Call the WHite HOuse to Thank Bush for CFR!!!

[cajun-jack]

CFR stands for john mccain is an idiot and a crybaby

[My2Cents]

How many office holders, nationwide, are members of the Constitution Party?

[onyx]

Posted by Jim Robinson to RWR8189

On News/Activism 12/04/2003 10:01:30 PM PST #11 of 201

Well, guess I can't speak for all of the Republican base, but if we don't like Bush, we can always elect Dean or Clark or Sharpton or Braun or Kucinich or Kerry or Gephardt or Lieberman, et al. Anyone for drafting Hillary Clinton? They're all highly qualified candidates. One thing for sure, we'll have to study our voter guides long and hard this election. Wouldn't want to make any mistakes. Now, you Gore voters out there, be sure not to punch the chad for Buchanan this time. Bwaahahahahahhahaha! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Howlin for finding this. Rather fitting, don't you think?

[Howlin]

LOL!

[ladyinred]

Sorry I think the fault lies with the RATS

Not to mention John McCain and his ilk. I am surprised at the Supreme Court. If this is as unconstitutional as they say, how could they uphold it?

[rintense]

Anyone who sacrifices the Constitution for political gain is wrong. Simply wrong.

[My2Cents]

How, precisely, does the CFR "spit" on the Constitution? As I posted earlier on this thread, a "freedom of speech" argument against the CFR would seem to apply to any and all campaign finance law, of which there are many, both at the federal and state levels. I'll admit that I didn't stay up late at night pouring over the bill when it was moving through Congress or since it was signed, but this "End of the World" scenario people are trying to paint around the approval of this law seems...dare I say it?...extremist.

[aristeides]

The mere fact that an unconstitutional piece of legislation may hurt the Democrats does not justify it.

[jwalsh07]

I called at 1:00PM. My advice tot eh POTUS:

Be a man, admit you made a mistake and start appointing judges during the recess.

[StoneColdGOP]

I'm about ready to forget voting for Bush in '04.

[NittanyLion]

is it perhaps possible that CFR, just maybe, actually doesn't violate the First Amendment?

It's not possible. Unless by "free speech" the Founders meant "free speech, except for within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary election". You think that's what they meant?

[My2Cents]

See my post #69. Frankly, I think the argument that the CFR "sacrifices" the Constitution is hooey. Please make your case.

[bdeaner]

On . . . the . . . nose.

Big picture, people. Look at the big picture.

[jwalsh07]

The entire basis for our republic has been changed today from the Jeffersonian ideal of equal rights for all to the Orwellian one of "some are more equal than others".

That so many here don't understand that saddens me.

[My2Cents]

You can go and read my post #69 as well. You say the CFR is unconstitutional. I don't think it is. I have Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court on my side. Who do you have?

[Lazamataz]

I officially have, at this moment in time, decided not to vote for GW Bush.

He might as well push for and sign the Assault Weapons Ban. He cannot lose my vote twice.

This decision is permanent and non-negotiable.

[aristeides]

I believe even the majority of the Supreme Court today admitted they were limiting freedom of speech. They thought that was justified by the higher good of avoiding corruption and even the appearance of corruption. Just where does that higher good appear in the Constitution? Does this not mean that any constitutional provision can be trumped by some higher good that the courts dream up?