Who Hijacked Our Country

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Save the Filibuster and the Internet

Bill Frist attended (via video, his favorite medium) a huge revival meeting last Sunday with America’s leading Ayatollahs. They needed to warn the faithful of the evils of the filibuster, and to remind them that God wants the United States Supreme Court stacked with right wing nutcases. They convinced their pre-selected focus groups, but did they convince the public? How do regular, un-chosen Americans feel about banning the filibuster (the Nuclear Option)?

The most recent poll shows 66% of the public opposed to the nuclear option; 26% in favor. Uh oh, somebody’s strategy backfired. They can select and screen their focus groups and audiences, but the un-selected unwashed masses are still taking part in surveys and elections (at least for now).

The scripted, rehearsed unanimous cheering of Bush’s hand-picked audiences only represents 26% of the general public? Hmmm, how do we spin this? Maybe the godless liberal media were using their twisted methods for slanting the news. Either the question was worded in a way that would bring out a liberal response, or the survey was organized by some socialist front group, i.e. anyone other than Fox News, USA Next or WorldNetDaily. The Imams and Ayatollahs will accept no other possible explanation.


If you have your own blog or website, this applies to you. The Online Freedom of Speech Act is pending in the Senate and House of Representatives. This will exempt all internet communication from regulation by the Federal Election Commission.

This bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to include this sentence: “Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.”

If you want to keep pushing your favorite cause or dissing your favorite political targets without fear of regulation or legal retaliation, please click here and put your senators’ and representatives’ feet to the fire. This bill needs to be passed. In this day of polarization and mutual hatred, here is a bipartisan issue we can all get behind.

And thank you No Religion Now for showing this link.

16 Comments:

Anonymous agitprop said...

That's truly scary. The internet is one of the last truly free mediums and they want to restrict it now? Step by step we are moving closer towards fascism in this country.

April 27, 2005 at 5:28 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Agitprop: Yeah, it is scary. I think there are too many millions of blogs and websites for the government to actually crack down, but it would be nice to have a written law explicitly protecting internet communications.

April 27, 2005 at 6:48 PM  
Blogger Unadulterated Underdog said...

Honestly, I doubt NeoCons want absolute restrictions, just restrictions on those who disagree with them. That means anyone left of Bushland. The same goes for liberal elitists who want the same thing. We should band together and stop them.

April 28, 2005 at 10:33 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

OK Democrat: This is definitely a bipartisan issue (I hope!). It would be a double-edge sword to try restricting or closing down a website with the "wrong" viewpoint, and hopefully everyone realizes this.

April 28, 2005 at 11:09 AM  
Blogger Unadulterated Underdog said...

That's what I was saying friend. Rightists and Leftists likely both want to ban the opposing point of view and that can't be allowed. If freedom of speech is divided into levels of freedom then freedom itself is moribund.

April 28, 2005 at 11:17 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

OK Democrat: I hope that isn't true, that some Right and Left bloggers would like to see opposing viewpoints banned. I can't know how other people react, but personally when I see an obnoxious post, I'd rather leave an opposing comment (as I know you do also -- I've seen your comments at rightwing blogs) than try to get that site banned.

I can only hope other bloggers look at it the same way. After all, if Cao's Blog or Conquer Or Die gets shut down, who's next?

April 28, 2005 at 11:26 AM  
Blogger Jet said...

Thanks for the link information Tom. It's ridiculous to be comtemplating regulation on such an emerging media. It's still evolving, for Pete's sake.

April 28, 2005 at 2:17 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

You're welcome, Jet. We definitely need to keep the Internet free. There are probably too many millions of websites for anyone to regulate, but I'd sure like to have a clearly written law that guarantees protection.

April 28, 2005 at 2:36 PM  
Anonymous American Warmonger said...

As a neo-con, or sort of one, I'd like to say that both sides on this are acting rather childish. It's a bit stupid, really.

The dems say they want to "debate" the people when we all know that most of what will be going on is not debate but delay. The last filibuster I can remember one of the guys was reading a Dick and Jane book for cripes sake!

I'd like to see some reform to force people to at least stay on the friggin' topic.

The other side of this is a bit off as well. We do not need to ban discussion on capitol hill. If we did it would bite us squarely in the arse. Politics is normally a pendulum swing. Unless the Dems totally collapse under Howard "the Scream" Dean the shoe will wind up on the other foot.

Just my two cents.

April 28, 2005 at 11:07 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

American Warmonger: I agree, both sides are acting stupid on the filibuster debate. Both sides have used and abused it in the past, which is why I think the rule should stay unchanged. The pendulum always swings, and someday the Republicans will be the minority party again, and it'll be their turn to filibuster the Democratic president's judicial nominations.

Sure, they get carried away and just babble on about endless unrelated topics (that's all politicians do anyway), but that's how it works. Like we both agree, someday it'll be the Republicans' turn to use the same tactic again.

April 28, 2005 at 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Jeremy said...

The "stay on topic" thing us just me trying to get politicians to get off their fat, lazy arses and do something functional for a change. It'll never happen but I can still hope. :)

April 29, 2005 at 1:05 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jeremy: Politicians getting off their asses and doing something? Dream on :)

April 29, 2005 at 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Goes around comes around...

After watching the fillibuster masterfly being used to delay important civil rights laws for 40 years - now I am supporting it?

I need a drink

and no I wont use Bicardi

Erik

April 29, 2005 at 9:15 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Erik: I'm all for the filibuster now. As Nixon's re-election slogan used to say "now more than ever."

April 30, 2005 at 12:31 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

I think the following is a perfectly good reason to keep the filibuster:

"The Republican Party is a permanent majority for the future of this country. . . . We are going to be able to lead this country in the direction we've been dreaming of for years."
-- Tom Delay, election night, 2004

People like DeLay don't want any checks or balances in place which would prevent his party leadership from completely taking over the country, or which would even slightly hinder their progress. Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum and George W. Bush would like to see the Republican party to be a permanent majority. What does that suggest for those of us who disagree with them? We all know the quote about absolute power...

May 3, 2005 at 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Tom Harper said...

Snave: I remember that quote by DeLay. Yup, DeLay, Frist and Santorum and all the rest of them, they're the best argument for keeping the filibuster. The fact that they're so gung ho about getting rid of it is exactly why we need to keep it. A conservative viewpoint is one thing, but these people are power-crazed and need to be stopped.

May 4, 2005 at 12:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home