Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrey (R-GA, 11) interested in FR, and in law restoring free speech
Meeting | 12-14-2003 | Robert A Cook

Posted on 12/14/2003 1:34:28 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE

Spoke briefly with Congressman Phil Gingrey (R, GA-11th) after church today.

http://www.house.gov/gingrey/

Gingrey is a OB-Gyn physician, a first-time conservative Congressman from a democratic gerry-mandered district spreading through democratic regions in west GA and metro Atlanta.

(1) I asked him to sponsor legistlation REMOVING the free-speech restrictions imposed under McCain-Feingold. He thought it was a good idea, but didn't know how much other Congressional support there would be.

Therefore: CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND CREATE SOME SUPPORT for removal of this section of the law.

Constitutionally, even though the vast majority of the bill has been upheld by the Court (thanks to liberal judges demanded by the Senate!), there is no reason the single section restricting free speech can't be also removed by a second law. The Constitution doesn't have a clause IMPOSING restrictions (yet!), so a law removing ("illegally-declared-but-liberally-declared-constitutional") restrictions should be "legal."

Further, this would FORCE the liberals (in Congress, in the press, and on the courts!) to visibly oppose free speech by publically opposing a law that explicitly restores free speech!

Removing the "money" talking points, and the other dnc-focus points of McCain Feingold from the discussion may get this bill through since it would be targetted ONLY at the 60-day advertising limits - if not in this session, maybe in the next.

Best? Sure; completely remove McCain-Feingold. But it won't happen in today's media climate, given the power this yields to the "national press corpse". So we shouldn't weight down a "possibly-successful" bill with dreams of revoking the whole thing.

It is at least a step to remove this clause. After all, even the whole Amendment invoking Prohibition was removed!

(2) Write, call, or email Gingrey's office(s) local and naitonal to support this bill.

Since it's not proposed yet, we need to show Phil that free speech is supported at the grass roots level. His office, frakly, will listen mostly to GA constituents, but evry call will help!

(3) He is interested in what we discuss here, in how widely-read the Free Republic site is, and how much more thorough we are than "the natioinal press corpse" who slavishly repeated only what they read from the dnc's faux fax sheet. When he expressed an interest in Free republic, I invited him to register and contribute (or at a minmum read along silently) to protect his public persona.

But, he needs a login-id.

So, I'm asking you respond to his web-site above and do three things: Thank him for supporting Bush in his war on terror;

Ask to submit his bill lifting restrictions on politcal speech imposed by the liberal press and the democrats,

Warmly welcome him to Free Republic, and recommend a screen name for FreeRepublic.com


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: banglist; freespeech; ga; gingrey; mccainfeingold; restrictions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
As mentioned, he will most likely only respond to GA emails, but the rest will be noted.

Contact your local representative and see if we can get this started.

1 posted on 12/14/2003 1:34:29 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I know some folks in his office....great people.
2 posted on 12/14/2003 1:36:57 PM PST by sirshackleton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Great idea. My congresscritter is a doc too. Maybe they can come up with a prescription for the McLame-Feingold flu.
3 posted on 12/14/2003 1:38:03 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." GWB 9/20/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
BUMP
4 posted on 12/14/2003 1:39:52 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
His user-id should be his name.

This should be posted to Valin's daily CFR reform thread.

5 posted on 12/14/2003 1:43:57 PM PST by Lazamataz (A poem, by Lazamataz: "What do we do with Saddam, Now that we gottim?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Constitutionally, even though the vast majority of the bill has been upheld by the Court (thanks to liberal judges demanded by the Senate!), there is no reason the single section restricting free speech can't be also removed by a second law.

Congress getting rid of that part of the law would be nice, but won't repair the serious and long-term damage done to the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is OK to restrict political speech based on nothing more than the calender. There is absolutely nothing stopping any congress in the future from expanding upon those restrictions.

6 posted on 12/14/2003 1:52:10 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Here we go again, way too many vanities.
Admin Moderator | December 12, 2003 | Admin Moderator


Posted on 12/12/2003 6:13:33 PM PST by Admin Moderator


There have been way too many vanities. We have asked numerous times to please limit your vanities to either the General Interest (Chat) forum or to post your one line vanities on an already existing thread. Guess what, didn't work. So, we will be deleting one line vanity threads, unless it is truly news as reported by a major media outlet. We will be deleting threads misposted to news that clearly belong in the General Interest (Chat) forum. Remember, this is a conservative news forum.

So, get ready, your vanity posts will be removed if you can not follow these simple guidelines.


Here's how to post an article in a forum other than the main news forum:


On the threads page (in any forum), on the right hand side, above the sidebars you will see a group of links that look something like this:

Campaign Central
General Interest (Chat)
News/Activism
Religion
RLC Liberty Caucus
The Smokey Backroom
VetsCoR


Select the appropriate forum prior to posting your article. In that forum, you can post your article the same way as the main news forum.


Again, any misposted articles will be pulled. If you like to see all the threads posted to Free Republic, John has made a Browse All option. All threads posted will be listed here and you will not miss out on any thread posted to Free Republic. And PLEASE use the actual titles that were given by the original author from that media source. It makes searching much more easier and prevents duplicates.


And as always, solicitations and fundraising from outside FR will not be allowed. Have a Merry Christmas.


7 posted on 12/14/2003 2:16:26 PM PST by COURAGE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COURAGE; Admin Moderator; Ragtime Cowgirl; Alamo-Girl
Respectfully written, but I disagree until corrected by an Admin Moderator or Jim R.

A direct meeting with a Congressman about breaking news of the week, even if informal and not covered by the "mass media," DOES properly belong to "Breaking News."

Further, since a "call to action" is specifically invoked to have Freepers help correct a bad Supreme Court ruling, your judgment that "Activism" isn't invoked is incorrect.
8 posted on 12/14/2003 2:58:31 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
bttt
9 posted on 12/14/2003 2:59:45 PM PST by tutstar (Jesus is the reason for the season! <((--><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; COURAGE
Hmmm, interesting if this thread had photos of half naked women, I think Courage would be more supportive....

Great report. It should be on the daily CFR thread as well!

Valin has a ping list if you are not already on it. Good work!

10 posted on 12/14/2003 3:49:43 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; COURAGE; Admin Moderator
Respectfully written, but I disagree until corrected by an Admin Moderator or Jim R. A direct meeting with a Congressman about breaking news of the week, even if informal and not covered by the "mass media," DOES properly belong to "Breaking News." Further, since a "call to action" is specifically invoked to have Freepers help correct a bad Supreme Court ruling, your judgment that "Activism" isn't invoked is incorrect.

I support Mr. Cook in this matter. For whatever it's worth.

11 posted on 12/14/2003 4:01:45 PM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
My congresscritter is a doc too

Mine is a snake.

12 posted on 12/14/2003 4:20:20 PM PST by Wheee The People (If this post doesn't make any sense, then it also doubles as a bump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Bump and bookmark.
This is just the sort of thing I am talking about!
13 posted on 12/14/2003 4:29:28 PM PST by Valin (We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Congressman Billybob
Congressman Billybob has also been advocating legislation limiting to repealing the ad provision. He may be interested in your idea.

Since the Democrats have been expressing misgivings about CFR since the Supreme Court upheld (even if their misgivings spring from partisan considerations,) I do not think repeal of this one provision is a lost cause.

To judge by the cover article in the current Human Events< Speaker Hastert might be won over to the idea of such a repeal, which might mean the House leadership could make sure it got to the floor. But without some Democratic support, the Democrats could always filibuster it in the Senate.

14 posted on 12/14/2003 4:34:49 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Congressman Billybob; Howlin; Alamo-Girl
Fine.

Let the Senate democrats go specifically on the record filibustering a specific law restoring JUST the free-speech limits of McCain Feingold.

Sure, they'll lie. They always have. They'll probably claim they are "preventing" corporate money, or lobbyists, or hate-speech from coming into the political process, but force them back on the record.

For that matter, force Bush to go on the record opposing some means to restore free speech!
15 posted on 12/14/2003 4:45:50 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I recommend pushing the constitutionality of the CFR laws. Congress shall make no laws abridging free speech and political speech is of the highest concern.

A law that is not stricken down on constitutional grounds sets a precedent for other laws that limit political speech. Using a law to repeal it and not the constitution is just setting congress up for a later repeal of "that" law. If it is not in the constitution then it needs to be added to the constitution (luckily that won't be necessary since it is already IN there).

16 posted on 12/14/2003 4:47:16 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People
Martin Olav Sabo is mine...lets just say he never met a tax he didn't like.
17 posted on 12/14/2003 4:52:00 PM PST by Valin (We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People
Wheee The People

Everybody's got a cool screen name but me. :o(

18 posted on 12/14/2003 4:54:06 PM PST by Lazamataz (A poem, by Lazamataz: "What do we do with Saddam, Now that we gottim?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I thought I pinged you to this thread! Durned FR musta lost your name in my post to Bob Cook. Oh well, you found it.
19 posted on 12/14/2003 4:56:10 PM PST by Lazamataz (A poem, by Lazamataz: "What do we do with Saddam, Now that we gottim?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: weegee; Congressman Billybob
Too late though.

All it would take is some lower (liberal) judge to cite the Supreme Court "already ruled" that CFR IS constitutional. That locks in the judicial review, since it's much, much easier to "go along" with an existing ruling (which creates an even tighter bottleneck for future lawsuits!) Thus, we need to get rid of the restrictions ... and NOT rely on some judge changing "her" mind about something "she" already decided. "She" will NOT want to go on record saying "Oh shoot. Guess I screwed up the first time..." Anyway, look at the Amendments: Prohibition sets a bad enough example where the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, or 10th can get revoked if the MEDIA creates the dnc pressure!

20 posted on 12/14/2003 5:22:41 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
We need to make the public aware that the Supreme Court is not infalible and also that they have reversed the opinions of earlier Supreme Courts.

Raise a stink over this issue and pressure will be made to bear.

21 posted on 12/14/2003 5:46:00 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: weegee; floriduh voter; Alamo-Girl; MHGinTN
CONCUR!

My (only) bumper sticker reads:

"Abortion?
The Supreme Court also said Slavery was legal!"

Guess now I've got to "amend it" to include CFR!

22 posted on 12/14/2003 6:10:48 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Well said.

Understand that I am not knocking the effort to regain some of our constitutional rights; I would just like to see even more being done (Big Media still holds their power position so they are keeping quiet).

23 posted on 12/14/2003 6:16:03 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; All
That's a very good idea. Can someone bump the people with the ping lists?
24 posted on 12/14/2003 7:08:53 PM PST by GulliverSwift (Howard Dean is the Joker's insane twin brother.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Yours is better than mine....
25 posted on 12/14/2003 7:40:12 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Done! Thanks, Robert. Hope our response (and Saddam's capture) encourages Rep. Gingrey (and other allied Republicans working in DC) to take on our domestic enemies.
26 posted on 12/14/2003 7:42:02 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl ( "Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth." ~ Pres. Bush, Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I was invited to give a speech to an annual dinner of strict constructionists on the Constitution, a couple decades ago in Salt Lake City. I began this way (which is the absolute truth):

"A friend of mine in Washington who is a former nun and a chief staff member for Eugene McCarthy, said we should repeal the entire Constitution, starting with the words 'We the People' through to the signatures." [I paused, and there was a sharp intake of breath by every person in the room. Then I continued....]

"Then, she said we should pass it again, exactly as it is, but add one line: 'This time we MEAN it.' " [There was an explosion of both laughter and applause.]

The point is that the necesary reform is not just to straighten out this particular blunder by the Supreme Court. It is to stgraighten out a lot of bad decisions by the Court, and furthermore, its approach to all future cases. The Court needs to be told, by the express words of the Constitution, that it MUST obey the Constitution until and unless the Constitution is amended by the people as provided in Article V.

THAT is the proper remedy. Anything less is merely wheel-spinning, and I doubt that necessary reform would pass through this Congress as an Amendment, to go out to the states for ratification.

Congressman Billybob

Click here for discussion thread on latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry."

27 posted on 12/14/2003 7:42:03 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I replied to the pings, before I read the thread. I thought the Congressman was trying to cure the constitutional problem generally, rather than merely to cure the ad ban problem. I fully approve of his idea of removing the 30- and 60-day ad bans from the CFR law by act of Congress. Given that more than 100,000 groups of Americans on every part of the political spectrum have a potential stake in this issue, it can and should succeed.

My previous post on this thread concerns the large issue of correcting the constitutional problem. This Congressman is not attempting to do that, now, so belay my previous post.

John / Billybob

28 posted on 12/14/2003 7:48:41 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
It should be called
"The Free Speech Restoration Act of 2004"

Who'd go on record opposing that?
(Besides the likes of Chuckie Schumer, that is)
29 posted on 12/15/2003 5:59:17 AM PST by Redbob (this space reserved for witty remarks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
This should be posted to Valin's daily CFR reform thread.

As you know; "Until changed by the authentic act of the whole people, the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all." -- George Washington

30 posted on 12/15/2003 6:05:20 AM PST by thesummerwind (like painted kites, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thesummerwind
Concur.

But the democrats wanted to restrict criticism, didn't they?

Unless they, the 60's (criminals) trespassers, protesters, and rioters, were doing the criticizing!
31 posted on 12/15/2003 6:23:41 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
Yours is better than mine.... Yours is so 1999.
32 posted on 12/15/2003 7:16:14 AM PST by Naspino (I am in no way associated with the views expressed in your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Everybody's got a cool screen name but me. :o(

Your reminds me of a John Travolta song.

33 posted on 12/15/2003 7:21:24 AM PST by smith288 ("The United States has a system of taxation by confession." - Hugo Black,Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
"Yours is better than mine.... Yours is so 1999"

No kidding. I would change it, but I don't want to look like a newbie for heavens sake....

34 posted on 12/15/2003 7:24:51 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
No kidding. I would change it, but I don't want to look like a newbie for heavens sake....

I know -- taking on a new screen name means at least five or six people calling you a troll.

35 posted on 12/15/2003 7:27:26 AM PST by Naspino (I am in no way associated with the views expressed in your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: smith288; buffyt
Your reminds me of a John Travolta song.

That's why buffyt likes me.

Cuz I remind her of John Travolta.

36 posted on 12/15/2003 7:28:13 AM PST by Lazamataz (A poem, by Lazamataz: "What do we do with Saddam, Now that we gottim?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; bert
Yes, the Dems. and others wanted to restrict speech! But did you notice, what I think is just as big a problem as the political creatures - the absolute silence of analysis and criticism of this abomination (decision) by the lamestream media. The media and the politicians work hand in hand! It stinks.
37 posted on 12/15/2003 8:01:54 AM PST by thesummerwind (like painted kites, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
Well I get called a troll by 5-6 people at a time for trying to defend the Constitution.. so not much would change there...
38 posted on 12/15/2003 8:02:08 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
How about "NoOrrrrrdinaryPolitician" as a Screen Name? ;0)
39 posted on 12/15/2003 8:36:27 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (What am I rebelling against? Well, what do ya got?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
Actually, I think you should take pride in your screen name - It reminds us all of what could have been, and how thankful we should be... ;0)
40 posted on 12/15/2003 8:38:39 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (What am I rebelling against? Well, what do ya got?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
Thanks Chad- One can always count upon you for clear thinking and kind words. Hope you are well!
41 posted on 12/15/2003 8:42:40 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
Doing well, thanks! :0)
42 posted on 12/15/2003 8:47:53 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (What am I rebelling against? Well, what do ya got?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
There is a Congressman Phil Gingrey from Georgia who was reported to be a lurker on FR. He was also reported to be considering the sponsorship of a bill that would repeal the absurd 30 and 60 day restrictions on free speech prior to elections. Here's a link to the thread that includes the URL of his Congressional office.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040281/posts

He has an Email function that you may have to stumble about to find, but give Congressman Gingrey a holler.
43 posted on 12/15/2003 8:59:44 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi, min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I thought I was posting this thread to the *bang_list. Please forgive the error.
44 posted on 12/15/2003 9:22:10 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi, min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People
Mine is a slimey trial lawyer...your's too Whee The People...?
45 posted on 12/15/2003 10:28:34 AM PST by Abram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Way to go bump! It's easy to pass a law that "reduces the influence of money in politics" but it's difficult to oppose a law that affirms free speech.
46 posted on 12/15/2003 10:43:40 AM PST by Smile-n-Win (Compassion for your enemies is a betrayal of your friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Valin
"Respectfully written, but I disagree until corrected by an Admin Moderator or Jim R.

A direct meeting with a Congressman about breaking news of the week, even if informal and not covered by the "mass media," DOES properly belong to "Breaking News."

Further, since a "call to action" is specifically invoked to have Freepers help correct a bad Supreme Court ruling, your judgment that "Activism" isn't invoked is incorrect."

I agree completely! Thank you for your post; it looks like CFR repeal may be picking up steam!

I have NOT been able to log on to FR since Friday night. Every time I did, my computer crashed (no joke!)

However, I kept trying, because I sent the following to the Denver Post and the Washington Times. I don't know if it will get published, but I urge anyone who wants to to feel free to cut, paste, and modify and send along to your local paper. In this way, regular people can be educated about the importance of repealing at least this part of this law.

Valin, I pinged you on this but I'll post about it first thing tomorrow a.m. on the daily CFR thread.

:)

"Dear Editor:

Contrary to the expectations of just about everyone in the country, perhaps even of the President who signed the bill, the Supreme Court has upheld Campaign Finance Reform.

Although the name of the bill is deceptively attractive-who doesn't want "reform"?--the law it embodies is a direct attack on the most fundamental right all Americans hold--the right to political free speech. No longer can groups of citizens purchase, in the 60 days prior to a general election, radio or t.v. time that criticizes a politician.

The freedom to express political opinions is at the heart of all other freedoms. That is why the Founders put it in the First Amendment. We cannot have the right to privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures, without the right to challenge the politicians who govern us.

Indeed, many have described this law as the "Incumbent Protection Act," for it makes it very difficult for incumbents to be held accountable for their voting record. In today's sound-bite world, 60 days is a lifetime.

That is why I have sent a letter to Rep. Tom Tancredo, asking him to present a bill, on the very first day that Congress meets in January, to repeal this odious law. I hope that other congressional representatives join in this endeavor, for this issue rises above party.

Every American--Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, whatever--who cares about the right to speak freely on a political issue should demand that this law be repealed--and repealed immediately.
47 posted on 12/15/2003 4:14:49 PM PST by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
"Best? Sure; completely remove McCain-Feingold. But it won't happen in today's media climate, given the power this yields to the "national press corpse". So we shouldn't weight down a "possibly-successful" bill with dreams of revoking the whole thing."

Good thinking! Very good thinking... It would have far greater chances if we focused on this part, and really hammered home the First Amendment implications.

Thanks Robert! :)
48 posted on 12/15/2003 4:17:30 PM PST by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
"No kidding. I would change it, but I don't want to look like a newbie for heavens sake..."

I would change mine too. I had zero inspiration when I joined FR and this was the best I could do. :)

But like you say, who wants to get flamed as a newbie? :)

It would be nice to have a feature where we could change and "re-introduce" ourselves, but FR may be too large for that. On smaller boards, people get to know each other more quickly.
49 posted on 12/15/2003 4:21:06 PM PST by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: proud American in Canada
No, yours is good.. mine really stinks. Although Freeper Chad Fairbanks did make me feel a bit better about it.
50 posted on 12/15/2003 4:26:58 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson