  woody7 Premium join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA | hmmm..... would spam come under the heading of "annoying" email? -- BlooMe | |
|
 |  phantom6294
join:2002-02-27 Abingdon, MD | Re: hmmm..... woody7.... I find your web post annoying... give me your real name or I will be forced to place you under citizen's arrest for violating federal law!!!
Sorry... I couldn't refuse.... LOL | |
|
 |  |  GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11 Duluth, GA | Re: hmmm..... You just annoyed me. I'm going one step farther and passing down a silence/gag sentence.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   P2PPirate2
join:2005-02-02 New York, NY | Re: you annoyer So how is this gonna effect foreign posters, are we gonna send in special forces to just arrest them and put in our jail system( I bet most of them would LOVE our:D JAIL System):D:D:D | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   cao1964
join:2000-08-09 Danville, PA
| Re: you annoyer said by P2PPirate2 :So how is this gonna effect foreign posters, are we gonna send in special forces to just arrest them and put in our jail system( I bet most of them would LOVE our:D JAIL System):D:D:D CIA dude CIA, why do you think we have all those clandestine prisons for.
what a bunch bushshit.
Oh is that anoying the president, not sorry. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   MrGoodyGoodyTwoShoes
@comcast.net | I am annoyed. You should have written how is this going to affect (not effect) foreign posters? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   mrchris We don't miss you Bush Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | Re: you annoyer It's no better with you QUOTING the long smiley line either. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   mikesb A Bottle Of Carbonated Love
join:2001-11-07 Pittsburgh, PA | Re: you annoyer Someone let mrchris in on the joke. | |
|
 |  GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11 Duluth, GA
| Better yet, would Spam from politician be considered under this law? It would help me to not place myself into serving time for shooting the political monkeys. 
And what is defined as being Anonymous? I'm betting the gross majority of people publishing {annoying} words on the Internet are doing so anonymously. Does the federal and state prison system have capacity for, say, 150 Million people?
I claim all of you are annoying me (just kidding). Go to jail, annoyances!  | |
|
 |  DarkSithPro
join:2005-02-12 Huntington Beach, CA | Wow. This is very unbelievable. | |
|
 |  |  clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22 GA
1 edit | Re: hmmm..... Not with this Government.
Personal freedom really seems under attack, from knowing where your financial transactions go, to email harvesting, to phone call taps, to holding people outside the scope of the constitution.
I voted republican, but I'll probably never do it again. When you really look at what they said they stand for vs what we got, its night and day. Our deficit grew by a scale just in the time it took me to write this post. | |
|
 |  |  |   oliphant I Have 8 Boobies Premium join:2004-11-26 Corona, CA
| Re: hmmm..... said by clecrupt9 :I voted republican, but I'll probably never do it again. Same here. -- WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: hmmm..... That is what you get for being blind to what is important and voting blindly for everything based on a stupid party.
Voting by party indicates one of 2 things: Laziness or Stupidity. Lazy because you don't want to put forth the effort to validate your own votes based on the available facts. And/or reading and actually individually selecting canidates requires too much energy to get that chad all the way out. Stupid, because you don't know any better and think it is OK because you probably wouldnt understand what it is you are voting for anyway.
In a VERY rare case, every candidate of a party may be the best choice making this OK. However, I have been a voter for about 20 years now and I am yet to see that phenomenon happen. I would even like to be able to pick a President and a Vice President individually as the 2 yahoos they put together don't make up the best bunch sometimes.
The fact that the parties even make it so you can so blindly do it should be a sign to you. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   oliphant I Have 8 Boobies Premium join:2004-11-26 Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: hmmm..... Hardly...this is what we get for having the PRIMARY system we have. Doesn't matter the party...the kooks of the party vote for their guy so the choice comes down to who you think the lesser of the two kooks are. I still maintain that Kerry is a bigger kook, but others...a few million less, think Bush was the bigger kook.
Until the primary system is changed so that moderates of either party have a snowball's chance, we'll continue choosing between 2 or 3 kooks and 1/2 of the population will be pissed, while the other 1/2 is disappointed. -- WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: hmmm..... I can't argue with that. Just about the entire political makeup of the US needs to be revamped. All the way from the legal bribe money (contributions) to the primaries.
There is always such a big push to separate church and state (which was never a part of the original constitution) and yet there is no push to separate state from the true power source problem (money, i.e. bribery). | |
|
 |  |  |  john262
join:2003-09-26 Elko, NV | Remember that this law was passed unanimously, which means that all of the Democrats signed off on it too. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  TheGhost Premium join:2003-01-03 Lake Forest, IL clubs: | Re: hmmm..... Hey - don't throw logic or truth at people who bash republicans, they might not be able to handle it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   jap Premium join:2003-08-10 038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: hmmm..... said by TheGhost :Hey - don't throw logic or truth at people who bash republicans, they might not be able to handle it. I can handle it six ways to Sunday: there is no logic in suggesting *anyone* voted on the provision in question. If you read the linked article you would know that quote: "Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice."
And buried it is.
This amendment was filed on December 16th against a funding bill that's been on the hill since last summer. You have no business even mentioning logic if you think anyone was voting on this tiny and buried provision folded into a massive bill 4 days prior to holiday recess and voted upon 3 days after returning.
Legistlative aids are digesting the problems with the language the same time you & I are: when private sector watch-dogs have managed to combed the text, sussed the ramifications, and circulate a position statement on it. Looks like plain bad law making to me, having little to do with party politics. | |
|
 |  |  |   TechieZero Tools Are Using Me Premium join:2002-01-25 Wesley Chapel, FL
| said by clecrupt9 :Not with this Government. Personal freedom really seems under attack, from knowing where your financial transactions go, to email harvesting, to phone call taps, to holding people outside the scope of the constitution. I voted republican, but I'll probably never do it again. When you really look at what they said they stand for vs what we got, its night and day. Our deficit grew by a scale just in the time it took me to write this post. WTF are you talking about?
No freedom of speech rights are being violated and any other kitchen sink topic you want to throw in. -- Do you own/manage a barn with lesson horses? Go here! »www.otsysinc.com/EquiSense.htm | |
|
 |   mrchris We don't miss you Bush Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | lolol this is so retarded, I don't even think Bush knows much about the technological world out there.  | |
|
 |  |   cao1964
join:2000-08-09 Danville, PA
| Re: hmmm..... said by mrchris :lolol this is so retarded, I don't even think Bush knows much about the technological world out there. What does he know that is my question, have to wonder? | |
|
 |   zcd Condom Sense
join:2001-10-03 Grand Prairie, TX clubs: | Dictatorship: ~2,347 / Freedom: 0 -- -Zach | |
|
 |  |   blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05 Waterloo, ON | Re: Wins to Losses harsh. | |
|
  phxmark What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27 Glendale, AZ | Our leadership is annoying See title. | |
|
  toadlife Premium join:2004-05-03 Lemoore, CA | I looked at the calendar... ...but it doesn't say April 1st.
WTF?! -- Security is a process, not a Penquin. | |
|
 |
 |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
  wdoa
join:2001-10-16 Spencer, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Congress is clueless on technology issues This is just another example of the general ignorance in many of our politicians with regards to technology issues.
It may sound crazy, but it makes me want to see questions put to candidates that would give us some indication as to whether they have a basic understanding of computers and the internet.
I really think the vast majority do not, and the harm they can do in their ignorance is extensive. | |
|
 |   ropeguru Premium join:2001-01-25 Bridgeport, WV clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Congress is clueless on technology issues said by wdoa :This is just another example of the general ignorance in many of our politicians with regards to technology issues. It may sound crazy, but it makes me want to see questions put to candidates that would give us some indication as to whether they have a basic understanding of computers and the internet. I really think the vast majority do not, and the harm they can do in their ignorance is extensive. Not only that, but a general waste of time when they should be working on issues like high fuel prices... -- FWD#: 223611 | |
|
 |
 |  See 34 replies to this post |
|
 |
 |   hpguru Curb Your Dogma Premium join:2002-04-12
| Re: Doesn't this conflict with COPPA? Doesn't this conflict with the First Amendment??
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
I figured the fascists in DC would have gone after gun ownership before the First Amendment. I suppose from their perspective it makes more sense to first round up all those who are sounding the alarms.  -- Get hpHOSTS! Member ASAP Paranoia is no substitute for understanding. | |
|
  TheMadSwede Premium join:2001-01-30 Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Am I blind? Obviously, I ain't no lawyer, but I read the revisions for the 'cyberstalking' section on each version of the bill on THOMAS and couldn't find anything the CNET guy described. Where can I find that stuff? -- home | |
|
 |  phantom6294
join:2002-02-27 Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Am I blind? I am with you... this link should be the entire text as passed by both House and Senate and assumingly the version signed by the President...
...yet, I cannot find the word "annoy" in it. The CNET article supposedly quotes the bill as "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." The problem is, I cannot find that quote....
So, where exactly did CNET pull that quote from??? | |
|
 |  |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 | Re: Am I blind? You'll have to get them to stand up to see... -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 |  |   AmeritecTech Change we can believe in, 1922 Premium join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX
| said by phantom6294 :I am with you... this link should be the entire text as passed by both House and Senate and assumingly the version signed by the President... ...yet, I cannot find the word "annoy" in it. The CNET article supposedly quotes the bill as "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." The problem is, I cannot find that quote.... So, where exactly did CNET pull that quote from??? It actually amends existing law to define a telecommunications device as any device or software that uses the internet. To find the word annoy, you will have to go to the law that the new Act amends that prohibits annoying phone calls. -- "Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
|
 |   AmeritecTech Change we can believe in, 1922 Premium join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX
| Here we go:
SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; (B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications; (D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or (2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the Page 55 Communications Act of 1934 55 intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. »64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eT···irefox-a
The communication has to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent. -- "Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
|
 |  |   TheMadSwede Premium join:2001-01-30 Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Am I blind? said by AmeritecTech :Here we go: SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; The communication has to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent. Thanks.
The word annoy is indeed used, but given the context, along with the inclusion of descriptions for the content of the comment, request, etc. (obscene, lewed, etc.), I think it's safe to say the sky might have some cracks in it, but it definitely isn't falling. -- home | |
|
  manfmmd Premium join:2003-01-14 Earth clubs: | This is just.... an expansion of the law that applies to harrassing someone over the phone or through the mail. Why is this news? -- huh? | AIM | |
|
 |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: This is just.... said by manfmmd : Why is this news? It isn't. Citing CNet for legal news is rather odd, too, and it happened four days ago. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 |  |  achuchma
join:2001-04-11 Tampa, FL
| Re: This is just.... said by RadioDoc :It isn't. Citing CNet for legal news is rather odd, too, and it happened four days ago. Slow news day, I guess... -- Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
|
  Anonymous Premium join:2004-06-01 IA | WTF? I guess I'll have to change my user name now 
What a bunch of morons...:(
So proxy software and any other tool that will shield your identity is illegal now? | |
|
 |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: WTF? said by Anonymous : So proxy software and any other tool that will shield your identity is illegal now? If you use it to threaten or harass someone, yes. Of course, threats and harassment are illegal by themselves, so this is just another layer of warm fuzzy meaning nothing. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 |   manfmmd Premium join:2003-01-14 Earth clubs:
| said by Anonymous :I guess I'll have to change my user name now  What a bunch of morons...:( So proxy software and any other tool that will shield your identity is illegal now? LOL You didn't get used to that name did you??
[OT]
Who f'ed up their posting tags causing the blown right margin? -- huh? | AIM | Utopia does not exist. | |
|
 |  |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: WTF? said by manfmmd : [OT] Who f'ed up their posting tags causing the blown right margin? Smiley boy: »Annoy me Anonymously, Go to Jail
I hit hey-mods to get it broken up some. You should too. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 |  |  phantom6294
join:2002-02-27 Abingdon, MD | It was CoxCable4 who had a long unbroken line of stuff....
and since that is annoying... s/he should be arrested, unless of course s/he discloses his/her name. | |
|
 |  |   Anonymous Premium join:2004-06-01 IA
·Mediacom
1 edit | said by manfmmd :said by Anonymous :I guess I'll have to change my user name now  What a bunch of morons...:( So proxy software and any other tool that will shield your identity is illegal now? LOL  You didn't get used to that name did you?? [OT] Who f'ed up their posting tags causing the blown right margin? Who ever posted bunch of smileys... | |
|
  Random Outlaw
@151.143.x.x | Freedom to Annoy When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free. | |
|
 RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
| I can see the anti Bush comments. Bush is damned if he signed it and damned if he did not. I guess people like "clecrupt" think women being abused is less important than the minor addition of this little rider and that President Bush should have vetoed the bill and told women tough??
Instead of blaming Bush, blame both the Democrats and Republicans (and all the other 'parties' for not getting rid of the rider system.
Remember, a majority of the Senate and of the House AGREED to this bill and to the addition of the rider, why does not anyone take them to task? -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
 |  clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22 GA | Re: I can see the anti Bush comments. Don't put words in my mouth.
My post was deeper than just this. In case you didn't notice the government is much bigger. I never mentioned Bush anyways. | |
|
 |   IIIBradIII Comm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28 Greer, SC | Thank you for interjecting some clarity.
Folks like packetscan should sit up and take notice. | |
|
 |  |   packetscan Premium join:2004-10-19 Bridgeport, CT clubs:
·Optimum Online
| Re: I can see the anti Bush comments. said by IIIBradIII :Thank you for interjecting some clarity. Folks like packetscan should sit up and take notice. Folks Like who? You need to chill with the personal insults.
I'm sorry that you think i don't care about woman's rights. I don't want to see any more of our constitutional rights removed and or stepped over in the name of "security". Next we'll need a two tier internet for "security". When does the bull crap end? really?
You think these representatives care about woman's rights? It would not have been tucked into a Spending Bill had they actually given a hoot. -- Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|
 |  |  |   IIIBradIII Comm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28 Greer, SC
| Re: I can see the anti Bush comments. Folks like you, which is why I put your username there. 
And what was insulting about that? If you'd like I could say a few things, but I figured most of what I was thinking was already apparent to most readers of the entire topic anyway.  -- »www.FS2004.com Remember, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. | |
|
 phantom6294
join:2002-02-27 Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| A cool-headed, logical view of the situation... Okay... my personal opinion is that the CNET article has blown this out of proportion, so I am going to try and do a level-headed explanation.
The bill that was signed by the President included a section which amended an existing law. The existing law is the Telecommunications Act of 1934. In the Telecommuncations Act of 1934 it states:
"Whoever... (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;.. shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The text of the amendment that was passed into law states:
"by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
'(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'."
So, what does this mean? The original law simply stated "telephone call" and as we all know, the meaning of "telephone call" has been stretched with new technologies such as VoIP. Imagine for a moment that someone used Skype (the premium service) to make a "telephone call" to your house using a POTS number to harass/annoy you. Does that fall under the original framework of the law??? Who knows.
That the amendment does, in part, is close a (potential?) loophole that technology has created.
The BBR headline that says President Bush "signed into law a prohibition of posting annoying Web messages" is MIS-LEADING and in my humble opinion... FALSE.
The reason? The original law states "at the called number or who receives the communications." Posting on a website, IMHO, does not constitute a "called number" nor does it constitute "receiv[ing a] communcation."
So, all this fuss is for NOTHING. | |
|
 |   DSL4Brains Premium join:2003-08-26 Portland, OR
| Re: A cool-headed, logical view of the situation... said by phantom6294 :Posting on a website, IMHO, does not constitute a "called number" nor does it constitute "receiv[ing a] communcation." So, all this fuss is for NOTHING. Oh? When were you nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court? | |
|
 |  |  phantom6294
join:2002-02-27 Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Re: A cool-headed, logical view of the situation.. said by DSL4Brains :Oh? When were you nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court? Right before Bush nominated Harriet Miers... but it didn't make the news for one reason or another. 
My point is that I fail to see the leap from telephone calls to web postings based on the amendment that was signed into law. The CNET article is misleading because, IMHO, it's the author's interpretation of the amendment and I think it's an absurd interpretation.
The key text of the original law is "at the called number or receives the communication." The amendment DID NOT CHANGE this but rather added devices/software which originate a communication that transmitts via the Internet; an example might be Skype.
Granted... I am not in a position to define "receives the communication" but posting a message to a website doesn't qualify IMHO. | |
|
 |  |  |   jap Premium join:2003-08-10 038xx | Re: A cool-headed, logical view of the situation.. phantom6294,
Thanks for digging down into the text and offering an assessment. As presented, your conclusion appears sound to me. Spector, relative to his party brethren, is cautious on privacy issues, so if intent means anything ... | |
|
  MysticGogeta The Robot Devil Premium join:2005-03-14 League City, TX clubs: | How about the blocked phone calls? I hate reading the caller id seeing blocked call privite calles that pisses me off to  | |
|
 |  |
  WaxPhoto I AM SAM Premium join:2004-04-08 Roanoke, IN
| Should change a few things... Maybe this will afford the SCOTUS the chance to update & mondernize their "community standards" precedent when this "law" is challenged in court.
In the meantime, I'll do my part by conducting civil disobedience in regards to this law.  -- *Formerly known as LitteredMind* To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. -George Orwell | |
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
| FOUR WORDS BUSH IS AN IDIOT. Well morons that voted for this guy, you reap what you sow... This president has past a patriot act that violates many of our rights.. Lied to the American People about going to Iraq.. Fucked the US economy.. Wiretapped Americans secretly, and now silencing freedom of speech.. Well there you go.. TOLD YOU SO.. why am I being a condescending jerk?? I am really sick of hearing Bush supporters saying how great he was / is. This man is no more than a dictator, making laws that are taking the fundamental rights away from Americans... Next time vote Democrat and we wouldn't be in this mess. | |
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
| BUSH IS AN IDIOT. Well morons that voted for this guy, you reap what you sow... This president has past a patriot act that violates many of our rights.. Lied to the American People about going to Iraq.. Messed up the US economy.. Wiretapped Americans secretly, and now silencing freedom of speech.. Well there you go.. TOLD YOU SO.. why am I being a condescending jerk?? I am really sick of hearing Bush supporters saying how great he was / is. This man is no more than a dictator, making laws that are taking the fundamental rights away from Americans... Next time vote Democrat and we wouldn't be in this mess. | |
|
 |   AmeritecTech Change we can believe in, 1922 Premium join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX
| Re: FOUR WORDS said by jc100 :BUSH IS AN IDIOT. Well morons that voted for this guy, you reap what you sow... This president has past a patriot act that violates many of our rights.. Lied to the American People about going to Iraq.. Messed up the US economy.. Wiretapped Americans secretly, and now silencing freedom of speech.. Well there you go.. TOLD YOU SO.. why am I being a condescending jerk?? I am really sick of hearing Bush supporters saying how great he was / is. This man is no more than a dictator, making laws that are taking the fundamental rights away from Americans... Next time vote Democrat and we wouldn't be in this mess. The vast majority of Democrats helped to pass the PATRIOT Act. The vast majority of Democrats helped to pass this telecom amendment. Top Congressional Democrats were advised that the President was tapping lines and did nothing.
Voting for Democrats leaves us no better off. -- "Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
|
 |  |  8744675
join:2000-10-10 Decatur, GA | Re: FOUR WORDS Bush promised a regime change. I guess by that he meant a democratic Iraq and US dick-tatorship. | |
|
 |  |  |  ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Re: FOUR WORDS said by 8744675 :Bush promised a regime change. I guess by that he meant a democratic Iraq and US dick-tatorship. I believe you misspelled that. It should be dick-tator-chip... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |   cableties Premium join:2005-01-27
·Verizon FIOS
| What does this have to do with just one person?
You are the idiot. Is four words...;)
First, we have an entrenched (mired) politcal machine of lawyers that for over the last 50+ years have been in office (senate & house) and have done nothing but protect THEIR own best interests and not that of the American people (see majority..not minority). These lawyers have written the laws so they only can interpret them and install them. And when a law passes (see the bankruptcy-Personal changes that went into effect) chances are their is another reason and its not to protect you and I (but banks, telcos, insurers, oil, auto, media...). You have email, right? The nwrite your congressmen (person). Write them and call them trolls. Or rather, write them and get others to. "We, the people, are pissed off at you and you ain't getting re-elected..."
You want to blame someone, start with yourself for allowing the local politicians, and the cronies, and the lawyers (former realtors) and governors that eventually writh their way into congress with only one agenda: their own.
Either bring facts about why this law is bogus (and will eventually get a fight from EFF and ACLU as whistle-blower law will conflict with this one...etc...) or shutup with the finger pointing.
I do not agree with your disagreement, nor do I disagree with your agreement. Jeesh. More coffee please!:p | |
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Well the vast majority did on the lies Bush fed them... Many now regret it..Hence the holdup on reapproving it indefinitely there.. So yes, while the democrats ROYALLY MESSED UP believing Bush, they are doing something about it. Flipside, almost every republican approved it and STILL DOES... Isn't the republican party suppose to object to big government, or does big brother not fall into the same category.. Thinks President numbnuts... Do us a favor and send yourself to Iraq... 2500 Americans dead because of your lies...Go show us how its done and join them on the front lines since your policy loves to deceive. | |
|
 |  RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
| Re: RE: DEMS said by jc100 :Well the vast majority did on the lies Bush fed them... Many now regret it..Hence the holdup on reapproving it indefinitely there.. So yes, while the democrats ROYALLY MESSED UP believing Bush, they are doing something about it. Flipside, almost every republican approved it and STILL DOES... Isn't the republican party suppose to object to big government, or does big brother not fall into the same category.. Thinks President numbnuts... Do us a favor and send yourself to Iraq... 2500 Americans dead because of your lies...Go show us how its done and join them on the front lines since your policy loves to deceive. Or did Bush Believe Various Democratic Lies and Many are Dead? Interesting how many people of both parties insisted that something needed to be done to Saddam, yet when Bush followed up, now it is only his lies. Our most powerful president ever, able to destroy the US economy over a month before taking office, even before being allowed into the White House by Clinton for his briefings. But all that is off the topic and media hype.
You may want to see who were the apparent co-sponsors of the bill's rider that amended another law and is getting so much overblown hype. It appears that a Republican was the sponsor, and three Democrats were co-sponsors (including Kennedy). But considering how convoluted those bills can be, that will be for you to trace. -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
 bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
| How is this law even remotely close to being enforceable ?
I'm beginning to think that everyone in the goverments of this nation - local, state and federal - is about as dumb as you can get when it comes down to technical issues like computers and the internet, among others like science, etc. -- Rand's Objectivism... Everything BUT objective. | |
|
 |   DivineDark
join:2001-08-30 Oklahoma City, OK clubs: | OH NOEZ! This law serves no purpose because a "Order Of Protection" already covers this. So now you or your Ex can now get the other one put in jail without court! This is crazy. | |
|
  Jafo232 You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat. Premium join:2002-10-17 Boonville, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Let us not forget the SPONSORS of this:
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL] Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R-FL] Rep. Christopher Cannon [R-UT] Rep. John Coble [R-NC] Rep. John Conyers [D-MI] Rep. James Gibbons [R-NV] Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX] Rep. Mark Green [R-WI] Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX] Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA] Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY] Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX] Rep. Deborah Pryce [R-OH] Rep. Linda Sanchez [D-CA] Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA] Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA] Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA] Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA] Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY]
»www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp···109-3402 -- Design, Hosting, Programming At MediaFlavor.com. | |
|
 |   jap Premium join:2003-08-10 038xx | Re: Umm Bush Bashing? Erm, that's the whole funding bill. The last minute Amendment stuffing was the handywork of Arlen Spector's office (R, Pennsylvania), it's sole Sponsor, with support from Leahy, Kennedy, Biden. | |
|
 |
|
 |