Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Censored?
me | me

Posted on 02/25/2002 4:58:50 AM PST by doc30

I have a simple question for everyone here. Free Republic is a discussion forum that frequently involves articles and discussions of political candidates. Does this mean that, under campaign finance reform, Free Republic must be censored lest it violate the 60-day or 30-day rule in the current legislation? You thoughts please.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: Khepera
Indeed those who call themselves Conservative are no more so than those who call themselves oranges. The proof is in the pudding.

The problem as I see it... is that conservatism (as a political philosophy) lacks objective and substantial definition.

There is no single foundational principle for conservatism from which to draw when confronted with a decision.

Conservatives cannot be identified by common principle.

Hence even conservatives don't know what a conservative is.

41 posted on 02/25/2002 11:09:28 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I missed you????? LOL.
42 posted on 02/25/2002 11:10:57 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OWK
There is no single foundational principle for conservatism from which to draw when confronted with a decision.

In this country it was the intent of the founders that our laws be based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even the small number 3 or 4 who did not subscribe themselves to those beliefs had stated that this was their intent. of the far greater number of Christians who made up the body of the founders this was definitely the case. Subscribing to another view is by definition not conservative in this country. By not conservative I mean Liberal Traitor. I include traitor because it departs or betrays the intent of the foundation on which this country was built.

43 posted on 02/25/2002 11:19:31 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Can you point to a foundational principle (as opposed to a wish list of items) which unites all conservatives?

State your principles.

44 posted on 02/25/2002 11:34:17 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican; Jim Robinson
My legal interpetation is that FR won't be able to have a fundraiser 60 days before an election......LOL
45 posted on 02/25/2002 11:38:46 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
So if it affects broadcast media only, then how does cable TV fit into the picture. Cable TV pushes content more than the broadcast TV. Then, can it be inferred that cable TV can still show ads, but not broadcast TV?
46 posted on 02/25/2002 11:44:04 AM PST by doc30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Can you point to a foundational principle (as opposed to a wish list of items) which unites all conservatives?

I'll just use the same as the authors of the Constitution....oh, they didn't use some single "foundational principle" as a universal litmus test for their work....well then, must not be required of all men, just some.

In all seriousness, the Socratic Method can be so drawn out...but since it is so much fun......Let's see, ...
What significant non-monarchial governments have endured and functioned well based upon one single foundational principle? Please list them.

47 posted on 02/25/2002 11:52:02 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Can you point to a foundational principle (as opposed to a wish list of items) which unites all conservatives?

True conservatives? A belief in God and Judeo-Christian morality.

Everything else is appetite. Unless appetite is restrained by this fundamental principle, it isn't conservatism no matter how you cut it. It's just libertarian baloney.

Okay, you may now come back with one of your trademark verbal sneers.

48 posted on 02/25/2002 12:03:29 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I have stated what my principles are. They are the ones I have presented earlier.

Point number 6 on how to obfuscate the truth when you're not able to argue effectively for your point of view.

6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

49 posted on 02/25/2002 12:06:53 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
True conservatives? A belief in God and Judeo-Christian morality.

So a professed belief in the God of Abraham is the defining delimiter of "conservatism"?

The overwhelming majority of elected officials profess such a belief system, and yet their political opinions are as vast and varied as the sands of the oceans.

Conservatism is supposed to be a political philosophy.

What rule (or rules) define it?

50 posted on 02/25/2002 12:07:24 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I have stated what my principles are.

Where?

I'd like to look at them.

51 posted on 02/25/2002 12:08:02 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
What significant non-monarchial governments have endured and functioned well based upon one single foundational principle? Please list them.

Inasmuch as I cannot point to ANY government at all, which has endured and functioned well... I guess I'd have to say no.

Are you suggesting that the lack of a predicate is sufficient reason to dismiss a governmental form?

52 posted on 02/25/2002 12:11:02 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
Perhaps you should ask "the Man"....

I asked me, Tex, but I didn't know the answer.

53 posted on 02/25/2002 12:11:32 PM PST by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OWK
You can deny that you have heard my words if you wish.
54 posted on 02/25/2002 12:17:34 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
You can deny that you have heard my words if you wish.

I'm not "denying" anything.

I have simply asked you to state your principles.

If you have posted anything resembling a set of principles, I have not had an opportunity to see it.

Could you either point to them, or do me the courtesy of repeating them here?

55 posted on 02/25/2002 12:19:50 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: doc30
That's my understanding of Shays-Meehan. A post here would be considered advertising for a candidate and thus need to be reported. But since it crosses state lines, reports would have to be filed for any race in any jurisdiction were the issue being discussed could be seen as refering to a Federal candidate.

Let's say that in a post I write "gun control is bad". That could be taken as an "attack ad" against Sen. Chuckles Schumer. (And now that I think of it, calling him Chuckles could be an "attack ad", but I digress...) Never mind that I'm in California or that Chuckles was the furthest thing from my mind at the moment I wrote it; because gun control is one of Chuckie's issues and because the post is readable by users in New York, it's considered an "ad" in favor of his opponents. The cost of the "ad" would have to be reported to the FEC as a donation. The "ad" would also be subject to the same blackout rules as any other covered ad.

56 posted on 02/25/2002 12:20:30 PM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Are you suggesting that the lack of a predicate is sufficient reason to dismiss a governmental form?

It does make its undertaking more a matter of trepidation, doesn't it? However, many enduring and well thought of governments have been created and existed without a single underlying foundational principle and to ask the one question as central would imply the other would be as well. In truth, the worth of a man, or a government, is not as simple as either question would imply.

We are seriously off the original topic of the thread, and the topic we are exchanging comments over, we have done to death countless times with few converts on either side.

When the Republic was threatened by the Clinton presidency, we were both here and I will settle for that.

57 posted on 02/25/2002 12:21:13 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
There is a cure for the twisted mind--agenda of liberal--liberteenyism---the... Realatarian Party---is here--coming(big time)!!
58 posted on 02/25/2002 12:21:45 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Why the concern over the limits of censorship?

It would appear to me that we should be fighting any infringement of our First Amendment rights, regardless of how much or how little it might impact us personally.

Once the nose of the camel is under the tent...

59 posted on 02/25/2002 12:27:48 PM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
It does make its undertaking more a matter of trepidation, doesn't it?

If every system of government ever devised required a tried and true predicate on which to establish itself, there would never be any new form of government (including the American experiment).

However, many enduring and well thought of governments have been created and existed without a single underlying foundational principle

????

and to ask the one question as central would imply the other would be as well. In truth, the worth of a man, or a government, is not as simple as either question would imply.

I am not suggesting the value of government independent of the content of the principles... I am suggesting that a lack of principles makes chaos.

We are seriously off the original topic of the thread, and the topic we are exchanging comments over, we have done to death countless times with few converts on either side.

True enough.

When the Republic was threatened by the Clinton presidency, we were both here and I will settle for that.

Ahhhh.... the ties that bind. :^]

60 posted on 02/25/2002 12:30:26 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson