To: Orangedog
The decision actually benefits the GOP if the two parties go head to head. We're much better at raising hard money, which hasn't been banned. It's only limited to the $2,000 individual contribution limits.
141 posted on
12/10/2003 7:42:15 AM PST by
July 4th
(George W. Bush, Avenger of the Bones)
To: July 4th
Don't try to bring ANY kind of reason into this feeding frenzy.
145 posted on
12/10/2003 7:43:10 AM PST by
Howlin
(Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
To: July 4th
That's a joke. The Democrats don't have to obey campaign finance laws. Only the Republicans do.
146 posted on
12/10/2003 7:43:28 AM PST by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: July 4th
The decision actually benefits the GOP if the two parties go head to head.I don't give a rats ass if this helps the GOP. I'm sick of having the constitution pissed on for the benefit of ANY political party. This is (at least for a little longer) the United States of America, not the United States of the GOP!
226 posted on
12/10/2003 7:58:59 AM PST by
Orangedog
(difference between a hamster & a gerbil?..there's more dark-meat on a hamster!)
To: July 4th
The decision actually benefits the GOP if the two parties go head to head. Limiting the unalienable right of free speech and violating the Constitution are ok, so long as the end result benefits a certain political party????
230 posted on
12/10/2003 7:59:37 AM PST by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: July 4th
I agree this law may on balance benefit the Republican Party. That's no reason to violate the Constitution and individuals' rights. And I'm not at all sure the law will benefit conservatism.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson