21.   Opponents counter that such limits would impinge on First Amendment freedom of speech.

22.   Opponents countered that the funding was excessive and should be spent on non-defense domestic programs.

23.   Opponents countered that the measure would benefit primarily the wealthy while increasing the national debt.

24.   Opponents countered that the measure would punish legitimate victims of medical neglect.

25.   Opponents countered that tighter restrictions on political money would weaken the political parties and raised questions about the constitutionality of proposed limits on TV issue ads.

26.   The opponents counter that such an amendment would make it harder to respond to emergencies like recessions and military threats and would jeopardize Social Security benefits.

27.   The trade-off, opponents counter, would be a debilitating slowdown of economic growth in areas found in violation of the new standards.

28.   Democratic opponents countered that Republicans were playing politics in an election year, particularly by offering gruesome accounts of the procedure.

29.   Opponents counter that a unilateral withdrawal would be interpreted by the Palestinians as a sign of weakness and would only increase the violence.

30.   Opponents counter that policy-making is the responsibility of government and complain that the bill cedes extraordinary power to a contractor.