Bloggers from both sides oppose FEC regulations (FEC Might Limit Web Free Speech)

Washington Times ^ | March 22, 2006 | Eric Pfeiffer

[PJ-Comix]

Conservative and liberal bloggers both worry their freedom of speech is threatened by proposed campaign-finance rules that seek to regulate online political speech.

The Federal Election Commission is expected tomorrow to outline rules that could limit political Web logs and e-mail solicitations and would be similar to campaign-finance laws that apply to more traditional advocacy groups, such as the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association.

[defenderSD]

This is an outrage and to quote Bush 41, "this will not stand."

[antiRepublicrat]

However no one has tried to change it, Why is that? Why havent feingold and McCain triesd to fine tune it.

Because one of the purposes of the law is to further restrict parties other than the Republicrats, preventing a breakup of the duopoly.

[devolve]

[Supernatural]

McCain isn't playing with a full deck.

He doesn't have both oars in the water.

He's about three bricks shy of a load.

And he got this horrible bill passed.

What does that say about our reps who voted for his bill?

[Dane]

It apparently wasn't so bad that it could draw out the Boy King's veto pen.

See reply #14, DUmmie.

[antiRepublicrat]

Kelo is not legislation ~ it's an obiter dicta by 9 robed and hooded bandits on the USSC.

I disagree. Kelo was a decision (not obiter dicta) by 9 robed and hooded bandits supporting laws and regulations made by thieves.

[kstewskis]

Then I just woke up and said it was time to get over this. The people you represent don't want you this way.

The people you supposedly "represent" here in AZ want you out of office!!

He will lose AZ in '08 if he runs for president.

We blew our chance in '04 to oust him, because no one who had half a name ran against him. We are cursed, like he's "our Kennedy."

Dear FReepers: On behalf of Arizona, WE'RE SORRY, USA!

[Bernard Marx]

McCain reminds me of the character Capt. Queeg in the movie and book "The Caine Mutiny". He appears to have a few screws loose.

He's very tightly-wound: a classic megalomaniac.

[OKIEDOC]

Dang good observation.

I think all those years in prison may have muddled McCaniacs brain.

Lots of good men of sound mind and body have been thrown into prisons.

Some come out even better and some well become McCaniacs.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

If this goes through, look for them to outlaw soap-boxes in public areas and political lawn signs.

Thanks McCain, you treasonous bastard.

And no thanks to you, too, W. for not flushing this tyrannical BS the moment it left a smear on the President's desk.

[SteamshipTime]

"See reply #14, DUmmie."

You mean Democratic Underground? That's rich--I'd last about ten seconds over there.

I still don't see an explanation as to why the Boy King didn't honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and veto this monstrosity.

[sheik yerbouty]

He's definately a loose phaser..

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Yawn.

Had Pres. Bush fought this and demanded that the base support killing this unconstitutional legislation, then maybe the noddle-spined Republicans could have made enough noise to get it killed.

Instead, all the noodle-spined Republicans fell into line behind McCain with their tails behind their legs.

Yawn.

And I am NO Bush-basher but one of his diehard supporters.

Yawn.

How can such a critical issue bore you?

[antiRepublicrat]

Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.

Yet by even a futile veto, Bush could have shown us he cares about free speech and full involvement of the people in the political process. As it is he stated support for it in general even during his 2000 election campaign. He would have signed it even if there was no threat of an override.

After signing, he stated several serious constitutional flaws in it that we now complain about. These flaws gave ample reasons for a veto, reasons that the people could have understood, yet he still signed it. He also stated that he would work with Congress to address these constitutional issues, but he has done nothing as far as I know.

Bush even promised to sign an extension of the "assault weapons" ban. You could say he did it because he knew an extension wouldn't pass, but saying he'd veto would have shown us he cares about our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, he chose to pander to the Brady bunch.

But nice try at Bush bashing.

People deserve to be bashed when they do bad things.

[Dane]

I still don't see an explanation as to why the Boy King didn't honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and veto this monstrosity

Uh the "Boy King"(DUmmie term) knew that a veto of CFR would be overidden, but what the hey, be like the MSM(DUmmies) and blame everything on Bush, instaed of the person who pushed this monstrosity through, mccain.

[edsheppa]

Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.

You bots kill me. A) Even if true, President Bush could have avoided complicity in passing a bill that he himself considered unconstitutional. B) It isn't true. The bill could have been defeated if the President had made an effort.

President Bush signed it expecting the courts to overturn the legislation. He gambled and we lost. It was the lowest point of his administration.

[Dane]

Yet by even a futile veto, Bush could have shown us he cares about free speech and full involvement of the people in the political process. As it is he stated support for it in general even during his 2000 election campaign. He would have signed it even if there was no threat of an override.

Uh, President Bush stated what he would have liked to see in CFR bill. They were ignored by Congress, but also seeing the vote count on CFR he knew that his veto would be overidden, by Congress.

It's called strategery, and yet you ignore that strategery and not lay the impetus of CFR on mccain, whose child this monstrosity called CFR began.

But what the hey you DUmmie, gotta go by the old standby, blame Bush.

[stylin19a]

wasn't it 6 bandits vs 3 good guys ?

[Dane]

You bots kill me. A) Even if true, President Bush could have avoided complicity in passing a bill that he himself considered unconstitutional. B) It isn't true. The bill could have been defeated if the President had made an effort.

President Bush signed it expecting the courts to overturn the legislation. He gambled and we lost. It was the lowest point of his administration

LOL! You shadow DUmmies kill me.