Skip to comments.
George Will: Free Speech Under Siege
Newsweek (Dec. 5, 2005 Issue) ^
| November 27, 2005
| George Will
Posted on 11/27/2005 1:20:40 AM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
"But liberals' abhorrence of political money is selective. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, recently reported that when Democratic senators met in a Capitol room near the Senate floor to plan strategy, their leader, Harry Reid, permitted Stephen Bing to attend. In 2004, Bing, 40, gave more than $14 million of his inherited wealth to Democratic candidates and liberal groups supporting them.
Was there any appearance of improprietysay, cash purchasing access? Gosh, no, said Democrats to Roll Call: "Reid's aides and other Senate Democrats said there is nothing wrong with such a big donor attending meetings otherwise open to only senators and a few top aides, because Bing is not a lobbyist and is not seeking any favors from Democrats." Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better." Oh, well, in that case..."
To: Jim Robinson
Because the attackers aim to enlarge government's control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government, the attacks advance liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life.
Unfortunately there's some in the GOP who would love to help them...
2
posted on
11/27/2005 1:36:56 AM PST
by
af_vet_rr
To: Jim Robinson
There's some frightening things in the wind.
To: Jim Robinson
P.S. I have no doubt that the socialist "mainstream" newsrooms will do whatever they can to help any effort to regulate the internet.
To: Jim Robinson
Bing is... "just really interested in making this country better" and is willing to pay 140,000 one hundred dollar bills to do it. ... to one party.
5
posted on
11/27/2005 2:31:20 AM PST
by
Eddie01
(I'm coming to the conclusion I'm really not smart enough to post here.)
To: Jim Robinson
I guess it all depends on who gets the money. Then you'll see the Democrats toss CFR out the window faster than you'll throw your underwear in the washer.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
6
posted on
11/27/2005 3:32:34 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Jim Robinson
"Bing is not a lobbyist and is not seeking any favors from Democrats." Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better."
No road takes us faster to hell, than the one paved by the collective and reason-impaired, will-to-power, mind-set of 'the Left'.
Historical paradigms are not enough. . .cultural blood-lettings not enough; generations of lives wasted for the empowerment of the self-chosen; not enough; and the price paid for our Freedoms, still not enough, for them to see that the axioms they hold dear, are rooted in an 'anti'. . .inauthentic, false-is-true/hell-is-heaven, nether/parallel world;
(I would not trust O'Reilly with this one. . .but Rush or Sean, should take this on)
7
posted on
11/27/2005 3:33:59 AM PST
by
cricket
(No Freedom - No Peace)
To: Lancey Howard; Jim Robinson
And a federal judge with an interesting theory of libertythat whatever Congress does not specifically exempt from regulation should be regulateddecided that the FEC's exempting the Internet from regulation is impermissible because Congress was silent on the subject. She ordered the FEC to write regulations. This, even though Internet communication is limitless, virtually cost-free and, hence, wonderfully anarchic.
It isn't money that is the target, is it?
It's control they want.
8
posted on
11/27/2005 3:38:13 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: Jim Robinson
Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better." There ya go. Game - Set - Match. What's really sad is that she probably believes her own BS.
9
posted on
11/27/2005 3:42:38 AM PST
by
leadpenny
To: leadpenny
In Sen. Boxer's warped calculus, Conservatives are a disease in the body politic. A 'better' country to her would be a one party model like China... with her party in control, naturally; the 'good' party.
10
posted on
11/27/2005 3:58:26 AM PST
by
6SJ7
To: Jim Robinson; hellinahandcart; kristinn; Lil'freeper; Doctor Raoul; Carry_Okie; hosepipe; ...
This is not good. Kinda akin to letting Terry McAuliffe attend Columbia Land board meetings.
"Well, he just wants to make the country better." /s
11
posted on
11/27/2005 4:03:46 AM PST
by
sauropod
("The love that dare not speak its' name has now become the love that won't shut the hell up.")
To: Jim Robinson
This is the totally frightening statement of the whole piece:
"...that whatever Congress does not specifically exempt from regulation should be regulated."
12
posted on
11/27/2005 4:15:54 AM PST
by
OpusatFR
To: af_vet_rr
13
posted on
11/27/2005 4:19:21 AM PST
by
RoadTest
(Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince. - Prov. 17:7)
To: Jim Robinson
Well, it's not like the First Amendment has anything to do with political speech. It's all about flinging condoms in church, pasties on strippers and taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
posted on
11/27/2005 4:31:51 AM PST
by
gridlock
(eliminate perverse incentives)
To: leadpenny; Jim Robinson
Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better." There ya go. Game - Set - Match. What's really sad is that she probably believes her own BS.
Even as they destroy the system by trashing tradition and ignoring laws, their imaginations, allowing them to accrue all manner of evil to their opponents, make it possible to rationalize the very acts of destruction as "making this country better..." the "ends justify the means" mindset. As for how they can assure themselves of the evil of the right, I am convinced it is simply because they secretly know what lives in their own baby-killing, dark hearts. Or maybe Milton said it better, as in my tagline...
15
posted on
11/27/2005 4:48:47 AM PST
by
ez
("Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
To: Jim Robinson
This shows how important it is to have Supremem Court judges who know the Constiution. I am shocked by how insidious the effort to regulate free speech is becoming.
16
posted on
11/27/2005 4:54:39 AM PST
by
Puddleglum
(Thank God the Boston blowhard lost)
To: xzins
Money and control are like energy and matter. You can turn energy into matter, and vice versa. If they have control, they can take your money. If they have your money, they have control. Either way, they end up with your money, and control.
To: Jim Robinson
"In California, 'progressive' thinking has progressed to the idea that because money in politics is bad, political competition is, too."
No, "progressive thinking" does not honestly hold to the belief that money is bad in politics. "Progressive thinkers" and other ill-liberals preach that money is bad to disarm and disparage the political opposition. Also, ploying a little hyped-up mantra to gain sympathy in soliciting donations. Hypocritical leftist partisanship spinning as usual.
Why is every leftist/"liberal" anti-capitalist socialist I've known for the past 50 years is a wealthy capitalist??? Paradox!
18
posted on
11/27/2005 6:26:43 AM PST
by
purpleland
(Vigilance and Valor! Socialism is the Opiate of Academia)
To: Jim Robinson
I forgot to say
M E R R Y
C H R I S T M A S ,
J I M ~~~ and to your family ~~~
19
posted on
11/27/2005 6:31:16 AM PST
by
purpleland
(Vigilance and Valor! Socialism is the Opiate of Academia)
To: RoadTest
Power corrupts!
That's what it comes down to...some politicians would rather side with their fellow politicians than with the people.
This would also help with keeping viable third parties down, something both parties are very much interested in. In the age of the internet, so to speak, a third party has a much greater chance of getting organized and getting support than in times past.
Even keeping "mavericks" out of the main parties would be enough of the benefit for the mainline party members - look at how hard they worked to make sure Kerry was the candidate over Dean, and yet Dean was still able to organize a fairly good size little grass-roots movement, enough to propel him into the DNC leadership.
The fact is, the more that the government can regulate free speech, especially that speech they deemed to be political/election-related, the more they can work to insure that only they win the elections and go up against who they choose.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson