1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The Massachusetts senator sent Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub a letter Tuesday asking the commission to block any attempt by the NRA to get a media exemption to campaign finance rules.

The gun-rights lobby is considering acquiring a television or radio outlet and seeking the same exemption from campaign finance rules that news organizations have. If the group won a media exemption, it would be free to say whatever it wanted about candidates at any time and spend unlimited amounts doing so.

"We urge you to prevent the NRA from hijacking America's airwaves with the gun lobby's money," Kerry's letter said. "If the NRA has something to say, it can play by the rules, just like the millions of people in America who do every day."

(funny that John Kerry isn't mentioning how the Democrats are trying to buy radio stations in order to set up their own talk show network)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
JoeFriday said:
Kerry's letter said. "If the NRA has something to say, it can play by the rules, just like the millions of people in America who do every day."
Play by the rules regarding speech? What happened to "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?"

:barf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,320 Posts
"free speech" to liberals, I notice, tends to really mean "free speech...as long as it agrees with me"
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
Should the NRA have to buy a tv/radio outlet to talk about candidates??

I wonder (not really) why this law hasn't been struck down yet???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
James said:
Should the NRA have to buy a tv/radio outlet to talk about candidates??

I wonder (not really) why this law hasn't been struck down yet???
Certainly not.

I guess the challenge has to come after somone has been effected by the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Re: Re: John Kerry tries to silence the NRA

Mus said:
Play by the rules regarding speech? What happened to "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?"

:barf:
Congress 'amended' that with the introduction of the Campaign Finance Reform Law.. most people aren't aware that the meat of that law isn't about money.. it's about limiting the ability to voice your opinions in the final days before the polling centers open

(I'm quoting from memory, so forgive me if I don't get it exactly right) puts a limit on 'free speech' in the final 30 days before an election.. essentially denying advertising by special interest groups

the idea being to avoid last-minute smear tactics.. much like we saw by the NAACP against Bush in 2000 with the infamous James Byrd ad, in which Byrd's young daughter lambasted Bush for not supporting a hate crimes bill in Texas.. trying to imply some connection between a black man's death and Bush's leadership
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #8

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
And the usual suspects on the Supreme Court just ruled (5-4) that it's all perfectly okay, as the "national interest in preventing ... even the appearance of corruption" justifies restricting free speech rights.

WHY HASN'T SOME CONGRESS CRITTER STARTED IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against some of these lunatics who don't seem to understand either their own oaths of office or the Constitution they claim to be protecting???? :barf: :mad: :grumble:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
they probably turn a blind eye as a matter of 'professional courtesy' since it was their colleagues that wrote the bill in the first place (Feingold and McCain)

one thing that is generally ignored in this law is that it only applies to special-interest groups and the candidates themselves.. the media is exempt.. if a newspaper editor decides he doesn't like a candidate, he can write a negative op-ed piece every single day up to, and including, election day.. same goes for tv stations

so, the reason you don't hear about these restrictions on freedom of speech is because the sources you'd be hearing it from don't want you to know that they aren't restricted, but everyone else is.. thus, a complete news blackout on that angle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Basically you still have "free speech" you just have to be able to afford your own TV or radio station and go through the Federal licensing required.

What a sick joke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
The assault on free speech by its "defenders" has been astonishing.

The REAL prize is the ability to put your ideology into the plots of mainstream fiction which they won't touch with a 10 foot pole.


Take West Wing and Star Trek. The former allows obvious strawmen of their political opponents to take a beating, the latter presents communist ideals as utopian in a future where food appears out of thin air.

Beware the machinations of those who say they support "free speech" yet claim they want to FORCE media outlets to show "the other point of view". Notice how this is targeted towards radio (the one medium conservatives own), not TV or socialist outlets like the LA or NY times.

Vladimir Putin won a major victory pulling a stunt like this - he forced the media outlets who wouldn't tow his line to show all points of view - all FORTY points of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
The absence of any resolution or definitive action by our "republican" dominated Congress should let everyone know where they all stand on the issue as well.

--------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
so now do you all see why the democrats are fighting so hard to obstruct Bush's judicial nominees? it's because the liberals have learned that they can institute their unpopular politics through the courts

it's true that a GOP congress allowed an unconstitutional bill to pass.. and even worse, Bush signed it, thinking that it would be overturned, but with the intent that he could shrug his shoulders and smile at the liberals as if to say "hey, it's not my fault"

but the liberal Justices are now passing unconstitutional laws that restrict our freedom, all in the name of politics

another example of judicial override of clearly-delineated law is the NJ senate race in 2002.. the Dems realized their incumbent Torricelli didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.. so they told him to drop out, and replaced him with Lautenberg.. the snag was that the deadline for announcing your candidacy was a week past.. Lautenberg was legally ineligible.. the NJ Supreme Court came back with the decision that "it is more important to give the voters a choice than to uphold the campaign laws".. the Dems were thrilled, and their candidate, who didn't have to go through any pre-election scrutiny, won

the Florida Supreme Court's decisions to ignore the post-election ballot counting procedures is another example.. and if there were more Clintonian Justices on the United States Supreme Court, we'd have Gore for President right now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
JoeFriday said:
it's true that a GOP congress allowed an unconstitutional bill to pass.. and even worse, Bush signed it, thinking that it would be overturned, but with the intent that he could shrug his shoulders and smile at the liberals as if to say "hey, it's not my fault"
But it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Kerry = :barf:

But in all seriousness, I would watch this TV network whenever I get the chance. I honestly think that this network is healthy for the preservation of freedom, unlike CNN, who are doing the opposite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
It's funny how talk radio would be affected by this, but NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PMSNBC, CSPAN, and PBS will not.

But of course, there is no left wing media bias, so I guess all is hunky dory.

BTW, the idea of a liberal talk radio network makes me laugh. Hey brainiacs, if there was a demand for it, you wouldn't have to throw upteen million dollars into the project to get it up! If there was a market for their mindless drivel, such a thing would already exist! The only reason all the big networks are is because they were highjacked. Why is Fox News so popular? Because, for a change, there is actually an alternative to the socialist propoganda machine!

And where, exactly, is the ACLU? The SC's decision is the most egregeous violation of the first amendment to come along in many many years. But then again, what the hell does the SC care about upholding the Constitution?

It makes me so mad, I want to spread my arms and run through a doorway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
When this law was originally passed I wasn't that worried because I thought, "no way will this stand" (at least the speech before elections portion). It totally boggles my mind that the Supreme Court let this clearly unconstitutional law stand as it is. It totally shocks me that it wasn't oveturned, I'm still dumbfounded!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top