Replies

And here's your ridiculous argument:

"But just where does the CFR bill take away our rights to Free Speech? It merey places regulations on elections primarily because things were being abused. Our full Constitutional right to Free Speech is still in tact. You are not only not making sence, you exaggerate as well."

First, I can spell "sense". And "merely".

Second, it takes away MY RIGHTS to buy and ad within 30 days of the election. Or my group, or my PAC, or my party. If you don't think THAT is a dilution of our FREE SPEECH rights, you are on crack.

And exactly what abuse is it placing regulations on? Buying ads? Pointing out the other candidate is a liar or supports a policy another candidate disagrees with? Soft money to parties that mean nothing?

Do you ignore the Dems and cheaters break all the laws anyway? Clinton sure did in 1996, didn't stop him from winning.

So go ahead, enlighten us. Tell us about all the freedom of speech you think I still have that are CLEARLY stopped by this horrible bill signed by Bush for political reasons (I don't know why, CFR was never a big issue to the voters, only the press).

But you can't because I don't think you even bothered to READ IT!

When you are through shoving your uninformed opinion down my throat, I'll stop vommiting.

One of the reasons GW has been so successful is because people underestimate him. He then stuns them with some brilliant action or move that they can do nothing about except throw childish diatribes and insults at him; Done out of envy or jealously more than anything else.

Your outward disrespect for me or anyone else on this forum who does not agree with you, speaks volumes as to your true nature.

Most of us ignore your kind as do I.

Um, PACs can still buy issue ads even the day before an election. I think they just can't name a specific candidate, the intent of this rule being to avoid last-minute hit pieces like they tried on Arnold. So, for example, a pro-life PAC could certainly run an ad on November 2004 saying "Democrats want to bring back partial birth abortions - vote Republican", but they could not say on November 2, 2004, "A woman from Vermont today charged that Howard Dean, whose medical training came from Planned Parenthood, ate her aborted fetus with a fine chianti". It's meant to avoid last-minute personal smear ads, but PACs still can discuss and buy issue-related ads, so it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

I agree with you that I don't like the 1st Amendment implications (though I am not totally comfortable with the idea that money = speech... I think what Soros is doing is way wrong). But quite frankly, given the fact that Republicans receive more small donor money, CFR hurts Democrats far more than it does Republicans, not only because Republicans will get more legal funding out of it than Democrats can, but also because MANY MANY people are aware that Democrats are totally violating the letter and spirit of CFR while Republicans, who generally opposed it, are obeying both the letter and the spirit of it. That is going to be a massive campaign issue, I believe, and in the end Soros's contributions are going to hurt Dems more than they will help. The net result, IMO, if the Republican "base" doesn't screw everything up, will be such a huge Republicans mandate with enough -real- conservatives in power that we won't have to give a rat's ass what the Dems think, and real conservatives will be able to repeal CFR easily for the major debacle it became.

I don't like the principles behind CFR any more than you do. But from a pragmatic point of view, it is once again demonstrating how incredibly arrogant and hypocritical the Dems are, and they're so off-the-rails this election that they aren't even hiding it anymore. In that sense, I'm almost glad CFR went through. The payoff will come in 2004, where we see enough conservatives come into power that RINOs won't be able to turn the tide anymore. Again, that's IF the "base" doesn't pitch a tantrum and screw it all up.

Qwinn