Posted on 12/11/2003 7:59:11 AM PST by happykidjill
I'll vote Republican, but I don't have to like it!
Even if the only reason is National Security!
That's good enuff fer me!!
FReegards, Bob...MUD
That's what happened in 1992. It wasn't the right thing, and the damage done to this great nation may never be fully known.
As are laws dealing with libel, slander, obscenity, permanent copyrights, trademarks, classified information, perjury, homosexual slurs, racial comments, cross burning, harassing phone calls, disturbing the peace (talking out loud in a public library, yelling at your neighbor at 3am), bomb threats, false emergency claims (yelling fire in a theater), prank phone calls to 911, sharing classified information with an enemy of the United States, false advertising, littering, vandalism, praying in school, false identity, impersonating a police officer, death threats to the President, corporate disclosure, etc.
As a citizen of the United States, my government (all three branches) has just colluded to bring down one of the cornerstones upon which this nation was built.
It What Bush did was restrict the free speech of politicians. If you disagree with that then I'm curious how I can get my homemade video on CBS that bashes Howard Dean all day.fell a long time ago. So since I see this doesn't have any direct personal affect on you, I can't see justifying voting for a Democrat (not voting Republican is a half vote for the other side).
That good enough for you?
No, not until you understand that this is salt in the sand in comparison to past violations of the first amendment. My first amendment rights are violated by the court decisions that are slowly banning freedom of religion, speech (that affects me personally), and assembly from the public. How can it be stopped? 60 Senators. Look at how the Justices have voted in the past. Anthony Kennedy (appointed by a Republican) holds the best record for voting in favor of free speech. Breyer (appointed by a Democrat) holds the worst record for free speech. Frankly, I'm tired of the ACLU and it's biased view of freedoms. They are winning a ridiculous amount of court cases that take away rights (that affect us personally) when they are claiming to be upholding the Constitution. They wouldn't be winning these cases if it weren't for the 8 years of "Clintonian Legacy".
Yet you feel free to label as "stupid" the people with whom you disagree. How is it acceptable for you to insult others and then get angry when someone hurls one back at you?
The same could be easily said of people who continue to support a political party that has demonstrated time and time again that it is willing to place its self-serving interests above the freedom of the people it was elected to serve.
Do you disagree?
Negative. What it did was restrict the ability of the citizenry to comment upon those politicians within a specified time frame of an election.
Where and how specifically? I didn't realize I'd get arrested for telling my neigbor that Dean sucks. That would be a violation of free speech that I'd disagree with.
Just like I have the right to own a firearm, but have no right to use that firearm to unlawfully end the life of another person.
A group of peaceably-assembled citizens (the NRA or AARP, for examples) no longer have the capability to run advertising in an attempt to inform voters of stances taken by candidates that may or may not be of importance to those voters within 30 days (need to read again, but I believe that is the time frame) of a federal election.
"Special interest groups" (yes, I know it's a dirty term) are made up of citizens who are bonded together for a common cause. Why should they be denied their right to comment upon a candidate in the public place of ideas just prior to an election?
And I didn't call anyone stupid. I just said they were hell-bent on BEING stupid. Not accusing anyone of a permanent state of stupidity, just attributing the characteristic to a particular action.
Subtle, but different.
Your statement on its surface is obvious. If it were true of President Bush, I would agree with you, but it's not, rendering your question, like your insult, meaningless.
I am not susceptible to blatantly trick questions.
I see. Because I reject the opinions (and that is all they are, opinions) of the writer and those who agree that automatically means that I have no understanding of the situation at hand. How brilliant you are!
The point of the article here is plain logic.
No, the article is an opinion piece. The fact that you cannot get your mind around that says much more about you than it does me.
So accept the stupid label ("Slow to learn or understand") or be furthered viewed as one "working for the otherside" because that's what you are doing here.
Very Clintonesque of you. Since you cannot refute my assertions with those of your own, you resort to name-calling. I am certain that James Carville would be proud to have you as a pupil. And since you're working the "stupid" angle, "furthered" should properly be "further" and "otherside" is two words, not one.
The side I'm working for believes that the Constitution should still be the law of the land. What side are you on?
Why should they have to pay for it? It's free speech, well, 'free'?
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.