Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Day’s Website Discovered

By Greg L | 3 May 2007 | 31st HOD District | 9 Comments

William Day, who is the Democrat challenging Scott Lingamfelter in the 31st District, has been somewhat of an enigma as he hasn’t had a web presence or published his policy positions. About the only information we know about him has come from an interview in the Fauquier Times-Democrat, and today’s Manassas Journal-Messenger article. I guess with his recent press visibility, it finally became time to unveil his website, which I stumbled across looking for background information today at www.voteday.org.

I have to admit it’s a pretty creative legislative strategy to try to hypnotize the General Assembly during votes. I don’t think anyone has tried that before.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. Gurduloo said on 3 May 2007 at 2:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    That website’s really funny. But I wonder - what are the rules for finance disclosure on something like that?

  2. AWCheney said on 3 May 2007 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s a joke, right??

  3. Batson D. Belfrey said on 3 May 2007 at 4:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Must Vote for Day….Must Vote for Day…..Must vote for…er. ah. what happened? I went to the site and slipped into a trance.

  4. James Young said on 3 May 2007 at 10:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gorduloo is probably right. Whoever’s responsible for that should probably check on that.

  5. Anonymous said on 3 May 2007 at 11:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    It does need to be listed who paid for and authorized the site.

  6. Greg L said on 3 May 2007 at 11:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interesting question. Why should whoever did this site have to do that? If a citizen decides to engage in political speech, in this case clearly a parody, and doesn’t apparently expend a large amount of money in order to do so, why should they be required to follow government regulations?

    Don’t First Amendment liberties apply to political speech? Do any of us put up a “paid for and authorized by” disclosure at the end of every comment we post where we might advocate for or against a candidate for office?

  7. James Young said on 4 May 2007 at 12:31 am:
    Flag comment

    To answer your question, Greg, not any more. See McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

  8. Greg L said on 4 May 2007 at 1:07 am:
    Flag comment

    I seem to recall a case — although the citation eludes me — that we do not have an obligation to comply with unconstitutional laws. Of course that requires a determination that the law in question is in fact unconstitutional, but “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” seems pretty clear to me.

    I wonder, do you think this could turn into a test case?

  9. James Young said on 6 May 2007 at 7:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    You know, Greg, you cite the plain language of the First Amendment, and that imperative “no Law” part, and all I can hear in my head is Beavis and Butt-head and their “heh, heh,” “heh, heh.”

    At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what Congress and the courts frequently do in response to the plain text.

Comments are closed.

Views: 1718