AIM: Congressional Liberals Bare Plan to Muzzle Conservative Speech

U.S. Newswire on Yahoo ^ | 1/15/07 | AIM

[cowtowney]

http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/WebPublish/controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=Home&XSL=Home&SV_Section=Home

Do something about it here.

[Nuc1]

"It would have to overcome a Republican filibuster and a Bush veto and then get 2/3rds of Congress to override."

Are you sure my friend? I'm not nearly so confident. I remember CFR. I remember the gang of 14. I remember the border. I remember run away federal spending.

I think the senate will betray us. And I worry very much about GWB.

[plangent]

Anytime you see the word "progressive" just think of a
Communist scheme that hasn't worked and has brought misery to millions.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Hopefully we've all learned our lessons.

Better than hope, it's up to us to remind our elected congress critters. Loud and often.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

"Pelosi wants all "grassroots" organizations that communicate with 500 or more people to register with the Congress, file financials quaterly, and to report separately on each and every issue they advocate. Unions, corporations, etc, exempted, of course."

And I want full disclosure of all the cosmetic surgeries and Botox used by Nancy, Hillary and the rest of that crowd.

[Vicomte13]

"It would have to overcome a Republican filibuster and a Bush veto and then get 2/3rds of Congress to override.
It sounds scary, but it's not going to happen in the next two years for sure."

And even if there is a Democratic President and it gets past Congress and the White House, it will be shot stone dead by the Supreme Court. Good luck getting past THAT!

[atomic conspiracy]

This is grandstanding. Conservative radio proponents would fight it on the grounds that the current arrangement is, in fact, fair; since libs control the major media. The last thing the left wants is a federal court case; or Congressional hearings, for that matter; that would focus on the transparent figleaf of MSM "objectivity."

[blam]

"They are afraid of war. If you want a war lefties, bring it on."

The feds were suprised at the militias organizing all over the US after Waco...they haven't seen anything if they start this crap.

[weps4ret]

Atlas Shrugged!

Gunner

[Enterprise]

Cowards and bullies. Bring it on!

[firebrand]

TOMORROW EVENING AT FORDHAM

William P. Barr, executive vice president and general counsel for Verizon and former U.S. Attorney General, will present the Center on Law and Information Policy’s inaugural Law and Information Society Lecture on Tuesday, Jan. 16 [e-mail didn't say what time], in the McNally Amphitheatre [inside the law library, southwest corner of Columbus and West 62nd Street], at the Lincoln Center campus. [Free and open to the public.] Barr served as attorney general under former President George H. Bush from 1991 to 1993.

Barr will discuss the new broadband infrastructure that Verizon and others are deploying and recent proposals to regulate broadband services (often discussed as “net neutrality” regulation). These proposals will be the focus of much debate when the 110th Congress considers Internet regulations.

The Center on Law and Information Policy (CLIP) was founded at the Fordham Law School to make significant contributions to the development of law and policy for the information economy and to teach the next generation of leaders. The center brings together scholars, the bar, the business community, technology experts, the policy community, students, and the public to address and assess policies and solutions for cutting-edge issues that affect the evolution of the information economy.

Under the leadership of Joel Reidenberg, J.D., professor of law, CLIP focuses on five key areas: law and policy relating to the regulation of information and public values; law and policy for innovation and knowledge creation; technology, privacy, and security; technology and governance; and the protection of intellectual property and information assets.

Contact: Victor M. Inzunza
(212) 636-7576
inzunza@fordham.edu

[Czar]

"Nor will you here anything from those worthless bastards. I'm afraid that we're on our own guys."

And yet some still wonder why these spineless do-nothings were unable to muster sufficient support from the conservative base to stave off the 2006 midterm election disaster.

So far, they seemed to have learned nothing from that experience.

[TheHound]

This is just so asinine, no one wants to hear their crap. When people actually hear their pitch they are turned off. The only way the "masses" follow them is by not knowing what they are up to. If they had anything of substance to say, "Air America" would not be bankrupt. If they want an "unfairness" doctrine, I say bring it on, they will only be educating people about how unAmerican they are.

[Political Junkie Too]

Does the fairness doctrine mean that Rush Limbaugh can also demand a few minutes each night on Katie Couric's CBS Evening News to offer balance? < /sarcasm>

-PJ

[FreeReign]

And, so far, what have we heard from our GOP Big Tent Warrior leadership in Washington? Nothing.

Why should the GOP leadership care when the voters don't seem to.

[Eric_WA]

"Great idea to let the Democrats take the majority!! That'll teach us all a lesson. /sarc"

Hello.

Who is this message being addressed to? Is it to conservatives/Republicans (who turned out in normal midterm election numbers and voted over 90% Republican), or to swing voters (who shifted from evenly balanced to almost 60% Democrat, mainly on the issues of the war and congressional corruption)?

Thanks.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

The arrogant belief that this country wants even harder right Presidential candidates is seriously misguided. It is equally wrong to assume that the reason we lost in '06, is because of those 'RINOS' and Bush, who are not conservative enough. If this unhealthy trend continues, those 'true' conservatives will have a rude awakening coming in '08.

This electorate is now controlled by the centrists, independents and moderates. The choice to keep selecting these unelectable candidates like Cox, Hunter or whom ever else they come up with will insure our loss in '08.

The Democrats are already way in the lead with promoting their front runners, while this party is still arguing about who is the most conservative regardless of their electability. The wasted months of indecision ahead will prove to be our greatest enemy. We all know the outcome if we lose the Presidency, there will be no second chances to take it back later. The damage will be too severe.

[JSteff]

"It sounds scary, but it's not going to happen in the next two years for sure."

If they get the Presidency in 2 years it will happpen by executive order.

[Jim Robinson]

I think it's mainly addressed to those FReepers who have been noisily proclaiming (Bush/Republican bashing) for the last couple years how they'll never vote for a Republican again and or that it'd be best to let the Democrats take the majority. Great idea!

[Dog Gone]

I could have sworn you had already told me that in Post 17.