Jump to content

Supreme court gets it wrong..again!


CCTAU

Recommended Posts

Pornography is OK but not information on candidates. This is crap. I though McCain was an idiot then and this confirms it. Forget the patriot act, this is in your face, screw you legislation. So now, only the media, who we know are unbiased, can discuss candidates less than 60 days from an election.

Reform

Link to comment
Share on other sites





To hear some on this board, all the Republicans want to do is take away our 1st amendment rights. But, with Feingold ( D-WI ) supporting this along with McCain (R-AZ) where do some of you libs stand on this. This is ridiculous!

AND, why did Bush feel the need to sign this if he feels the way it says he does in the article?

AND I ask this for serious debate not a bunch of snooty answers from those that may feel the urge to be condescending. If you feel the need to spin in your answer, don't even think about trying to reply. You will only show your pettiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear some on this board, all the Republicans want to do is take away our 1st amendment rights.  But, with Feingold ( D-WI ) supporting this along with McCain (R-AZ) where do some of you libs stand on this.  This is ridiculous!

AND, why did Bush feel the need to sign this if he feels the way it says he does in the article?

AND I ask this for serious debate not a bunch of snooty answers from those that may feel the urge to be condescending.  If you feel the need to spin in your answer, don't even think about trying to reply.  You will only show your pettiness.

See, that's the thing...you're always so abrasive. You don't have to be the angry young man ALL the time!!!

I liked the treatment the Post gave this story better.

More informative

BTW, I give this one a :thumbsdown: too.

This may be the answer as to why Bush liked it:

Like many critics of the ruling, he noted the irony that a law designed to limit the influence of money in politics leaves one class of citizens almost entirely unregulated -- the super-rich. People willing and able to spend their own fortunes on political ads can say what they want when they want.

With Bush, you generally have to follow the money if you want to know the answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear some on this board, all the Republicans want to do is take away our 1st amendment rights.  But, with Feingold ( D-WI ) supporting this along with McCain (R-AZ) where do some of you libs stand on this.  This is ridiculous!

AND, why did Bush feel the need to sign this if he feels the way it says he does in the article?

AND I ask this for serious debate not a bunch of snooty answers from those that may feel the urge to be condescending.  If you feel the need to spin in your answer, don't even think about trying to reply.  You will only show your pettiness.

See, that's the thing...you're always so abrasive. You don't have to be the angry young man ALL the time!!!

I liked the treatment the Post gave this story better.

More informative

BTW, I give this one a :thumbsdown: too.

This may be the answer as to why Bush liked it:

Like many critics of the ruling, he noted the irony that a law designed to limit the influence of money in politics leaves one class of citizens almost entirely unregulated -- the super-rich. People willing and able to spend their own fortunes on political ads can say what they want when they want.

With Bush, you generally have to follow the money if you want to know the answers.

Well, see, No one is angry. I just didn't feel like reading a bunch of replies full of name calling and spin. I simply wanted to get HONEST responses on this. If you will notice I even removed my signature pic from the post.

But, if it makes you feel better to think that I am always angry or to always attempt to call me out on something I say or do, so be it. I promise I will sleep well tonight. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...