funny quote of the day

from the alex jones am show today.


' ... and im here to tell you, i have to tell the truth. a spade is a spade, a duck is a duck, and george bush is a traitor. a traitor is a a traitor.'


maybe you had to be there.


well, bush did sign that bill that makes it illegal to advertise a congressman's voting record 90 days or something before the election.


you really cant argue with that.


(not to mention 4th amendment repealment, er, i mean US patriot act, which by the way no one in congress was allowed to read before they voted on it.)


brad

I quote you "(not to mention 4th amendment repealment, er, i mean US patriot act, which by the way no one in congress was allowed to read before they voted on it.)"


Just who do you think wrote the bill Congress voted on? DOH!! Well in case you are still in suspense it was the congresmen(women) themselves.

Makes me think they read it since they wrote it, how about you?


As for your other point that is so ludicrous it hardly deserves a response. Illegal to advertise a congressman's voting record within 90 days of an election? Just where do you get your information? Perhaps a change of your TV viewing habits from the "Fantasy" channel to a respectable news program might be in order.


Please tell me you are not a registered voter too? No, you must be a liberal Democrat with that post. Liberal with your truth at any rate.


So yes I can argue with your post! Sometimes a liberal whacko is just a liberal whacko! Yes you may quote me on that!!!

congressman ron paul (no liberal) has publicly stated members of congress were not allowed to read the bill before voting on it.


as to the new campaign reform law, ill post a link on it.


also as you know many bills are sponsored by the administration and only introduced by party leadership in the house.


anyway, ill post link within the next day or two.


brad

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020425-32563240.htm


'Mr. Bush spoke out against the measure during the 2000 campaign but then disappointed conservatives in his own party by signing it into law.'


'Officials in both parties confirmed that the state Republican and Democratic organizations will jointly challenge the constitutionality of provisions in the new law they say will cripple voter-registration efforts by state parties four months before primary and general elections and will bar national parties from transferring contributons to state parties.'


its a big bill. everbody is suing because its unconstitutional (does that matter anymore?)


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/politics/23FINA.html


well, here it is. but if you dont want to go thru signing up ill post key parts.

---------------------------------

April 23, 2002


Labor Sues Over Campaign Finance Law


By THE NEW YORK TIMES


...

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, asserts that the law violates the First Amendment by barring unions from broadcasting advertisements that name a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary or a convention.

...

----------------------------------


now i havent supported my initial claim, but i think youll agree that even if im wrong im not wrong by much.


brad

Not even close, no cookie, no cigar and no apology. Your statement was not even close to the substance of the law and now you want an apology? Pardon me but that is plain Kookie!!!!


In addition I see no reference to your other point of contention regarding the congressman not reading a bill before voting on it. If one such congressman did then that I say vote that idiot out of office. Personally I would not do something stupid, then point it out to my constituents and then blame someone else.


Good try but no merit at all to your original post.


Jimbo

so do think its perfectly normal that unions cannot pay for ads for candidates within months or whatever of elections?


nothing wrong with that? im a kook for thinking that that is pretty weird?


is it kookie that both the democratic and republican party of california are suing over this bill?


brad

Brad,


I never meant to imply that I thought the law would pass constitutional muster as it stands. Only that you incorectly described the law as passed. The president had no need to veto the bill as it will most likely be overturned in the courts. What you fail to realize is the President had no down side at all to signing the bill but would have been blasted by the democrats if he vetoed it.


For that matter in my opinion all congress wanted to do was say to the good old folks back home, "Well we tried to reform campaign finance contributions."


Jimbo

lets see the real effects it has in the next election.


but i dont see why people have to call me names because congress passes some wacky bill that these same people (who yell at me) describe as clearly unconstitutional.


brad

perhaps i did incorrectly describe it, but perhaps not. the links i provided were what i could quickly get off the internet. that doesnt mean i was wrong. the info i got was from a conservative talk radio host.


in any case the details in my original post are clearly consistent with the spirit of the law.


so dont act like i was wrong. (unless you want to post a link to the text of the law or bill or whatever and then claim its not in there).


brad

If I had made the original erronrous contention I most certainly would do as you request. It makes sense you should be able to defend your position with facts not require me to dispute obviously flawed data.


Jimbo

i think ive shown that the spirit of what i said is true.


youve gone from saying that my post is so ludicrous that it hardly deserves a response, to that it is so clearly unconstitutional that it cant hold up.


is there that big a difference between not being able to advertise a candidates voting record prior to the election and not allowing unions to advertise prior to an election?


its a giant regulatory law that is blatantly unconstitutional. its not fantasyland. thats the point.


any other characterization is just trying to muddy the waters, in my opinion.


by the way, it seems that we mostly agree now, which is very different from the initial postings. nothing wrong with that. if i supported my point with a mistake, and then supported my point with a better example, theres nothing wrong with that. (im just saying that my first 'mistake' wasnt necessarily a mistake, and still might be true, even though right now it doesnt matter)


brad

First reread your first post then read your last post and tell me how they correlate. The only thing we agree on is the law is unlikely to pass constitutional muster, not that it is a bad idea to prohibit unions from paying for ads. To answer your question above : yes there is a big difference between your first post and what you now acknowledge the law really prohibits.


I do apologize for calling you a liberal whacko. You are merely uninformed and utilyzing your right of free speech to express your opinion. However wrong that apinion may be! /images/smile.gif


Jimbo

You still have not satisfactorily addressed your misnomer about the congressmen not being allowed to read the patriot act bill prior to their vote. They may have chosen not to read it first, that is a big difference. Please elaborate or explain that if you will.


Thanks,


Jimbo

'I do apologize for calling you a liberal whacko.'


thank you. i am a conservative wacko, thank you very much.


'To answer your question above : yes there is a big difference between your first post and what you now acknowledge the law really prohibits.'


what? the government now restrains candidates getting their message out based on thier political views or (maybe) thier incumbent status. you acknowledge that it is unconstitional. how do we disagree?


brad

well, ron paul at least said that the bill (we're talking what, 500 pages or whatever, a giant giant bill) wasnt printed up in time for the congress (general members. obviously administration/leadership knew what was going on.) to read it.


you remember this bill was passed in a frenzy after 9-11.


you remember anthrax and a lot of stuff was shut down at the time.


you remember this bill was (i could be wrong about this) passed in the middle of the night because congress was in session for like 2 days straight or something.


also general members of congress read and had the initial bill, but as you know after its amemded and changed and stuff is put in, etc., its a totally different bill (and a giant one too), and its this final form of the bill that congress wanst given (at least before the vote) because it had to be rushed through (remember we were pretty much 'under attack', new york was still smoldering).


look at the patriot act voting, and i think a few members didnt vote for it.


but almost all members did because if they didnt they would take tremendous political heat. (and ron paul is a republican, so really he felt he couldnt not vote for it, maybe. actually i cant remember whether he said he voted for it or not but i think he said he did.)


so to sum up: the administration pushed for a rush job on the bill and congress rubber stamped it. is it that hard to believe?


brad

http://insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=143236


'Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it — and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."


Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."


And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.

'

http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/word/CFRBushLetter.doc


'Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill would trigger campaign law for broadcast, cable, or satellite advertisements that refer to a clearly identified candidate within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary and that reach an audience that includes voters in that election. This would curtail issue advocacy by citizen groups, since publicizing a message about a public official or person seeking public office would be subject to government scrutiny and regulatory limits. '


i think this covers what i said most likely. remember, this is all legal crap and im just a normal guy. im going to my fallback position that what i said about not being able to publicize the voiting record of an incumbent is an extreme example of what could happen under this new law.


http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/campaign.htm


for further details

Brad,


Thank-you very much for the links in your above post. It does clearly state that Ron Paul voted against this bill, outlines the reasons why and he states he never got teo read the bill prior to his vote. Seems to me this is contradictory. If he knew why he voted against the bill he must have read it first or else took someones word for what it represented. In the latter case I pity the poor voters of Texas who put this fella in office.


"Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."


This looks like a pretty good definition of domestic terroism to me. If the USA PATRIOT ACT enables us to fight this evil I am for a little compromise on my personal liberty.


Jimbo

'If he knew why he voted against the bill he must have read it first or else took someones word for what it represented. '


like i said in another post, it was the final form of the bill they couldnt read.


all should have voted no. what if bigshots like kennedy had stuck in massive pork or some other crap at the last minute?


'If the USA PATRIOT ACT enables us to fight this evil I am for a little compromise on my personal liberty. '


will you get a microchip?


brad