1 posted on
11/02/2005 6:44:51 PM PST by
tsmith130
To: tsmith130
True free speech is the archenemy of those who voted against it.
2 posted on
11/02/2005 6:46:06 PM PST by
xcamel
(No more RINOS - Not Now, Not Ever Again.)
To: tsmith130
Uh Oh! Something tells me Im going to be in trouble.
To: tsmith130
I think we need the roll call put up so we can yell at the appropriate people. Loudly.
4 posted on
11/02/2005 6:46:52 PM PST by
kingu
(Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
To: tsmith130
How about we get McCain-Feingold repealed first, then worry about additional legislation, hah?
7 posted on
11/02/2005 6:48:46 PM PST by
Prime Choice
(I can open hearts and minds effortlessly. I have a hacksaw.)
To: tsmith130
Checking in... and getting ready to fight for freedom of speech.
To: tsmith130
Mark Kennedy definitely seems to be somebody deserving of support in his run to become the next Senator from Minnesota.
Just thought I'd express my opinion.... while I still can.
14 posted on
11/02/2005 6:55:38 PM PST by
Wissa
To: tsmith130
WELDON from PA voted AGAINST? There has to be more to this. Somebody from his district in PA email him.
27 posted on
11/02/2005 7:06:56 PM PST by
VeniVidiVici
(What, me worry?)
To: tsmith130
I find it amazing that the article doesn't include the bill number. More censorship.
28 posted on
11/02/2005 7:11:25 PM PST by
aimhigh
To: tsmith130
If they attempt to limit my rights of political speech, I fully intend to violate the law. Here is all the authorization I need...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
29 posted on
11/02/2005 7:14:59 PM PST by
LouD
To: tsmith130
someone is going to have to explain the specific way in which the FEC could shut down this website (and the thousands of others that host political speech). I just don't see it.
To: tsmith130
The media certainly had more freedom of speech when the nation was first forming. Now they are in the business of making the news and trying to stifle dissenting opinions.
33 posted on
11/02/2005 7:26:21 PM PST by
satchmodog9
(Free choice is not what it seems)
To: tsmith130
35 posted on
11/02/2005 7:38:34 PM PST by
timestax
To: tsmith130
39 posted on
11/02/2005 10:40:11 PM PST by
MonroeDNA
(Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
To: potlatch; devolve; PhilDragoo; bitt
40 posted on
11/02/2005 11:02:59 PM PST by
ntnychik
To: tsmith130
Maybe it's time our elected officials were reminded of the 1945 Associated Press v. U.S. case where the Supreme Court wrote that:
...the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.
45 posted on
11/03/2005 6:32:26 AM PST by
Zacs Mom
(Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
To: tsmith130
"Bloggers are everyday citizens. They are our neighbors, friends, and coworkers who want to be able to share their ideas without asking permission from a gatekeeper in the mainstream media and certainly not from a government official. They are the historical descendants of Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and other pamphleteers who contributed enormously to our democracy." Hooray for this man.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson