60-40 Senate Votes to Stomp out Freedom of Speech

[toenail]

In direct and wanton violation of their oaths of office, sixty U.S. Senators just voted to squash the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[SUSSA]

Where does it say that on whitehouse.gov? I can't find it.

[VRWC_minion]

I would say that "will sign it" trumps "reservations" doesn't it?

First, he hasn't signed it yet. Second if he does, its his call to enforce it. If he chooses not to the GOP wins accross the board.

[ao98]

Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

[FreeReign]

What freeeee said:"...it also means that if you try to team up with fellow citizens to finance an ad that mentions a politicians name before an election, YOU'LL GO TO JAIL." Meanwhile media outlets are given a free pass to say whatever they like. In fact, they'll have the market cornered on political speech before an election.

What traitor McCain said:"It's a very fine moment,".

[VRWC_minion]

while flawed in some areas

May mean not to be enforced. Have patience. Let Bush play his cards.

[B. A. Conservative]

BS, they don't have the votes to over-ride. But it doesn't matter because Bush doesn't have the balls to veto it.

[4CJ]

Then the Dims sue, and Olsen and BB argue the government's position before SCOTUS. W's position. The 10th day is April 1st. Is W going to go "April Fool" to the Dims?

[rwfromkansas]

Would not a future president have the option of enforcing all provisions?

[FreeReign]

The 10 traitor republicans were McCain, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Cochran, Domenici, Fitzgerald, Specter, Thompson and Warner. Let's freaking FREEP them big time!

We need to target them in the primaries.

[NittanyLion]

First, he hasn't signed it yet. Second if he does, its his call to enforce it. If he chooses not to the GOP wins accross the board.

Much as I'd like to agree with you, I've seen a lot of big talk on this board about the wonderfully clever plans the GOP was devising. Not once have any predictions ever come true. Bush will sign the bill and enforce it in its entirety, and SCOTUS will likely find it unconstitutional. And in 2 years anyone who dares to question Bush's respect for the constitution will be derided.

[FreeReign]

I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

That should be the only reform.

[rmlew]

Thaddeus Cochran voted for this?
WHY?!
All the other have some excuse, either being liberals or from liberal states. But Thad is from MS.
F*** that turncoat bastard.

[VRWC_minion]

Would not a future president have the option of enforcing all provisions?

He has four years to get courts to overturn. Plenty of time for two election cycles.

[CedarDave]

Agree. Congressman Billybob has been very silent the past few minutes.

[SUSSA]

Well so much for Bush's oath of office. It means no more than Clinton's wedding vows.

[ao98]

He's posting on another thread tearing Bush a new one.

[NittanyLion]

Congressman Billybob has been very silent the past few minutes.

Not so silent. He's blasting Bush on a different CFR thread.

[anymouse]

Remember the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)'s Black Web Site campaign, when Congress threatened to crackdown on Internet content (i.e., censorship)? One could cynically ask where are they and the ACLU are when CFR actually does threaten free speech via the Internet, but let's look beyond that obvious double standard liberal free speech advocates employ to further unstated agendas.

Maybe we should instead turn our web site backgrounds to red. Red would both denote our anger about Congress attempting to legislate away our Constitutional right to free (political) speech, but also to be a not so subtle reference to the communist tactics used to usurp our capitalist marketplace for political communications. It also brings to mind the blood shed by our troops to secure our right to free speech. And of course red has a psychological effect of inducing passion and tension.

And here is our poster boy to tell 'em what they can do with CFR.

A photo of the Capital building with a red tint might be and interesting ploy too.

[CedarDave]

Thanks, I found it:

Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."

[El Gato]

I see that at least one Dem voted against the bill, Nelson of Nebraska. That of course means one more RINO must have voted for the POS.

I make it 11 RINOS who voted for the thing, but only one Demo who did not. Guess which party has better discipline, or at least better files.?