Congress Could Vote Tomorrow On Internet Exemption

Gun Owners of America ^ | Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:35:31 | GOA

[Hank Rearden]

Why is your anger only directed At Republicans on this?

Because the 'Rats are what they are - big-government, dependency-promoting parasites. They are as advertised.

The Republicans were supposed to be the counter to all that crap, and advertised themselves as such. Instead, once gaining power, they became what they pretended to oppose.

Why D.C. isn't surrounded by burning torches and pitchforks as a result is a mystery to me. We don't need two Big Stupid Government parties, yet that's what we've got.

Now the question is whether anything will change before the whole mess collapses. I'm inclined to doubt it. But I absolutely refuse to let Republican apologists get away with their lame excuses and obfuscations.

[Echo Talon]

remember the "new" tone we were supposed to have in D.C.? bipartisan atmosphere, uniter not a divider, GWB has given them carrots an all he has received is their and your scorn. I believe this legislation is horrible and congress was out to lunch debating it, but what congress-critter is going to vote against "campaign finance reform"? and have that around his neck. especially one drafted in a bipartisan fashion.

[Hank Rearden]

Maybe coming up with some solutions would be helpful.

Many, many solutions have been proposed in excruciating detail, from organizations like the Cato Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Claremont Institute and numerous others.

What's needed is a party with principles, a will to do the job, and the skill to muster popular support. The GOP fails on the first count, so the other two certainly don't follow.

[Buddy B]

" Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary -- making it much more difficult for groups like Gun Owners of America to criticize anti-gun candidates. "

OK, what about the websites that Congressional candidates are running themselves?

[Echo Talon]

bashing them at every turn is no way to help. I have never heard you say one positive thing here.

[jeremiah]

If this becomes enforced law, it is time to roll on DC. First in peaceful protest, or will that be disallow 60 days before an election?

[TBP]

First of all, how are they going to enforce this?

Second, how do they handle it if one day the blog is criticizing the Dimmycraps and the next day it's criticizing the Gang Of Prostitutes?

There should be no Federal involvement in "electioneering" laws anyway. Where in the Constitution is that allowed?

[Smokin' Joe]

All it was was an incumbent protection measure. The solution is simple. Do not Re-Elect anyone who votes to keep it in place.

[TBP]

From Hank Rearden's profile, so you'll know who you're dealing with... "The Republican Party has no principles. There are no nonnegotiable, unyielding, core philosophies on which the party and its candidates will stand or die. Anyone can call himself a Republican, and the party is happy to have them, no matter what they believe, no matter what they do, if it increases the number of "-R"s in Congress. A party of political whores, for whom gaining and holding power is the only value, the only goal. I'll ask you what I've asked on FR dozens of times. Take your time in replying; I've never gotten an answer, so I'm used to waiting. What are the core, nonnegotiable principles of the Republican Party? What can we assume from a Republican candidate and/or officeholder? What can we count on? Smaller government? No. More liberty? No. Balanced budgets? Obviously not. Constitutionally-limited government power? Hell no. Elimination of wasteful spending? Laughable - the Republicans won't even take PBS off the taxpayer teat. How about a reduction in the absurd growth of spending? Of course not. And whatever happened to those promises to kill off the Dept. of Education? It doesn't educate anybody, and was promised to be shut down; instead, Republicans have created more Cabinet departments. So, Republicans, how's that "limited government" thingie you've been promising us for decades coming along . . . . . . hmmmmmmm? Go for it. Defend these lying weasels. The GOP '08 slogan: "We promise we won't piss away another 14 years. Really. Trust us!"

And your problem is?

[TBP]

If I were the FEC chair, I would simply not enforce the ruling.

[RHINO369]

"Why is your anger only directed At Republicans on this?"

Maybe because Republicans are supposed to be against this kind of fascist policy. If your only reason why someone should be a republican is "well the democrats did it too" have a fun time winning an election ever again.

[Echo Talon]

Maybe because Republicans are supposed to be against this kind of fascist policy. If your only reason why someone should be a republican is "well the democrats did it too" have a fun time winning an election ever again.

I agree the port deal was a bipartisan f-up, along with a brain fart on the part of 70% of the American people.

[RHINO369]

"I agree the port deal was a bipartisan f-up, along with a brain fart on the part of 70% of the American people."

The port deal is trivial compared to the restriction of free speech, and political speech before an election no less. This is exactly the kind of speech the first amendment was supposed to protect. If there aren't apologists on our side then this kind of illegal legislation wouldn't get passed. If Clinton pulled half the crap Bush has done people here would have called for impeachment, again.

[Echo Talon]

what was the vote in the Senate and House for this bill?

[Echo Talon]

The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip. After moving through lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session in September 2003. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold; the vote on the court was 5 to 4. Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

Maybe they should challenge it again, O'Connor is gone.
wikipedia

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[RHINO369]

"Maybe they should challenge it again, O'Connor is gone."

As far as I'm concerned any patriot should openly flaunt this law. Its unconstitutional no matter what any court says. The Constitution is clearly worded so should be no debate. I should read the majority opinion to see what kind of trash they used to excuse their edict, but its way to late and I gotta write a paper about genetically modified food for a crazy geography class.

[Echo Talon]

LOL

[al_again]

And your problem with his profile is what?

I'd recommend that you state your points rather than sling personal insults. If you disagree with what he has posted - say so and why!

[Lancer_N3502A]

Agreed. Simply the left's efforts to silence the "alternate media" as a pitiful attempt to regain power.