Libertarian Party Press Release on Farenheit 911

Libertarian Party Announcements | June 28, 2004 | Libertarian Party

[Badeye]

"If the system was working as it should, McCain-Feingolds CFR based censorship act would never have gotten passed as our legislators would have upheld thier oaths instead of passing it."

On that we agree. The President should never have signed it, although at the time I understood the political necessity (I'll never forgive McCain for that).

[Protagoras]

Big difference is Moore is outright lying

So they should sue him.

Do you support the McCain/Feingold repeal of the first amendment?

[Protagoras]

Ah, you walked out before the delegates spent their next 4 hours arguing whether flatuence constitutes fraud or force or both.

As someone who has spent years emitting written flatuence on this site I can see why you would be interested.

[ActionNewsBill]

So you believe that only those laws that you believe are constitutional should be obeyed?

Of course, don't you?

Excuse me, I forgot who I was responding to. Never mind.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,

(1803)

[Protagoras]

I think Moores movie does cross the line into a political "infomercial" and would like to see this played out in court. Lets get a ruling from the bench, that is how the system is supposed to work, wouldn't you agree?

So you support McCain/Feingold? You think that is how the "system" is supposed to work?

[Protagoras]

Excuse me, I forgot who I was responding to. Never mind.

Talking to the mentally ill as if they are normal is not usually productive. It feeds their delusion.

[Dead Corpse]

Easy. Would you rather vote for someone promising you bread and cirsus'? Or someone who tells you that you are a free person and that if you want bread and circus' to grow your own wheat... train your own animals... ect...?

Does that make them wrong? Or does that mean that until they cave on their principles and promise the voting masses exactly what they clamor for, they will never get elected?

So you approve of more money for Federally controlled schools? More medicare? More medicaid? More money sent overseas? More land grabbed under eco-wacko laws? Open borders?

That is what the masses seem to want. That is what both Democrats and Republicans are striving to give them. The only difference appears to be the RATE at which these things are implemented.

So what should the LP do? Start promising some socialist utopia like the rest? Lie out both sides of their mouths like a typical politician ala Dean and Keery?

[ActionNewsBill]

The President should never have signed it, although at the time I understood the political necessity (I'll never forgive McCain for that

I'd say that the President should accept the majority of the blame for refusing to veto CFR.

McCain is not the only bad guy here.

[Dead Corpse]

So you believe that only those laws that you believe are constitutional should be obeyed?

I believe? What does my beliefs have to do with anything? A plain reading of the Constitution and the expressed intent of the Founders. Even someone of modest intellect should be able to figure out which laws are in compliance, and which need to go away.

[cinFLA]

So you believe that only those laws that you believe are constitutional should be obeyed?

Of course, don't you?

If everyone believed that they should only obey the laws that they believed in ...

[Dead Corpse]

The President should never have signed it, although at the time I understood the political necessity (I'll never forgive McCain for that).

Bush had "Constitutional questions" on it. His words. Upholding his Oath, he should not have signed it.

If the Founders had been a little more far sighted, they would have included a legal recourse for accusation of violating an Oath of Office. Methinks they trusted "We the People" a tad too much in the area of "commom sense". That we would not elect people who could not keep their oaths...

[cinFLA]

I believe? What does my beliefs have to do with anything? A plain reading of the Constitution and the expressed intent of the Founders. Even someone of modest intellect should be able to figure out which laws are in compliance, and which need to go away OBEYED.

Edited to be more closely aligned with your original position.

[Protagoras]

Because he is violating the law. The time to think about these laws if BEFORE they are passed. Either change the law or learn to live with it

So you support the law? I thought about this law before it was passed by the ruling class and signed by the spineless President.

Your argument is that if they took away all your rights tomorrow you would support the enforcement of the laws they passed to do so. Think about how ludicrious that is.

I see you have never been on a "WOD" thread. You should try it.

I have been on every kind of imaginable thread on this site and I have seen every childish cheap shot by non thinking idiots on every subject. I guess I just expected more out of an old timer like you. Oh well, expectations are often a disappointment.

[ActionNewsBill]

If everyone believed that they should only obey the laws that they believed in ...

I have no duty to obey unconstitutional laws.

[cinFLA]

If the Founders had been a little more far sighted, they would have included a legal recourse for accusation of violating an Oath of Office. Methinks they trusted "We the People" a tad too much in the area of "commom sense". That we would not elect people who could not keep their oaths...

If you were a student of the constition, you would not have made the above statement.

[Dead Corpse]

My original position? My original position was that Badnarik is right in that using CFR to go after Moore will become a two-edged sword that will come back to hurt US. That CFR is a BAD law in that it conflicts with the First Amendment.

How does that equate with your attempt to say I said the law must be "OBEYED"?

[Psalm 73]

CFR stinks - it is a bad law, and its intent is to silence conservative view-points, esp. the NRA.
Until we can get this abomination repealed, the best way to prevent the Libs from hammering us with it is to threaten them with the same.
Why should we allow them to shut us up but we cannot use the same venue because "the principle is wrong".
It's time we fought back with both barrels, take the gloves off, 'cause our republic cannot survive four years with Kerry as president.

[cinFLA]

I have no duty to obey unconstitutional laws.

That is what the mayor of that city in California said about the gay marriage issue when he started issuing gay marriage licenses.

[Liberal Classic]

Here's an interesting review by Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair. I wouldn't necessarily call Hitchens a conservative, but the review is worth the read.

[Dead Corpse]

The only recourse they left us was to vote them out of office. I am talking about a removal FROM office for a clear violation of their Oath. A CRIMINAL proceeding, not just an elective act.