February 5, 200818 yr I have read the act and reached my conclusions. You can accept them or read the act yourself and reach your own conclusions. In other words, I will be glad to debate the issue with you after you become familiar with the intricacies of McCain-Feingold, preferably in a thread devoted to the act itself.You made the claims ... back them up.
February 6, 200818 yr Author You made the claims ... back them up.Having admitted to not being familiar with McCain-Feingold, feel free to declare victory and move on. I am not going to compose a synopsis of the act and then debate my own position on the subject. Please feel free to start a thread on the subject and state your own opinion of the law. If I disagree, then I may join the debate - or not. I mentioned McCain-Feingold in passing and do not plan to go off on a tangent.
February 6, 200818 yr I miss Joe Elliott of WHAS 840 here in Louisville. During election time he would have some good shows and guests. Local elections sometimes you could call in ask them questions. I didn't aalways agree with Joe, but I usually disagree with everyone about something.
February 6, 200818 yr Having admitted to not being familiar with McCain-Feingold, feel free to declare victory and move on. I am not going to compose a synopsis of the act and then debate my own position on the subject. Please feel free to start a thread on the subject and state your own opinion of the law. If I disagree, then I may join the debate - or not. I mentioned McCain-Feingold in passing and do not plan to go off on a tangent. Again, you made the claim that a bill that was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush constitutes "an assault on the First Amendment" ... I'm simply asking you to back it up with facts. You're not taking me up on it?
February 6, 200818 yr Author Again, you made the claim that a bill that was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush constitutes "an assault on the First Amendment" ... I'm simply asking you to back it up with facts. You're not taking me up on it? Again, it is indisputable that McCain-Feingold restricts speech. The extent to which the law violated the First Amendment is debatable, but the US Supreme Court has already ruled that part of McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. The fact that McCain-Feingold was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush is irrelevant. All laws, whether constitutional or not, are enacted through the same process. I mentioned McCain-Feingold to support my position that McCain has supported restrictions on free speech in the past and he will not hesitate to do so in the future. McCain holds grudges and talk radio hosts who actively oppose his bid for the presidency are not immune to his wrath. Supreme Court Slaps McCain-Feingold The case, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, challenged part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that bars corporations and unions from using general funds for broadcast ads that mention the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. "The court today has rejected the audacious attempt by Senator McCain and his allies to overturn the First Amendment's protection and empower incumbent politicians with the power to ban public criticism," said James Bopp, lead counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life.
February 6, 200818 yr I am a democrat, but usually vote for who I think is the best candidate. Rush being so against McCain almost makes me want to run out and vote for him.
February 6, 200818 yr I am a democrat, but usually vote for who I think is the best candidate. Rush being so against McCain almost makes me want to run out and vote for him. That might be a good campaign slogan or tshirt....vote for McCain cause Rush does not want him to be President.
February 6, 200818 yr Again, it is indisputable that McCain-Feingold restricts speech. The extent to which the law violated the First Amendment is debatable, but the US Supreme Court has already ruled that part of McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. The fact that McCain-Feingold was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush is irrelevant. All laws, whether constitutional or not, are enacted through the same process. No, it isn't irrelevant. If McCain-Feingold was truly and indisputably "an assault on the First Amendment" as you claim, I suspect it would never have been passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by the President. I would suggest there's been a little hyperbole on your part ... Supreme Court Slaps McCain-Feingold The case, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, challenged part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that bars corporations and unions from using general funds for broadcast ads that mention the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. "The court today has rejected the audacious attempt by Senator McCain and his allies to overturn the First Amendment's protection and empower incumbent politicians with the power to ban public criticism," said James Bopp, lead counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life. I'm curious as to where the information came from ... the link doesn't work.
February 6, 200818 yr I am a democrat, but usually vote for who I think is the best candidate. Rush being so against McCain almost makes me want to run out and vote for him.Works for me ... :lol:
February 6, 200818 yr Author No, it isn't irrelevant. If McCain-Feingold was truly and indisputably "an assault on the First Amendment" as you claim, I suspect it would never have passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and been signed by the President. I would suggest there's been a little hyperbole on your part ... All unconstitutional laws are enacted through the same processes that constitutional ones are enacted. Congress has passed unconstitutional laws in the past and they will continue doing so in the future. That is how the system works. The basis of the claims in the suit was that the act violated the right of free speech under the First Amendment. Part of the law was struck down as a result of the suit. McCain filed an amicus brief in the case and his side lost. You may define hyperbole any way that you wish, but the facts speak for themselves. I'm curious as to where the information came from ... the link doesn't work.Try this one Supreme Court Slaps McCain-Feingold.
February 6, 200818 yr You may define hyperbole any way that you wish, but the facts speak for themselves.The facts don't quite mesh with your hyperbole ... Try this one Supreme Court Slaps McCain-Feingold.Oh, boy ... a news service operated by Brent Bozell. Real unbiased repoting there ...
February 6, 200818 yr Author The facts don't quite mesh with your hyperbole ... Oh, boy ... a news service operated by Brent Bozell. Real unbiased repoting there ... I expected you to attack the messenger, which is why I provided you some rope. Do you dispute any of the facts contained in the article? Which one? Do you have any facts of your own to share? Links?:lol:
February 6, 200818 yr I expected you to attack the messenger, which is why I provided you some rope. Do you dispute any of the facts contained in the article? Which one? Do you have any facts of your own to share? Links?:lol:I prefer to get my news from credible sources, not ones with agendas ...
February 6, 200818 yr Author I prefer to get my news from credible sources, not ones with agendas ...I will take that as a no.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.