Skip to comments.
Breaking the new anti-free speech law.
Free Republic
| 03/23/02
| Jim Robinson
Posted on 03/23/2002 12:08:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Texasforever
Does Starr have that good a record?
61
posted on
03/23/2002 3:13:11 PM PST
by
weikel
Comment #62 Removed by Moderator
To: fellowpatriot
Democracy is bunk voting should be restricted to male property owners and Senators should not be directly elected as the founders intended.
63
posted on
03/23/2002 3:14:46 PM PST
by
weikel
To: Jim Robinson; All
Okay, now what are you all planning to do about CBDTPA?
The bill that will directly KILL Free Repulbic if it is passed into law.
To: weikel
Does Starr have that good a record? Yes he does. Remember, Starr won 15 of 16 issues that reached the court during impeachment. He was over his head as a prosecutor, no question about it but, he is a very good choice to lead this effort. As to those that think he will suffer bad publicity because of the impeachment, this will not be argued on court tv. The USSC is an entirely different animal from any other court in existence.
To: Jim Robinson
I never understood the implications of the bill until I saw it here.Im probably interpreting it wrong,but doesnt the "free speech" part only apply to spec interest groups using the media for campaigning? Does it actually affect the internet,too?
To: weikel
Democracy is bunk voting should be restricted to male property owners and Senators should not be directly elected as the founders intended.I agree with you on two points, but what do you have against female property owners?
To: fellowpatriot
Women are in general very illogical and suspectible to sweet talk by Democratic liars and feel safer in the hands of a nanny state. I wish we could test for intelligence and logic but I think there is too much potential for corruption there. If you restrict the vote to male property owners the left is doomed they have no constituency.
68
posted on
03/23/2002 3:32:24 PM PST
by
weikel
To: weikel
Women are in general very illogical and suspectible to sweet talk by Democratic liars and feel safer in the hands of a nanny state. You're confusing sex with ideology. Being female doesn't automatically make you liberal. There are a lot of illogical, weak-minded men out there too!
To: fellowpatriot
There is but most of them don't own property logical people tend to be conservative and illogical people tend to be liberal. Women tend to be more illogical IMHO. Statistics show they are more likely to be Dems. It would be nice to test voters for intelligence and logic but I think there is way too much potential for corruption there.
70
posted on
03/23/2002 3:41:39 PM PST
by
weikel
To: fellowpatriot
If it makes you feel better im in college and don't yet own property I wouldn't be able to vote as of now under what I advocate either.
71
posted on
03/23/2002 3:44:18 PM PST
by
weikel
To: fellowpatriot
a lot of illogical, weak-minded men out there tooYou have been talking to one.
To: weikel
There is a good logical reason for giving the vote only to property owners, but to say that women = liberal is wrong. A woman who owns property tends to me more conservative than a man who doesn't IMHO.
To: fellowpatriot
Sorry, that should be tends to be
To: fellowpatriot
They would have to be male and property owners if I had my way so thats covered.
75
posted on
03/23/2002 3:59:47 PM PST
by
weikel
To: HairOfTheDog
How have I been either illogical or weak minded??? Im not saying all women but in general they tend to be illogical and thus more liberal.
76
posted on
03/23/2002 4:01:14 PM PST
by
weikel
To: weikel
Well, we can only hope that you never get your way. (Not totally anyway)
To: fellowpatriot
Switzerland is the least socialist country in Europe and women there could not vote till the Seventies if I recall. I don't think thats a coincidence. If I had my way I predict gun laws, the income tax, social security etc would all be gone in ten years.
78
posted on
03/23/2002 4:04:50 PM PST
by
weikel
To: weikel
Is there really anything morally wrong with breaking a stupid evil tyrannical law? Careful...but yes, there is--
a) it can endanger law-abidingness in general;
b)it can result in harm by said tyrannical agency to the lawbreakers;
c)it can become the means by which good laws and good elements of a regime can be overthrown or imperiled;
d)it can endanger the souls of the lawbreakers by placing them in a position of choosing between violence or injury.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
79
posted on
03/23/2002 4:09:50 PM PST
by
Pistias
To: Pistias
I don't care about law abidingness in general don't delude yourself into thinking that most people obey laws out of anything besides fear of punishment.
80
posted on
03/23/2002 4:11:24 PM PST
by
weikel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-136 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson