would 180-days be similarly constitutional? How about 2 years?

If Congress can restrict speech, even for one day, then they can ultimately restrict all speech. That certainly was not the intention of the founding fathers and it is not included in any intelligent reading of the Constitution.

I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. ...
This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.
Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.

What a bunch of nonsense. You are such a party loyalist that you don't mind having your rights stripped from you as long as it's done by people with an "R" behind their name.

But I'm not surprised you don't understand what's really going on here, you don't understand the Constitution either

"I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. Perhaps you have never accepted the fact that politics means compromise and that you must appeal to millions of moderate voters to get any power. The far right will never find a candidate acceptable to them. Bush is the most conservative president we have had in a century (even Reagan who regularly compromised with the RATS) and no one more conservative would have even a slim chance. Since you have forgotten someone should remind you that he didn't even win a majority of the popular votes.

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.

Hysterical sputtering and whining never did anyone any good and any alternative to Bush is far too horrible to comtemplate. I have no regard for the minor leaguers regularly touted as saviours by the perpetually disgruntled who frequent these threads. Nor can they be counted on in a pinch since just about anything suffices to get their panties in a twist."

Remember your words when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, etc. all go off the air or talk about breast enlargement or Canadian Baby seals, 60 days before the election.

I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. Perhaps you have never accepted the fact that politics means compromise and that you must appeal to millions of moderate voters to get any power.

I'm enough of a realist to have voted for Schwarzenegger, even though I know many of his views run counter to what I think. Bush, however, has:

helped insert an asterisk in the first amendment
presided over unprecedented expansion in government
enacted a protectionist steel tariff (it took him 3 years to correct this mistake, and only after the EU was about to counterattack with its own tariffs)
indicated a willingness to sign a renewal of the 'assault' weapon ban
played footsie with the Mexican government and indicated his support for an amnesty for illegals

I didn't expect to be sold out on 90% of my issues. If I wanted more government, more illegal immigration, and less freedom, I'd vote for Democrats.

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

What a stretch. That's along the lines of finding more "emanations" in the "penumbras" of the Constitution. Controlling what people can say about politicians and when isn't regulating the 'manner' of an election. Setting the voting age, setting the date, THOSE things are the purview of Congress.

Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.

No, you as an independent person or organization cannot now take out a TV ad within 60 days of an election that shows a federal candidate for office or mentions his/her name. Period. Truth or lies, expose or flattery, all are banned. That's a lot more than preventing the equivalent of shouting 'fire'. You and I are now effectively stymied if we want to criticize some highbinder on the air just before an election. Bush himself said that he wanted certain protections in the law. He didn't get them but signed it anyway and THEN badmouthed it. Am I supposed to give him a pass when he does something utterly stupid and harmful to our basic freedoms?

Hysterical sputtering and whining never did anyone any good and any alternative to Bush is far too horrible to comtemplate.

Labeling people 'hysterical' is just a form of dismissing a viewpoint with which you disagree. Other than in the war on terror, tax cuts, and a few other minor issues, Bush has delivered what amounts to a Democrat agenda, and I'm going to say so. There are alternatives to Bush that aren't too horrible to contemplate. Unfortunately, they'd have to challenge him in the primary, and that isn't going to happen.