SUPREME COURT destroys 1st amendment

[rainstorm]

I have to disagree. What the law does is limit the influence of large money blocks. It in no way impinges on the freedom of the individual to voice their opinion. Free speech is the right of an individual to voice their opinion. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court agrees

wrong!! free speech is free speech. groups of people have the right to pool their money and voice their opinion. what you want is for only the rich and powerful to have opinions. just because 5 lunnies say congress can insulate themselves from criticism dosent make it right.

[stormchazer]

The sorry thing is my President signed this piece of crap. I'm getting more Libertarian everyday because Republicans are morphing into Democrats.

[rainstorm]

The sorry thing is my President signed this piece of crap. I'm getting more Libertarian everyday because Republicans are morphing into Democrats.

i agree jara. and bush even said when he signed it that he had 1st amendment reservations about it. but he signed it anyway. CBS, ABC, AND NBC will love this. and now, just released today, bush and ridge want to legalize 10 million illegals in this country, and allow them to bring in their relatives. i wont vote for bush, thats for sure

[Intimidator]

The sorry thing is my President signed this piece of crap. I'm getting more Libertarian everyday because Republicans are morphing into Democrats.

i agree jara. and bush even said when he signed it that he had 1st amendment reservations about it. but he signed it anyway. CBS, ABC, AND NBC will love this. and now, just released today, bush and ridge want to legalize 10 million illegals in this country, and allow them to bring in their relatives. i wont vote for bush, thats for sure

At least you are coming to your senses finally.....

[mf_dolphin]

I have to disagree. What the law does is limit the influence of large money blocks. It in no way impinges on the freedom of the individual to voice their opinion. Free speech is the right of an individual to voice their opinion. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court agrees

wrong!! free speech is free speech. groups of people have the right to pool their money and voice their opinion. what you want is for only the rich and powerful to have opinions. just because 5 lunnies say congress can insulate themselves from criticism dosent make it right.

The last time I looked I was still entitled to my opinion on this board. How the hell do you come up with this favoring the rich and powerful? The intent of the law is to prevent the rich and special interest groups from dominating the federal election process. They've had entirely too much influence in the past on both parties. This is long overdue IMO.

[blizzard]

Thaks MF, I agree totally, that is what I was trying to get across in an earlier post on this subject.

[rainstorm]

I have to disagree. What the law does is limit the influence of large money blocks. It in no way impinges on the freedom of the individual to voice their opinion. Free speech is the right of an individual to voice their opinion. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court agrees

wrong!! free speech is free speech. groups of people have the right to pool their money and voice their opinion. what you want is for only the rich and powerful to have opinions. just because 5 lunnies say congress can insulate themselves from criticism dosent make it right.

The last time I looked I was still entitled to my opinion on this board. How the hell do you come up with this favoring the rich and powerful? The intent of the law is to prevent the rich and special interest groups from dominating the federal election process. They've had entirely too much influence in the past on both parties. This is long overdue IMO.

wrong!! now power is concentrated in congress, and their liberal accomplises in the elite media. how does this decision give more power to individuals? this is an encumbent protection act , pure and simple
by the way, what is wrong with "special interests groups"? i thought under our constitution people had the right of association, and the right to express their political free speech. not any more though, thats for sure. i dont see how anyone can defend congreess insulating themselves from criticism. there is nothing wrong with special interest groups. what you fail to understand is that is the way individual people can get involved in the political process. again, how has this law given the lone individual more power? it hasnt!! this is the start down the road to a china like system, with no criticism of politicians allowed.

remember, groups are made up of individuals. why should their rights be taken away? whose rights will be taken away next? maybe the problem is with the politicians. if money makes some of them corrupt, get rid of the politicians. OOPS!! that has just become much harder now, since the encumbent protection act is the law of the land.

[mf_dolphin]

You're so full of bull you're not even worth my time anymore....

I just hope your "Wrong" wasn't intended as a reply to my right to voice my opinion...

[rainstorm]

You're so full of bull you're not even worth my time anymore....

I just hope your "Wrong" wasn't intended as a reply to my right to voice my opinion...

i think everyone should be able to voice thier opinion. that doesnt seem to be the veiw of everyone though, congress and the supreme court included

[blizzard]

I have to disagree. What the law does is limit the influence of large money blocks. It in no way impinges on the freedom of the individual to voice their opinion. Free speech is the right of an individual to voice their opinion. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court agrees

wrong!! free speech is free speech. groups of people have the right to pool their money and voice their opinion. what you want is for only the rich and powerful to have opinions. just because 5 lunnies say congress can insulate themselves from criticism dosent make it right.

The last time I looked I was still entitled to my opinion on this board. How the hell do you come up with this favoring the rich and powerful? The intent of the law is to prevent the rich and special interest groups from dominating the federal election process. They've had entirely too much influence in the past on both parties. This is long overdue IMO.

wrong!! now power is concentrated in congress, and their liberal accomplises in the elite media. how does this decision give more power to individuals? this is an encumbent protection act , pure and simple
by the way, what is wrong with "special interests groups"? i thought under our constitution people had the right of association, and the right to express their political free speech. not any more though, thats for sure. i dont see how anyone can defend congreess insulating themselves from criticism. there is nothing wrong with special interest groups. what you fail to understand is that is the way individual people can get involved in the political process. again, how has this law given the lone individual more power? it hasnt!! this is the start down the road to a china like system, with no criticism of politicians allowed.

remember, groups are made up of individuals. why should their rights be taken away? whose rights will be taken away next? maybe the problem is with the politicians. if money makes some of them corrupt, get rid of the politicians. OOPS!! that has just become much harder now, since the encumbent protection act is the law of the land.

Who says that the special interest groups cannot voice their opinions about a candidate? They can still do it, just not by buying a speach given by the candidate. Nothing is saying that they cannot get together and campaign for their candidate on their own.

[mf_dolphin]

I should rename you "chicken little" Almost everyone of your posts falls into "the sky is falling" IMO. It's getting quite boring..... I for one think the Supreme Court got this one right

[rainstorm]

I have to disagree. What the law does is limit the influence of large money blocks. It in no way impinges on the freedom of the individual to voice their opinion. Free speech is the right of an individual to voice their opinion. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court agrees

wrong!! free speech is free speech. groups of people have the right to pool their money and voice their opinion. what you want is for only the rich and powerful to have opinions. just because 5 lunnies say congress can insulate themselves from criticism dosent make it right.

The last time I looked I was still entitled to my opinion on this board. How the hell do you come up with this favoring the rich and powerful? The intent of the law is to prevent the rich and special interest groups from dominating the federal election process. They've had entirely too much influence in the past on both parties. This is long overdue IMO.

wrong!! now power is concentrated in congress, and their liberal accomplises in the elite media. how does this decision give more power to individuals? this is an encumbent protection act , pure and simple
by the way, what is wrong with "special interests groups"? i thought under our constitution people had the right of association, and the right to express their political free speech. not any more though, thats for sure. i dont see how anyone can defend congreess insulating themselves from criticism. there is nothing wrong with special interest groups. what you fail to understand is that is the way individual people can get involved in the political process. again, how has this law given the lone individual more power? it hasnt!! this is the start down the road to a china like system, with no criticism of politicians allowed.

remember, groups are made up of individuals. why should their rights be taken away? whose rights will be taken away next? maybe the problem is with the politicians. if money makes some of them corrupt, get rid of the politicians. OOPS!! that has just become much harder now, since the encumbent protection act is the law of the land.

Who says that the special interest groups cannot voice their opinions about a candidate? They can still do it, just not by buying a speach given by the candidate. Nothing is saying that they cannot get together and campaign for their candidate on their own.

the supreme court says so!! 60 days before an election, which is the time when most people make up their minds

[WXBUFFJIM]

I didn't think of it that way, but you're right, groups are made up of individuals. Who's rights will be taken away next???

Jim

[blizzard]

the supreme court says so!! 60 days before an election, which is the time when most people make up their minds

Sounds like you have made up your mind already!! And it is way before 60 days.

[Lindaloo]

LOL blizzard!!

[rainstorm]

I should rename you "chicken little" Almost everyone of your posts falls into "the sky is falling" IMO. It's getting quite boring..... I for one think the Supreme Court got this one right

thats how rights are taken away, a little at a time. if congress wanted to make criticism of themselves illegal, they should have gone through the process of a constitutional amendment.
this will backfire on bush. now the media, which is largely liberal, has all the power. he will get hammered in the last days of 2004. either everyone can have an opinion, or no one can. now, 60 days before an election, only the elite media can have an opinion

[mf_dolphin]

The Supreme Court decision does not restrict all political advertising within 60 days of the election. What it restricts is the "get-around-the-law" advertising which was funded illegally. Advertising which is paid for under the current law can still be done....

[rainstorm]

the supreme court says so!! 60 days before an election, which is the time when most people make up their minds

Sounds like you have made up your mind already!! And it is way before 60 days.

yes, i have made up my mind that freedom of speech is more important than protecting congress from criticism. exactly!!

[blizzard]

I am not sure that the media is as biased as you would like to imagine. Granted some are, but I don't believe during an election they are. They have debates on their shows and how can they bias those?

[rainstorm]

I didn't think of it that way, but you're right, groups are made up of individuals. Who's rights will be taken away next???

Jim

exactly jim! i cant believe people dont care that their rights are being stripped away.