FReepers become very active during campaigns, and the Democrats will never forget how effective we can be:
Posted on 07/23/2007 6:30:32 PM PDT by indigo5
I respect that line of reasoning.Once it is naked and on display in a court, the Sun will melt it down into a puddle on the floor. It will not stand. McCain - Feingold would fly in Russia or China, but not in the USA.
Yeah. But you gotta admit, people thought SCOTUS would rule sensibly in McConnell v. FEC. And look where that got us . . .
“Has everyone gone mad? This complaint is ridiculous. “
Actually, the complaint is legit, it’s the law and enabling FEC that are the problem. You actually need this lawsuit - so it can get thrown out.
While this is not related to political campaigns directly, here is something interesting. I was cruising in DUmmileland this morning and there is a story there stating that Bill Oreilly’s website in being investigated by the secret service for alleged threats against Hillary Clintoon. Sounds like either wishful thinking or a set up to me. Anyone else know anything about this?
Bad idea for any political site to be subject to the FEC because it will get every political site before they are through and bet you can take that to the bank.
I don’t like KOS but they have a right to exist. I have posted fundraising links on here in the past for people to follow the link. Guess someone lamebrain could consider that breaking the FEC rules.
I should have added that a majority of non communist SCJ’s would rule against restrictions of free speech, political and otherwise.
We do have a few communists on the supreme court.
The constitution is viewed as something that must be destroyed to Ginsburg and Bryer. It is a contract for insuring peoples freedoms, between the people and government, and in their view it must be undermined at every opportunity. The “Government” is god to them, and they view themselves as the priests. Contracts are meaningless to communists.
Im dealing with a “communist” in my personal life.
Rules are meaningless to these people. Never sign contracts with a “Progressive” or “Liberal”. The paper isn’t worth spit.
*PING*
Mrs. (or Mr.) Whatshername would be proud of you. And I am NOT being sarcastic here. (I’m starting work as an elementary school teacher in about two weeks, in fact.)
Now for the trick question: how do you feel about the Second Amendment?
BUT, it has nothing to do with rules, right/wrong, paid ads, etc.
It has to do with controlling speech that someone doesn’t like and when that is the goal, there are plenty of liberals that would like FR shut down.
Its exactly the same as gun control, its not about guns its about control!
If they can regulate the KOS kool-aid kids they can regulate FReeRepublic and if you can regulate something you can ban it!
No tax, No regulation, No way!”
Well said. Despite the fact that I’d like to see Daily Kos shut down, I really, REALLY don’t want to see the Government do it... Market forces, yes. Goverment interference in free speech? He!! NO!
“Sedition and treason are absolutely not free speech.
And while much may be considered parody/satire, any *bona fide* suborning or solicitation to murder/assassinate is not a conscionable exercise by the moral people to which the Constitution was intended to apply, nor should it be *tolerated*.”
Run that by Tom Jefferson, and see what he thinks about it, will ya?
I would submit that Jefferson’s famous directive about “watering the Tree of Liberty” is fairly representative of his likely answer.
I really don't want to sit here long enough to write the full novel that a question like that deserves. But I'll jot down a few thoughts that should give you the general idea.
I believe the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. I'm disgusted at the courts and legislators who have ignored its meaning, and infringed on our right to keep and bear arms. I'm disgusted at the politicians who claim that there should be "reasonable" restrictions on it. I'm disgusted with voters who agree with that.
I don't see what's so difficult about it. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If you lose either the First or the Second Amendment, you lose the entire Bill of Rights. The People cannot defend any of their rights without both of those Amendments. I cherish the Constitution and all of its Amendments. Each one has its own unique value. They each protect different rights. These two protect not only the rights mentioned in them, but they protect each other, and all the other rights.
Constitutions of other nations tend to be rewritten or replaced from time to time. Ours has endured. I believe that's because of The People's ability to defend it. I see the First and Second Amendments as the two strongest tools we have for doing that.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
FReepers become very active during campaigns, and the Democrats will never forget how effective we can be:
“I really don’t want to sit here long enough to write the full novel that a question like that deserves. But I’ll jot down a few thoughts that should give you the general idea.”
I don’t know how your teachers would feel, but you’d pass my classes with a A. Social Studies and Language Arts both.
Social Studies and Language Arts? I took History and English. ; )
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.