Posted on 03/28/2008 8:58:17 AM PDT by MitchellC
And why would that be a bad thing? All kinds of articles get posted on FR, always have been.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of Freepers to grasp and critically analyze what they read.
Just like he didn’t belong in the NFL.
I started reading this without looking at the byline. I though, “This sounds just like John Armor.”
Bingo.
I guessed at about half the answers.
Cut the grass too much, and the grass dies, roots and all.
Nonsense, this is a good place for Conservative Republicans to show their views. Because this one is running for Congress against a Liberal Dem doesn't meen it should be deleted.
wow, just wow-I’m starting to think he might have had someone take the wonderlich test-because a 16 might be a little out of his reach
I was setting where I am currently setting. I dont object to campaign announcements concerning rallies or speeches, but this is candidate comparison, or attack or distortion of facts, which ever fits.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the Fairness Doctrine - which Reagan Deep Sixed a generation ago, and which in any case applied only to broadcasting - applies or might apply to FreeRepublic.com. In a world where McConnell v. FEC can uphold the McCain-Feingold law, you could in fact be right. However, McConnell v. FEC was a 5-4 decision, and one justice on each side (O'Connell pro, Rhenquist con) have been replaced by Justices Roberts and Alito. The present court's usual swing vote is Kennedy, and he voted con McConnell .So there is significant reason to hope that any future First Amendment case before the present court will actually enforce the First Amendment. And the very last thing you would be able to prove about the First Amendment before an honest court is that it requires speech or publication to be "objective" or "fair" or "balanced." The plain language of the restriction - and the historically well-documented practice of founders Jefferson and Hamilton - are directly to the contrary. The conceit of journalistic "objectivity" traces back only to the advent of the Associated Press in the middle of the Nineteenth Century.
No such delusion exists. However, I do understand the libeal mind. Right and wrong mean nothing, The Constitution is an impedment in their desire to reach their aims.
Regulation of political expression, at least on the internet, in the United States is well within their orbit of response.
Thanks for the ping. Interesting.
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.