What do FReepers think of GWB signing "Campaign Reform"?

03-21-06 | retread antifreeper troll zotted

[pro1stamendment]

The McCain/Feingold Act was affirmed by the Supreme Court. But the President did not have to sign it.

What say you all?

[Jim Robinson]

Indefensible.

[endthematrix]

You signed up tonight...why? Just gonna watch all the anti-Bush comments, then bail?

[Bella_Bru]

The owner of this site is posted "indefensible". I think that sums it up.

[leadpenny]

What say you? Or, have you already said it?

[Old Sarge]

Signs up, posts, watches for dirt, runs.

SNIFF

[capt. norm]

I think it was a miscalculation. Back when he signed it, most of us on this forum though it was safe for him to sign it because it would never pass constitutional muster with the supreme court.

[Paul C. Jesup]

What say you all?

A lesson as to why you should always read the fine print before signing something.

[leadpenny]

Your M.O. suggests you're a hit and run troll. Care to prove me wrong?

[Dallas59]

The McCain-Feingold Act simply "bans so-called `soft money' from flowing directly to political parties." It all sounds so innocent. Some readers may ask, "What's the big deal?"

Like all media apologists for McCain-Feinfold -- failed to explain how this bill affects our liberty. Mainstream media's coyness on the subject comes as no surprise. Big Media corporations are the primary beneficiaries of McCain-Feingold. And they don't want you and me to know about it.

Here's what McCain-Feingold really does. It bars private organizations from advertising for or against any candidate for federal office on TV or radio 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary. However, the media networks themselves -- and the multibillion-dollar transnational corporations who own them -- may use the airwaves to say whatever they like about any candidate during that 60- or 30-day period on their news reports and talk shows.

[Junior_G]

Your M.O. suggests you're a hit and run troll. Care to prove me wrong?

Regardless, the point is valid.

[CDHart]

It's one of the worst, if not the worst, thing Bush has done since he took office. I think at the time, he made some comment about if it's un-Constitutional, the courts will take care of it. But he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and anyone with half a brain could tell that it's a violation of the First Amendment.

Carolyn

[Flyer]

What say you all?

There are numerous threads where this this has been discussed if you're interested in what we all say.

[endthematrix]

You mean the question. Yeah, but all we are now is MSM guinea pig polling fodder. He's a troll gleefully watching dissent.

[durasell]

The real question is the end result of that dissent. I'd be interested in pro1stamendment's opinion on this...

[ncountylee]

ibtz

[Godebert]

"The real question is the end result of that dissent. I'd be interested in pro1stamendment's opinion on this..."

He's been banned already.

[endthematrix]

A better question is pro1stamendment pro2ndamendment?

[durasell]

oh well...

[durasell]

...or pro21ndamendment?