Re: More on suppression of speech, expressly for foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging troglodyte conservatives

On Sun, 11 May 2008 02:16:54 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Starkiller used a stick in the sand to babble
>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>Larry in AZ wrote:
>>>> You've got proof that the cattlemen and apple growers were
Conservatives..?
>>>
>>>Texas cattlemen?  By definition.
>
>Score.
>
>>On the other hand legislation that has been pushed into law by the
>>left such as Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974 and the Campaign
>>Reform Act of 2002.  And they regularly try to get the ball rolling to
>>reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.  Whenever the democcrats get a
>>large enough majority in congress it will be reinstituted.
>
>Unlikely.  Political campaigns make too much money to seriously
>restrict it's use.
>
>>These laws do contain a notable exception. Newspaper owners may spend
>>as much money as they wish publi****ng arguments in sup****t of
>>candidates with whom they "coordinate." This solitary exemption from
>>restrictions on free speech is, of course, no mistake: The dominant
>>newspapers in America are liberal, and the 1974 law was passed by a
>>Democratic Congress on the day before Richard Nixon resigned in
>>disgrace from the presidency. 
>
>And then signed by Republican Gerald Ford?
>
>>Campaign finance regulation stands in direct opposition to the
>>Founders' understanding of the First Amendment. For a large class of
>>people, it effectively prohibits and punishes the most im****tant thing
>>that the right to free speech is supposed to guarantee: open
>>discussion of candidates and issues at election time.
>>
>>Those who favor campaign finance regulation sometimes claim that their
>>primary concern is with "corruption and the appearance of
>>corruption"—that is, what used to be called bribery or the appearance
>>of bribery. But that is not the real agenda of the reformers. There is
>>a good reason why the 2002 Act, like the 1974 law, was voted for by
>>almost every House and Senate Democrat, and opposed by a large
>>majority of Republicans: These laws are primarily about limiting the
>>speech of conservatives.
>
>Nonsense.  In 2002 the Republicans had a majority in both Houses and
>had the White House as well.  Certainly passage can't be blamed on the
>Democrats.  Republican passed it and a Republican signed it.
>
>>Here are some quotations from the 2002 congressional debate: 
>>
>>Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): "This bill is about slowing the ad
>>war.... It is about slowing political advertising and making sure the
>>flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to
>>permeate the airwaves." 
>>
>>Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): "These so-called issues ads are not
>>regulated at all and mention candidates by name. They directly attack
>>candidates without any accountability. It is brutal.... We have an
>>op****tunity in the McCain-Feingold bill to stop that."
>>
>>Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.): "I think these issue advocacy ads are a
>>nightmare. I think all of us should hate them…. [By passing the
>>legislation], [w]e could get some of this poison politics off
>>television."
>>
>>
>>In other words, the law makes it harder for citizens to criticize
>>liberal politicians when they disagree with their policy views.
>
>The law isn't designed to suppress free speech, it's about doing
>something to ensure that claims made by political advertisers are
>actually true.
>
>>Some congressmen were willing to be even more open about the fact that
>>the new law would cut down on conservative criticism of candidates.
>
>That law passed and signed by the conservative party?
>
>You wrote a bunch of other stuff but it all proceeds from your above
>premise, that the Democrats passed legislation in 2002 designed to
>suppress conservatives' free speech.
>
>Since Republicans controlled both Houses and the White House, your
>premise is fundamentally flawed therefore so is any argument you make
>from it.
>
>Swill

Heres the vote tally hotshot.  Now you tell me how the REPUBLICANS
passed it after looking at the votes.  

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00054

And also look at the vote tally when it came to clarifying individual
contribution limits.  Interesting that the democrats wanted nothing to
do with that little bit yes?

http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00054

It's real easy to spout off "Republican Administration" without
actually seeing who voted for what ain't it sparky?



Regards


Starkiller