Posted on 12/17/2003 3:05:36 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."
So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.
All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.
But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.
Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.
This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.
Fair enough?
Schizophrenice apparently. But then, so are we.
If the former Judge Moore runs for Governor, maybe you'll finally see the light. I doubt it, but there's always hope.
The ruling was ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We are a nation of laws, not arbitrary judges. Get it? Just because some judge says something is law, that doesn't make it law. The law makes it law. Do you know the difference between the two? That pathetic AG - Prior- is a traitor and a back-stabbing spineless jellyfish, just like the rest of the Republican Party. His republican colleagues on the bench are sell-outs and I have zero respect for any of these betrayers.
If he does run, he will win by a landslide, and I hope it sticks in your craw! I love it when secular humanists are confounded!
John / Billybob
I just think that is highly ironic that his actions damaged the cause he claimed to be championing, yet you love him for doing them. The situation regarding the so-called separation of church and state is worse today, thanks to Judge Moore.
He's certainly not my hero.
That's why the NRA is talking about buying a TV station. The exception in the CFR law for "the press" is defined by what the newspaper, TV station, network, whatever, DOES, not who owns it. That's a smart idea by the NRA. But their situation as a "civic issue organization" is quite different from mine as a potential candidate for Congress.
Does that make sense?
John / Billybob
Baloney. It is prior, the 8 other justices and their ilk who have damaged the situation by signing on to the ILLEGAL doctrine of separation of church and state! You have a bizarre sense of responsibility. If you want to roll over and play dead to the these tyrants on the politburo, go ahead! I won't and Judge Moore won't! What is needed is defiance! Civil disobedience to bad judges and bad leaders!
All we need is for more passive obsequious people like you who bend a knee to every bad judge, and then we can just surrender to the anti-Christian bigots!
If you want to render obeisance to marxists, go ahead! Just don't try to recruit any true Constitutionalist as we will spit on your efforts. Got it?
I've got you down as someone who has more passion than understanding of what really happened. By the way, the correct spelling is "Pryor" and he's currently being filibustered by the Senate Democrats because he's too conservative to be a federal judge in their opinion.
I'm not bending a knee to anyone, and your need to personalize your attacks on me in every post is starting to get old.
I know what happened. Who do you think you are talking to? Some moron from the Appalachians? I understand the Constitution better than your boy "Pryor" and apparently better than you. You see, it is written so that it doesn't take an amoral lawyer to understand it; oh, and guess what, there is no doctrine of separation of church and state prior to Everson in 1947 - but I'm sure you know that; and there is no right to sodomy, no right to privacy and no right to not be offended in that noble document.
As for Pryor, he isn't fit for the federal court - he's a traitor and a yes man in my opinion.
And mark my words, the people of Alabama will elect Moore to whatever office he runs for - I just hope he runs against that miscreant Pryor. The people will decide that race, not some oligarch in a black robe!
If you want to criticize Moore, go commiserate with other lawyers who think like you.
Any time you want to debate the decision to remove that decalog, I'm ready. Let's debate it on its historical constitutional merits, shall we? For starters, tell me: What law did Moore break by its display?
If you're interested in my opinion of what he did wrong, either search my comments or any of the major threads back when this was news. I laid it all out. My objection was NOT to what he was fighting for, but HOW he decided to do it, and why he was certain to lose.
That point seems to be still lost on you, and I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.
You and I are on the same side of the constitutional question, something which apparently you don't know. But I will continue to criticize Moore for setting that cause back, with or without your permission.
You're wrong. We aren't on the same side. I don't like slanderers who pretend to know the ulterior motives of people who stand up for moral and constitutional principle. Get lost lawyer. The longer I talk to you, the madder I get.
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.