Bush says Democrats shouldn't be trusted - Page 2

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Tell me how Russ Feingold has restricted your "liberty"

The McCain Feingold act is the 1st thing that pops to mind.

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

The McCain Feingold act is the 1st thing that pops to mind.

Yeah, having to throw my nonexistant vast fortune at an pro-Democrat/Republican 527 is so much more restricting than giving millions of dollars every year to the Democrat/Republican party

I'm basically enslaved...where did my chains go...I could have sworn I was shackled

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah, having to throw my nonexistant vast fortune at an pro-Democrat/Republican 527 is so much more restricting than giving millions of dollars every year to the Democrat/Republican party

I'm basically enslaved...where did my chains go...I could have sworn I was shackled

So restricting freedom of speech isn't restricing my freedoms and liberties?

oh, ok.

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

So restricting freedom of speech isn't restricing my freedoms and liberties?

oh, ok.

How does it restrict your freedom of speach?

lew · 10-03-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah, having to throw my nonexistant vast fortune at an pro-Democrat/Republican 527 is so much more restricting than giving millions of dollars every year to the Democrat/Republican party

I'm basically enslaved...where did my chains go...I could have sworn I was shackled

Well, if you're going to use that argument what has Bush done to YOU to restrict your liberties? YOU? Are your phones being tapped? Ignore the possibility - ARE THEY? How have YOUR liberties been hurt by Bush or Republicans?

lew · 10-03-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How does it restrict your freedom of speach?

Have you read the bill? It's horrible.

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

So restricting freedom of speech isn't restricing my freedoms and liberties?

oh, ok.

You can say whatever you want about a political situation, its just you write your check to a different person...and since you had to write out a name on your check anyway...its not really a restriction

Yeah I can't yell fire in a crowded theater...tyranny tyranny!

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Well, if you're going to use that argument what has Bush done to YOU to restrict your liberties? YOU? Are your phones being tapped? Ignore the possibility - ARE THEY? How have YOUR liberties been hurt by Bush or Republicans?

He's made moves that I can be declared an enemy combatant and thrown in jail the rest of my life without charges

You are saying democrats are just as bad because they make you write out only thousands of dollars to candidates, partys and PACs, (more like tens of thousands by then) but when you get into the millions (for the WHOLE YEAR) you have to support 527s who would do the exact same political message you are trying to get across

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Have you read the bill? It's horrible.

Placeing restrictions on how you buy a public office isn't a free speach issue.

There is no right to purchase a politician in the constitution.

lew · 10-03-2006, 01:29 PM

Feingold is also for universal health care.

Anyone that understands anything about it, understands it's an assault on personal liberties.

lew · 10-03-2006, 01:31 PM

When the Democrats enact a law to hurt the rich, it's not an assault on liberties, but when the Republicans enact a law to hurt enemy combatants, it's an assault!

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How does it restrict your freedom of speach?

It only makes it harder for smaller organizations to donate money to politicians, thus only enabling larger organizations to setup the appropriate shelters.

Golly, I figured you guys would be for limiting what big organizations can donate to "buy" politicians.

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by lew

When the Democrats enact a law to hurt the rich, it's not an assault on liberties, but when the Republicans enact a law to hurt enemy combatants, it's an assault!

I find it amazing that certain members of this forum can't seem to come to grips with the fact their their political party is just as bad as the other one

lew · 10-03-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He's made moves that I can be declared an enemy combatant and thrown in jail the rest of my life without charges

You are saying democrats are just as bad because they make you write out only thousands of dollars to candidates, partys and PACs, (more like tens of thousands by then) but when you get into the millions (for the WHOLE YEAR) you have to support 527s who would do the exact same political message you are trying to get across

So, he hasn't done anything to you, directly. Good, glad we covered that.

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So, he hasn't done anything to you, directly. Good, glad we covered that.

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 01:39 PM

hurt the rich? they still donate tens of thousands of dollars without restriciton, and further millions to 527s which give the exact same political speech

yeah real restriction...and you compare that to arresting an american without charges or presentable evidence and torturing and detaining them for life...

wow...is this the general libertarian line of thinking? Libertarians got 0.3% of the vote in 2004 when people were disgusted with Bush and Kerry and both parties in general...i wonder if posts like this are are a reason why

Dumpy Dooby · 10-03-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It's up on yahoo.com

We remove the link when we edit the thread. The whole article is in the quote.

I know you do. I'm saying I disagree with that.

I like it call it "citing your sources."

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

hurt the rich? they still donate tens of thousands of dollars without restriciton, and further millions to 527s which give the exact same political speech

yeah real restriction...and you compare that to arresting an american without charges or presentable evidence and torturing and detaining them for life...

wow...is this the general libertarian line of thinking? Libertarians got 0.3% of the vote in 2004 when people were disgusted with Bush and Kerry and both parties in general...i wonder if posts like this are are a reason why

Again you fail to see the issue. It is a restriction of liberty. Now, only the really rich can donate as much money as they want.

What if I wanted to donate $20,000 to a politican candidate I thought was going to do something great? Oh well I can't because of your "great" democrat that has restricted my freedom. Oh well that is a win for you because it ensures the monopoly power that your party and the republcian party has granted itself.

You wonder why the libertarians can't get into office, it is because your "freedom loving" party has helped restrict the election process and create themselves a monopoly.

Yes, it is a restriction of freedom, it is the same restriction of freedom as Bush's law he just signed into office. If is as much of a burden. Sorry that you don't see it that way because you are blinded by your petty party politics.

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

What if I wanted to donate $20,000 to a politican candidate I thought was going to do something great?

You mean like suppose you really liked Joe Lieberman and what he's done and want to contribute $20,000 to promote his good image and help him get elected?

Vets for Freedom - SourceWatch

That's unpossible!

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

You wonder why the libertarians can't get into office, it is because your "freedom loving" party has helped restrict the election process and create themselves a monopoly.

Yes, it is a restriction of freedom, it is the same restriction of freedom as Bush's law he just signed into office. If is as much of a burden. Sorry that you don't see it that way because you are blinded by your petty party politics.

Yeah that's why Ross Perot almost won the 1992 election starting from scratch with no ideology and Pat Buchanan won 8% (2400% of what the libertarian got) in the same situation, while Libertarians have been all over the internet for over a decade, and before that had the public forum to discuss their views much better than Reform party candidates did