Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: Jim Robinson
2 posted on
12/21/2006 3:29:09 PM PST by
RedRover
(They are not killers. Defend our Marines.)
To: Jim Robinson
YES!
YES!
YES!
This abortion of a law must be struck down.
3 posted on
12/21/2006 3:30:15 PM PST by
rlmorel
(Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
To: Jim Robinson
4 posted on
12/21/2006 3:32:40 PM PST by
PA Engineer
(Liberate America from the occupation media.)
To: Jim Robinson
5 posted on
12/21/2006 3:33:17 PM PST by
ElkGroveDan
(When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
To: Jim Robinson
This is outrageous! The first amendment was never intended for "the people" - just insane left wing groups.
6 posted on
12/21/2006 3:33:34 PM PST by
Tzimisce
(How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
To: Jim Robinson
7 posted on
12/21/2006 3:34:23 PM PST by
mdittmar
(May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
To: Jim Robinson
Another Christmas gift. Thanks Jim.
8 posted on
12/21/2006 3:35:08 PM PST by
Earthdweller
(All reality is based on faith in something.)
To: Jim Robinson
Good news indeed. But it appears that the Supreme Court still needs to revisit McCain Feingold some day, because these judges were only able to work around the earlier SCOTUS decision.
It's a travesty that the Court sets no limits on free speech when it involves flag burning or pornography, but prohibits free discussion of politics at election time.
9 posted on
12/21/2006 3:35:37 PM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Jim Robinson
To: Jim Robinson
11 posted on
12/21/2006 3:38:43 PM PST by
WalterSkinner
( ..when there is any conflict between God and Caesar -- guess who loses?)
To: Jim Robinson
No surprise. Good to hear though.
12 posted on
12/21/2006 3:39:45 PM PST by
Sandy
To: Jim Robinson
Yesss! Still, I think it's unconstitutional no matter how it's applied.
The only effect has been to give Democrats (who are the only ones who take advantage of this) a club to beat normal people with. When I worked on the last Bush campaign, the Dems were going through our records - most of them maintained by elderly volunteers - all the time looking for some erroneous attribution of a $100 contribution. This paralyzed us because nobody, including our attorneys, was sure when it was legal to accept something and when not.
I realize that the GOP could have done this to Dems, too, but that is never our style (a good thing, in my opinion).
I wish this whole idiotic law would be overturned.
14 posted on
12/21/2006 3:44:45 PM PST by
livius
To: Jim Robinson
Similar thread from earlier today:
Panel Says Issue Ads OK During Elections
|
| |
Posted by SmithL
On News/Activism 12/21/2006 12:56:16 PM CST · 9 replies · 200+ views
AP via SFGate ^ | 12/21/6 | MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON -- The federal government cannot prohibit advocacy groups from running issue advertisements during peak election season, a panel of federal judges ruled Thursday. The 2-1 ruling was issued in a case involving a Wisconsin anti-abortion group that challenged congressional restrictions on ads by corporations, labor unions and other special interest groups that mention candidates two months before a general election. Some lawmakers have predicted such a ruling would create a loophole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign law, which attempted to reduce the influence of big-spending special-interest groups in elections. The case automatically heads to the Supreme Court for review....
|
|
15 posted on
12/21/2006 3:56:20 PM PST by
TomGuy
To: Jim Robinson
And yet one more reason to oppose John McCain is the republican primary.
16 posted on
12/21/2006 3:59:43 PM PST by
jwalsh07
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: Jim Robinson
More great news and it also looks like Murtha is being investigated.
Merry Christmas all.
17 posted on
12/21/2006 4:02:23 PM PST by
jazusamo
(http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
To: Jim Robinson
To: Jim Robinson
20 posted on
12/21/2006 4:26:03 PM PST by
Enterprise
(Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
To: Jim Robinson
....so thinking here.....if this is unconstitutional and has been struck down....does it have any retro meanings? If its illegal today, then it was illegal last year right? So our freedom of speech was trampled on, so what rights do we have now? Can we sue mcpain and finegold for the inconvenience of denying our freedoms????
AND doesn't the Congress decide to begin with that it should have been illegal BEFORE they passed it??? So are all the members that voted on this illegal bill guilty of fraud?????
22 posted on
12/21/2006 4:41:03 PM PST by
HarleyLady27
(My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
To: Jim Robinson
24 posted on
12/21/2006 4:47:14 PM PST by
Just A Nobody
(I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
To: Jim Robinson
Whoa! Early Christmas present? Let's hope it doesn't get re-gifted by SCOTUS.
26 posted on
12/21/2006 5:03:50 PM PST by
b4its2late
(Liberalism is a hollow log and a mental disorder.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson