Here it comes...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: livesbygrace
I guess my blog will now become a newspaper....published yearly with updates available online
2 posted on
11/02/2005 6:25:01 PM PST by
flashbunny
(Anybody want to trade Alito back in for Miers?)
To: livesbygrace
the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments. I haven't kept up with this - why is there a 2/3 requirement?
3 posted on
11/02/2005 6:26:01 PM PST by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: livesbygrace
. . . court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech . . . on the Internet.
That is chilling.
5 posted on
11/02/2005 6:27:04 PM PST by
sittnick
(There's no salvation in politics.)
To: livesbygrace
To: livesbygrace
"campaign finance".... thanks again Sen. McCainus
7 posted on
11/02/2005 6:30:42 PM PST by
infidel29
("We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." --Benjamin Franklin)
To: livesbygrace
8 posted on
11/02/2005 6:30:48 PM PST by
SmithL
(There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
To: livesbygrace
From the article:
the vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.
From the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that will stop this in it's tracks (ROFL).
To: livesbygrace
Notice to ALL politicians of all political persuasions:Keep your grubby, greedy mitts off
my Internet!
13 posted on
11/02/2005 6:34:50 PM PST by
upchuck
(John Robinson abhors my avatar: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510594/posts?page=30#30 :)
To: livesbygrace
Once freedom is tasted, it is not easy to give up.
16 posted on
11/02/2005 6:37:33 PM PST by
bvw
To: livesbygrace
Seems to me we should all be very concerned when the House of Representatives is swept by Fascist emotionalism.
Is that Hastert guy going senile or what?
17 posted on
11/02/2005 6:37:59 PM PST by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: livesbygrace
The political class continues to pursue it's incumbent protection plan at the expense of debate and the free flow of information. Freedom of speech is reduced to the right to copulate in public in Oregon.
18 posted on
11/02/2005 6:38:54 PM PST by
saganite
(The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
To: livesbygrace
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
It would be easy to ask, what part of "Congress hall make no law..." do members of congress and President Bush not understand?
The fact is, they do understand what it means and chose to disregard its meaning and disregard their oaths to uphold the constitution by passing McCain-Feingold CFR. Their intent was to violate the constitution and their oaths to uphold it.
They got away with those crimes -- sort of -- now they want to commit others in similar fashion.
Each and every member of congress will be held accountable for their vote on McCain-Feingold and H.R. 1606
21 posted on
11/02/2005 6:44:04 PM PST by
Zon
(Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
To: livesbygrace
To: livesbygrace
where does this leave MOVEON.ORG?
To: livesbygrace
"'This is a major unraveling of the law,' Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, 'it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process.'"
Desperate "Leftspeak." You can stop reading right there...
26 posted on
11/02/2005 6:45:42 PM PST by
Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
To: livesbygrace
Speaking of the CIA leak case, would Congress be kind enough to prohibit CIA employees from leaking information in an attempt to undermine the administration or effect elections? Don't they see a little problem with that?
The bloggers will go offshore and make such legislation moot.
The only way to enforce it would be to invade every country in the world and then hire a few million FEC enforcement officers.
Pathetic stupidity from Congress--as usual.
27 posted on
11/02/2005 6:47:21 PM PST by
cgbg
(Boxer and Feinstein confuse the constitution with Mao's Little Red Book.)
To: Jim Robinson
To: livesbygrace
Political speech is the core of the First Amendment. How did we ever get to the point where this fundamental right (a heck of lot more "fundamental" than the right to abort a fetus) is regulated by the government?
To: livesbygrace; All
This is the same house that allowed homosexual special rights to slip through un noticed?
This is the incumbant protection blog suppression act.
To: livesbygrace
Coming after me, Meehan? Let's get it on!
43 posted on
11/02/2005 7:05:48 PM PST by
Dan from Michigan
("My Gov'nor don't got the answer")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson