Nice spin, but not totally accurate. But, I suspect you know that.
The website didn’t just “parody” Bush, but nearly mirrored the official site, close even to the web address using Bush’s name, which could mislead many into feeling they were viewing the official site.
Parodies aren’t commonly outright lies, either.
Allow me to remind you, though, the “free speech” clause addresses congress not placing limitations on speech, which has been being done since the nation was formed.
Think not? Cry fire in a crowded theater or stand up in an airplane and begin praising Allah or screaming the wings are falling off. See how protected your speech is then.
Still, besides that, someone frustrated and agitated blurts something out and you all go out of your way to assign the meaning you wish to the words.
Ron Paul stood before the nation and basically blamed America for being attacked on 911 and you all cry we didn’t hear what we did. Even he tried to claim he didn’t say what he said, but we all heard it.
We didn’t cry he didn’t have the right to say it, just it disqualified him from holding high office in our estimation.
Not exactly the same as Bush’s frustrated comment, but shows the mind of the Ron Paulie’s in still pointing fingers at a man after he is out of office and burying their heads somewhere when a kook utters his own whiney frustrated words.
And for all the cries of “freedom loving conservatives,” coming out of the Paulies camp, we also hear a lot of restrictions wanted placed on specific groups of Americans.
So Dan, why not tell us all, are you an Anarchist or a Minarchist?
And, in rejecting GW Bush's request, The FEC said on that it had found "no evidence of serious intent" on the site's owner to violate election law.
Parodies aren’t commonly outright lies, either.
The proper forum for dealing with lies printed on a web site is a libel suit filed in civil court, not trying to have the Federal Election Commission declare the site's owner as a Political Action Committee.
Allow me to remind you, though, the “free speech” clause addresses congress not placing limitations on speech, which has been being done since the nation was formed.
Bush attorney Benjamin L. Ginsberg, asked to discuss the First Amendment implications of the governor's FEC complaint, raised his voice in irritation: "How is it a First Amendment issue? It is NOT a First Amendment issue."
So, if Bush's own lawyer said at the time that the FEC complaint was not a 1st Amendment issue, then why do you claim it is?
Think not? Cry fire in a crowded theater or stand up in an airplane and begin praising Allah or screaming the wings are falling off. See how protected your speech is then.
This is a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Had there been a criminal violation of free speech, the site's owner would have been charged with a crime.
Still, besides that, someone frustrated and agitated blurts something out and you all go out of your way to assign the meaning you wish to the words.
Again, the proper forum to address libel is civil court, not the Federal Election Commission or holding a press conference after the FEC has told you to go pound sand.
Ron Paul stood before the nation and basically blamed America for being attacked on 911 and you all cry we didn’t hear what we did. Even he tried to claim he didn’t say what he said, but we all heard it.
Red Herring argument. Ron Paul is not relevant to this discussion of the Bush parody web site or Bush's statement that there ought to be limits to freedom.
So Dan, why not tell us all, are you an Anarchist or a Minarchist?
Another red herring argument.
By asking this question, it's clear you completely idolize GW Bush and believe that his actions are above reproach.