email@example.com (Marlan Smith) wrote:
>>We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill. We ask
>>that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the nation
>>at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the Preamble to
>>the Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and ideas
>>across all of our telecommunications services.
This is something (I know, Marlan, you didn't write it) that totally
GETS MY YAK! Look at this drivel, "We 'ask' that the Senate...", totally
programmed 'bot, subservient to the GoverCONSPIRACYnment HE PAYS FOR!
I FLAT OUT DEMAND that the dupes in Washington just blow this fucker off,
as I pay their SALARY! WE ALL DO! This bill is kind of a last straw for
me - they want to restrict access to one of the most open mediums of
communication, GLOBAL COMMUNICATION, in the history of MANKIND (notice:
Yetisyn have a better way, more at 11).
Thermonuclear Terrorist KGB Bomb Kill Death Biological Warfare SETI UFO
Clinton Gore Gingrich Dole Reagan Bush Yeltsin Khaddafy Khomeni Hussein
(blatant CIA/FBI/NSA scan code hook #KP-496)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (- Zorro -)
Ken Braatz <email@example.com> wrote:
>Forget it, the bill will never pass... not as long as Clinton & Gore are
>in office. Even if it did it wouldn't hold up for 2 seconds in the
>Supreme Court. It is a blatant violation of the 1st ammendment.
Hello!? Who was it that climbed in the Partridge family bus and toured
the country lableing records? Who was that thinks they need to approve
music for everyone under 18?
The Republicans are too busy burning Catcher In The Rye, and protecting
children from the obscenity of Micholagelo's David to bother with the
internet and music. But fortunately the the Leftist librals took a time
out from burning Huckleberry Finn and their attacks on Earnest Hemingway,
to take up the cause of saving the people who know what they're doing
(us) from what they are doing.
As much as I'd like to belive it, no one group of people has the patent
on attempts to undermine the first amendment, except the censors.
The Supreme Court? I have nothing but contempt for the highest court in
-=- Excerpt from Supreme court records. -=-
Scaglia sp?: Clarence I want you to burn that musty, tired, old scrap of
paper that is cluttering that monument over there.
Clarence Thomas (CT): Yessa Massa Sur
-=- Excerpt ends -=-
He didn't even have to get the whip folks!
>As far as enforcement, I don't think any of the major service providers
>would change a thing because of what I just said. They all have invested
>_way_ to much $$$ to just drop it.
Hmm....global string search, and extensive liability statements vs. 100
Grand AND 2 years in a lovely fedral prison breaking rocks, getting
knifed while waiting for the telephone, and taking your cell mate up the
Not exactly what I would call "Too close to call."
>Look at it this way: They can't even get Howard Stern off of the air.
They could, but do you really want 2 million gun toteing, New Yorker's,
with an extra 2 hours to kill a day, pissed at you? Me neither.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Lamont)
email@example.com (The Brew Witch) writes:
>Guess again! The moment this goes into effect all the major services will
>drop any newsgroup of a sexual nature. The GOP will have accomplished its
>goal without spending ONE DIME on enforcement. Then they can concentrate
>on picking off the medium operators.
Being more than slightly paranoid, I see more to this than meets the
eye. My current theory is that the Repubnixon Party is in collusion
with the major media brokers (Time-Warner,Murdock,_et_al_) (on second
thought, maybe I should drop the "in collusion" part -- they *are* the
major media brokers) to destroy the current environment of low cost
access by harassing the small service providers into non-existance (or
into being gobbled up by the major media [AsshOLe, Progeny, etc.]).
They really don't give a shit what people say, do, or look at, as long
as someone's making Big Bux off of it. I mean, if the CON gave a damn
about the fake morality they like to spout, would the Playboy channel
be on the cable? Of course not.
When there's a packet meter running on your PeeCee or Maggotbox and
those nickles and dimes are trickling down from you to Rapert
Murderock, you'll be able to say all the naughty words you want cuz
the CON will be reaping the profit$.
Come on, July 5, 1998... I can hardly wait to see the smoldering
cinder of this goddam planet in my rear view mirror.
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- firstname.lastname@example.org
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Luckily for Microsoft, it's difficult to see a naked emperor in the dark."
- Ted Lewis, (former) editor-in-chief, IEEE Computer
Back to document index
Original file name: How_much_do_you_value_yo
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.