Posted on 03/22/2006 8:58:42 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 03/23/2006 2:06:21 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Re: Your attempt to shut down political free speech on the Internet
John McCain, you treasonous bastard, I challenge you or any of your traitorous cohorts to find even one thread, one post, one paragraph, one sentence or even one lousy word posted to this web site that is not fully protected by the First Amendment!
And I will extend that to one chapter, one group, one poster or any group of posters on this forum. Name one assembly, petition, letter, protest, meeting or rally convened, filed, submitted, attended or supported by members of this forum that is not 100% protected and guaranteed as free speech or free assembly by the First Amendment!
Your McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation is a treasonous act. You and your cohorts are attempting to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America, the very same constitution that you swore an oath to defend, so help you God! That makes you a domestic enemy of that great document and a traitor to your country. Yes, and Benedict Arnold was a war hero before he turned traitor too.
How dare you even think that you are qualified to sit in the oval office! Ronald Reagan's office! President? Hah! You miserable excuse for a two-bit political hack, you're not even qualified to shine Ronald Reagan's boots. If you do run, I'm afraid you're gonna be at least one vote short. It'll be a cold day in hell before a traitor like you ever receives my vote. And that's a campaign promise you can take to the bank.
You can take your fascist campaign finance laws and the jackbooted FEC anti-free-speech enforcers you are empowering and put them where the sun don't shine. And if this post is in violation of your unconstitutional law, shove it too!
Paraphrased from In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed:
The Beast never dies, it simply changes form. The Beast has known many forms: Bolshevism, communism, Nazism, fascism. The Beast has had many names: Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, Mao, Pol Pot.
The Beast cannot co-exist with freedom. The very first freedom lost is the freedom of speech, then religion, knowledge and the arts. Anything that empowers the individual must be destroyed. The state must control all.
Power to the state.
Power as an end to itself.
Those who speak out against the Beast are labeled extremists, radicals, warmongers. Churchill, McCarthy, Reagan.
The Beast must be contained, appeased. We must have "Detente" at any cost. Direct confrontation of the Beast must be avoided.
Appease him and pray the wolf may pass our door.
Free speech must die.
The Beast never dies.
I think 80-90% of the American people are good men and women. That will include maybe 200 million "rinos" and democrats.
So the answer is about 200 million.
And how many americans do you hate because they are not conservative enough for you ?
Stealing the right of free speech will do that. McCain is a snake-in-the-grass RINO. Look at the amnesty bill he is running with the Swimmer to see just how much he hares America.
And to be quite blunt. I have more faith in 62 million Americans, than you do with about a half dozen or so FReepers you've never even met face to face in a crowd.
Good for you. The only poll I trust is the one on election day.
Absolutely incorrect.
FR doesn't even represent GOP voters in the primaries.
In additon, alot of states allow Independents and crossover voting in primaries. Big states, like CA and IL.
Don't forget to rant at Bush. He signed the thing.
Or how about the character he displayed when he screamed at family members of 9/11 victims who oppose his open borders, anti-security, amnesty legislation the he and Ted Kennedy cooked up?
McCain is a "Republican" version of John Kerry.
Thank you.
That's reality right there. Alot of Democrats will cross-over and vote for McCain. Anything above 5% means he will be viable and it will carry him to the convention.
OK. I'll start.
"How to Serve Liberals"
It's a cookbook.
I think the size of the thread and overwhelming negative response to McCain serves to illustrate the negative feelings toward McCain are not going to be overcome by waving the specter of Hillary. Nor do conservatives believe in a liberal concept such as entitlements. The idea that the Republican party is entitled to the W.H., even if McCain is the nominee, is ridiculous...yet a few advance it. Predicated on a faulty argument that McCain is better than Hill. He is not.
I've seen only a couple that actually support him in this thread.
I've seen about a half dozen or so that advocate support of Republicans traditionally and expect everyone else to do so.
The vast majority have taken the time to register their support for Jim Robinson's position. That McCain will never have their support. Intimidation, lame threats and so forth will not make a dent here. When they finally are forced to accept this is the case, hopefully they'll join the rest of us in seeking someone for the W.H. that is not an egomanical control freak that slam our military and the GOP base in regular fashion.
Not to mention the hordes of Indy's who admire him.
You also have to consider that alot of non-member votes and some member votes aren't even conservatives to begin with. Many of those who have participated in FR polls are DUmmies pretending to be conservatives.
looks like Clinton wasn't alone in wanting the change
A Renewed Campaign
(snip)
At predictable intervals — usually coinciding with a presidential election — advocates of a more centralized, socialist national government propose the abolition of the Electoral College, and the prolonged deadlock in the 2000 presidential campaign prompted unprecedented interest in the idea.
In her first public appearance as New York’s junior senator-elect, Hillary Rodham Clinton told a rally in Syracuse: "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." Displaying anew the vaunting arrogance that propelled her into a futile bid to re-cast our nation’s health system according to her whims, Mrs. Clinton announced that one of her first undertakings as a senator would be to support an amendment to provide for the "direct election" of the president.
Senator Clinton will find more than a little support on the Hill for this proposal. In a November 2000 press conference, Congressmen Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) called for the abolition of the Electoral College, which Durbin denigrated as a "Constitutional dinosaur" and "inherently unfair." To rectify what he considers a defect in our system, Rep. Durbin announced that he would propose a constitutional amendment to permit election of presidents by popular vote. "The way this gets changed," commented Rep. LaHood, "is if there’s a calamity in the country, where somebody were to get the popular vote but lose the electoral vote." In the wake of the Bush-Gore impasse, Melissa Merz, a spokesman for Rep. Durbin, observed: "Sometimes you have to have some kind of big event to build momentum for a constitutional amendment. And certainly I think this would be considered in that category."
Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) is similarly dismissive of the Framers’ handiwork. "For months I have talked with colleagues who shared my concern that this could be the year when the electoral vote contradicts the popular will," recalled Rep. Delahunt in a November 10th Boston Globe column. "For years, most Americans have ignored the Electoral College as a harmless nuisance. Not anymore. The collision between the electoral vote and the popular vote is no longer just a historical curiosity." While the Electoral College "may or may not have made sense in 1787," Delahunt continued, "through 21st Century eyes it is as anachronistic as the limitations on suffrage itself." Describing the College as "a compromise that reflected a basic mistrust of the electorate," Rep. Delahunt — who sits on the House Judiciary Committee — concluded, "It’s time to abolish the Electoral College and count the votes of all Americans in presidential elections."
Someone earlier said mc is rhe R version of kerry.
from what i have seen about his off-camera persona, I think he's an R Dean.
I know a handful of relatives in my family who admire him, and most of them consider themselves to be independents.
What was the total of our whole vote? 3,200 or thereabout.
Give me a break. Our polls cannot be reasonably applied to reality. We're too far right of the electorate.
I agree. He's merely Beelzebub or Pazuzu.
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.