| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Comments:
<0> no... but we all think it
<1> Janet: right.. and its the duty of a father to think about what could happen to their kids, and make reasonable attempts to prevent it
<0> but then again thats why I own guys that are easily accessable to me
<1> other than "hey, i expect the police to do everything"
<1> guys? *smile*
<2> watching the re-run of alito's speech in the senate judiciary committer. so far he has said nothing about being a judge. just a person and family history
<0> guns
<0> hahahha
<1> janet: I know, which is my point.
<2> what's alito trying to hide
<3> It's not known if Bryan and Kathy owned a gun
<1> sheep, who blindly rely on the police to defned them, who don't do ANYTHING..
<0> mangelo.. thats what they do the first day sheesh
<3> But frankly, owning a gun is no guarantee that this won't happen
<3> so it's silly and callous to look for ways to blame crime victims, imo.
<0> Katey-.. no it isn't, but you at least have a better chance of surival
<1> katey: of course not. But a father of a family should take self defense courses.. and should have a defensive wapon at the ready
<3> The blame rests soley on the perpetrators
<1> Janet: indeed.
<4> katey
<5> No more Offensive Colors.
<1> Janet: its all bout furthering the chances
<2> using colors on irc now is a federal crime
<1> That is why we wear seatbelts. We dont want to get in an accident.. but we dont want to rely on 911 only.
<1> part of the duty of the family is, to protect itself.
<1> that is the primary duty of the parents: the wellfare of the children
<3> anyway, I'll bbl. If discussion here is going to be Lupine attacking the character of good people (whom I knew and cared about) because they don't wear a side arm 24/7, then I've got nothing to add to that.
<1> but I guess i'm old and stodgy :-)
<1> lol
<4> anti-trolling law , http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=418479&st=0&#entry587039908
<4> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news
<1> well, maybe katey will at least put 911 on speed dial.. *sigh*
<4> It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
<1> society continues to spiral downward
<4> In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
<1> redfish: yea, but not IRC ;-)
<6> redfish actually anywhere on the internet
<0> giid cause I hate spam e-mail
<0> good
<6> Whoever...utilizes 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... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or har*** any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
<6> dumbest ****ing thing Bush has ever signed
<2> no it's not. just siging george bush is dumb in itself
<7> I'm trying to figure out what is a bigger threat to my civil liberties Bush with the NSA or Bush with Alito
<1> well, it *WAS* a tiny rider stuck on to a very large bill.
<2> all of the above
<6> Lupine there's no excuse
<6> he signed a rotten steamy pile of ****
<1> deku: Fiengold/Kennedy/Pelosi/Hillary/etc with their ***ault ont eh 2nd
<6> you can't define 'annoy'
<2> it might be a tiny rider but it a very big implication
<1> bud: I do not know the full content of the bill. But the unfortunately truth is.. the REAL problme is with the ability for anyone to add anything to a bill
<0> what was the other bills attatched and what was the main bill?
<2> there should be laws against those riders
<1> mangelo: I agree, 100%
<6> Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act
<1> but, if you believe the idea "you can't sign on any bill if .01% of the bill is a bitter-pill".. you'll stall EVERYTHING
<0> they tried that with line item veto.. SCOTUS over ruled it
<1> oh wait.. maybe that IS good :-)
<1> janet: in many states, you can not add riders that are independant/irrelevent ot the main bill
<2> (1) no items shoud be allowed to be attached to a funding bill except the funding stuff
<4> lupine or line item veto :/
<6> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:
<0> bud`.. then blame the internet bill on the person that attached it
<6> that thing
<2> (2) all bills should be single item bills
<6> JanetB that doesn't excuse the president
<1> well, line item veto is a cl***ic example of one wrong begetting a second wrong
<2> bush would not have vetoed that annoyin annoyance bill
<0> bud.. oh yes it does
<1> bud: so IOW, any single representative can effectively veto any bill?
<1> yea!!
<6> JanetB you're starting to annoy me, I require your name and address now or I'm calling the feds
<2> lol
<0> bud... call them :)
<6> hehe
<1> IP address = identity =-)
<2> hnnnn
<6> gah don't eeven bother defending this one. it'
<6> s stupid
<2> if they don't know your identity how are they going to find you to arrest you
<6> and we all know it is
<6> H.R.3402
<4> morgan stanley advisors are unusually devoted to my life
<8> you must be rich then
<9> I cant find my medication!
<0> how can you lose medication?
<9> I dunno..help me find it. Im becoming delusional!
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#delphi
#hardware
#beginner
#sql
failed with status 195887120
#politics
#beginner
#microsoft
#computers
cumoneileen .ru
|
|