Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Annoy me Anonymously, Go to Jail
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Comments on news posted 2006-01-09 13:08:21: Though not broadband related it may be of interest to users in our forums (annoyers and annoyees alike): CNET reports that last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messag.. ..

page: 1 · 2

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.

TheSaint

join:2002-01-25
Hanover Park, IL
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·Comcast

Re: hmmm.....

Aren't we going to ban all of the BBR forum users then? Erm, not ban, throw in jail?

I'd like to hear of the first case where this is enforced.

anoying_user



Re: hmmm.....

 
STFU

Annoy me Anonymously

@adelphia.net

Re: hmmm.....

-nice one

note: adelphia.net
is not my real ISP lol

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast


1 edit

Will BBR have to end posting names ??

Does this mean BBR and other forums that discuss controversial and annoying subjects will have to end the use of posting names? All posts will have to include a users real name(and address??) if posts are going to be annoying.

I doubt this will withstand constitutional scrutiny. But until this is overturned it will make for some interesting communications between web site owners and annoyed complaining users with lawyers. I wonder how many web sites will cave in or close down over this.

Will BBR shut down the social forums(Red Room, Blue Room, etc.)? Or end replies to front page news items?

We'll have to wait and see.

P.S. I see this got thru under the politically correct cover of protecting women from stalking. Where were all the liberals that scream free speech?? I guess when the goal is a politically correct one, other freedoms mean a lot less.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page

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 See Profile :

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

packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online


1 edit

Waste of Tax dollars

ARE YOU $%#^@&% KIDDING ME!

This is what we are discussing in congress?

I signed the Petition to Impeach this Loser!
»www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
--
Who do you want to pay off today?

See 34 replies to this post

PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:

Doesn't this conflict with COPPA?

see title.

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

[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 See Profile :

said by Anonymous See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast

Re: How about the blocked phone calls?

said by MysticGogeta See Profile :

I hate reading the caller id seeing blocked call privite calles that pisses me off to
Agree - since most of the people I know don't do this, I only pick up these calls when I am expecting a work/business related call, otherwise, to the answering machine.

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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...

Blackraven
I Am Always Left
Premium
join:2005-06-27
USA.

Re: FOUR WORDS

said by ross See Profile :

said by 8744675 See Profile :

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...
Good one! Guess I better phone the White House If I have to go to the Batroom! I go there to see Bat Man! Guess I better say I love Bush! ((Gag))) !
--
Mission Accomplished!Hey Dick, what was that word the TV just used to describe Iraq? Quig-mer? Is that good or bad?

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 See Profile :

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.
Forums » Annoy me Anonymously, Go to Jailpage: 1 · 2


Wednesday, 09-Dec 20:40:03 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF