Has the US Senate voted against free speech??

[ronaldo]

Has the the Senate voted against free speech in their resolution condemning Moveon.org and the add about General Petraeus in the New York Times?
I believe they have come very close, but I am not quite sure.
What do you all think?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/10062

Also here is the list of senators and how they voted.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

[Mystic]

Are you saying that the Senate should not be able to speak?

[trumptman]

Having an opinion about the speech of someone else is now preventing free speech and might even be a form of hate speech itself if you don't like the opinion.

We live in interesting times.

Nick

[Jubelum]

This is not a first amendment issue. This is not making a law abridging anyone's right. At all. They are voting to express a collective, symbolic opinion. I agree with the previous comment that WTF were the far left whacky senators thinking when voting NO to condemning an ad smearing a US general. They should have put forth their own symbolic vote- but voting NO was stupid.

At least Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, Reid, Waxman, Laut, etc know where their money comes from- the same people who support the trashing of Petraeus. Quite literally "invested in defeat."

[tonton]

This is not a first amendment issue. This is not making a law abridging anyone's right. At all. They are voting to express a collective, symbolic opinion. I agree with the previous comment that WTF were the far left whacky senators thinking when voting NO to condemning an ad smearing a US general. They should have put forth their own symbolic vote- but voting NO was stupid.

At least Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, Reid, Waxman, Laut, etc know where their money comes from- the same people who support the trashing of Petraeus. Quite literally "invested in defeat."

No. These people are the people with a spine. If they criticize Petraeus, it's because they know better than to let someone incompetent (and by incompetent I mean posting someone else's opinion as their own) off the hook "at times of war" just because of some false assertion that it somehow "aids and comforts" the enemy.

If they felt the ad was fair and legal it is because they did enough research to be aware of the fact that the same price would have been offered to a Swift Boat campaign under the same situation.

On the contrary, the Dems who voted "yes" did so either because they've drunk the "aid and comfort" koolaid or because they are afraid of political backlash if they voted with their conscience. Or they are too stupid, lazy or incompetent to have done the appropriate research.

And the ad wasn't "smearing" a US general. It was criticizing one. Learn the difference.

[franksargent]

No. These people are the people with a spine. If they criticize Petraeus, it's because they know better than to let someone incompetent (and by incompetent I mean posting someone else's opinion as their own) off the hook "at times of war" just because of some false assertion that it somehow "comforts" the enemy.

If they say the ad was fair and legal it is because they did enough research to be aware of the fact that the same price would have been offered to a Swift Boat campaign under the same situation.

On the contrary, the Dems who voted "yes" did so either because they've drunk the "aid and comfort" koolaid or because they are afraid of political backlash if they voted with their conscience. Or they are too stupid, lazy or incompetent to have done the appropriate research.

SOP politics!

Go figure, almost all the D's who voted "Yea" are in states that should have contested elections for the incumbent D's (i. e. red/puurple state), or a pretty much a "give it to them" pre-election winner because of their prior record in past elections or are in a fairly solid blue state to begin with, so it doesn't matter which way they voted.

Did I hear someone say term limits? :rolleyes:

[ronaldo]

Are you saying that the Senate should not be able to speak?

No I'm not saying that they should not be allowed speak. I am just curious about what you all think about this.

[tonton]

SOP politics!

Go figure, almost all the D's who voted "Yea" are in states that should have contested elections for the incumbent D's (i. e. red/puurple state), or a pretty much a "give it to them" pre-election winner because of their prior record in past elections or are in a fairly solid blue state to begin with, so it doesn't matter which way they voted.

Did I hear someone say term limits? :rolleyes:

???

Anyway, I'm sure you don't believe "political backlash" limits itself to voters.

[franksargent]

???

Anyway, I'm sure you don't believe "political backlash" limits itself to voters.

Look, I could take a few hours to prove my point, time I don't have at the moment, but just review the D's who voter for or against this "so called" bill (nee "political theater"), like I did. Sure there are a handful of D outliers (but all those are in "safe" political positions IMHO).

And since when has politics ever been logical or rational? :lol: Political "science?" :lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol: An oxymoron if there ever was one! :D

Politics is just so "emo kid," always has been, always will be! Don't all politicians have two faces, like we all do, it's called hypocrisy? :lol:

[SDW2001]

Has the the Senate voted against free speech in their resolution condemning Moveon.org and the add about General Petraeus in the New York Times?
I believe they have come very close, but I am not quite sure.
What do you all think?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/10062

Also here is the list of senators and how they voted.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

One word:

No.