U.S. Senate Votes to Condemn 1st Amendment

I haven't condemned you.

But I thought I was the government. At least that is what you have said before ... the people are the government. I wish you would make up your mind. This is yet another topic on which you are just all over the place on. You seem to have no stability in your thinking. You will say whatever makes the point you want to make, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with your previous statements of belief.

But simply put, you are not recognizing fundamental and essential distinctions. And that's too bad.

The Senate simply said, "We do not like and do not agree with what was said."

They did not say, "They should not have been allowed to say it." This latter statement would be what your thread title means. That is why your thread title is at least misleading and possibly subtly dishonest. You know good and well that the senate did not vote to condemn the first amendment. They voted to express disagreement with something that was said under the first amendment.

 

So why is the use of the freedom of the first amendment chilling to you? Doesn't that contradict your whole point here?
Sometimes, I half-wonder if you are even rational, or if you are just playing devil's advocate. This is totally mind-boggling.

 

Slightly off topic, but I find it ironic that Bush was bragging about the Senate condemning this. The Senate has voted numerous times 56-44 against the war, but that hasn't impressed him. And, yes, I know the 60 vote rule, but it still seems silly for Bush to now care about Senate opinion.

 

That's how he rolls. Remember the big "States referendum" where he promised to take a lot of power away from washington ? That was great for him, when every state that voted on it voted to ban gay marriages. But when the same states voted to allow medical patients to use marijuana, he stamped it "NO".


Excellent observation.

 

This is silly. He isn't allowed to disagree with them on one subject and agree with them on another? Why?

 

Are you claiming that anybody or any group that criticizes our government or our war machine cannot express those views in a so-called "free" America?

 

It was no more a waste of time than some of the bone headed legislation democrats have tried to pass when they knew it would fail.

Both sides are more interested in scoring points or pandering to their base than doing their jobs.

The vote on the resolution was about both.

 

And the leftists in the Senate will not stop attacking GWB for his completely legal firings of the attorneys.

 

But the salient point of this thread is the continuance by Ken to use dishonest liberal Democrat tactics.

 

That's what I pulled from this vote. With ALL the other, more important things they are wasting time by voting on such junk.

Don't we pay them to actually WORK for this country and get things done?

Politics as usasl I suppose...

Jamie

 

Ken, don't let these guys get to you. They have been known for posting threads with misleading titles or titles that are only meant to shock the user.

And now they want to complain?!? Keep on making your voice heard. If they don't want to listen, then they can /ignore it. (Of course, they will never ignore it, even after they say they will because it's in their nature to want to fight to "Right" fight.

Take care my friend!
Jamie

 

So let me just clarify: When people who agree with you use the first amendment, that's good. When people who disagree with you use the first amendment, that's chilling.

You see Ken, that's why you make no sense. The first amendment seems to mean nothing to do you. If a group of one hundred people can't use it, then what's it good for? Why is it chilling for the Senate to say in essence, "We support the troops and don't like it when people attack generals as traitors"?

You have just revealed another place where you really don't support the constitution. You just want to throw it around as label for yourself to pretend like you are more patriotic than others.

Of course not. Go back and read what I said. I am arguing that not only can moveon.org express their view under the first amendment; The senate can as well.

Ken seems to think that the Senate is not covered by the first amendment and therefore is limited in their right to free speech.

Senate made no law about what could be said. They simply exercised their first amendment right to say "We don't like what was said."

Now do you think everyone has first amendment rights? Or only those who disagree with the war?

 

That is where the people in this thread are confussing the issue. They want to think that the actions of the Senate, binding or not are just a bunch of guys getting together to vote.. When in fact they are suppose to represent the people as a government body and they are suppose to do more important work rather than this.

Congress in general is a waste of time, or at least they have been for years. As someone mentioned before they are only trying to position themselves to get the votes in 08, they are not working for our country now, only working for themselves and their party.

It's sad to see what our "government" has become.

Jamie

 

Uh, I thought Senators had to be citizens. And that ALL citizens were guaranteed the "freedom of speech", except in instances, such as the one offered by Justice Holmes, which was on of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Or did I somehow sleep :sleeping_2: through that one, as well as some others :sleep: during civics class?

Back to 'lurking'!

Ed

 

Oh, now Ed! Don't just lurk


Now, your example was correct and would be valid IF the Senators themselves wanted to post a statement indivuidually and wanted to post their statement as a citizen. However, when they pose a bill and pass it in the Senate, they are not just acting citizens.

I know you are smarter then to think they are just a bunch of guys and girls stating their opinion when they pull a stunt like this.

What's funny, and this isn't pointed at your Ed, but people in general is if the Senate took a vote on Bush and his "mis-management" of this country, and it won't a binding vote, just a statement of their opinion, you guys would be up in arms like nobody's business.

Just go back and look at the Attorney General's threads when they were going to take a vote of no confidence.

My point in all this is our Senators are free to speak their minds on their own time, but when they are in session and on "my payroll" I would like them to work on things like shoring up our borders, and bigger issues.

Is it wrong to want them to earn or at least pretend to earn their money?

Jamie

 

I think there may be some grammatical errors, and I hate to nitpick, and hope I don't come off as disrespectful, but hasn't the Senate passed several non-binding resolutions concerning Bush & his various policies ?