|
Grex > Agora56 > #2: General Announcements - Winter 2005/06 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 253 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 52 of 253:
| 
Jan 5 19:01 UTC 2006 |
(How boring.....)
|
trap
|
|
response 53 of 253:
|
Jan 5 19:06 UTC 2006 |
:)
|
scholar
|
|
response 54 of 253:
|
Jan 5 22:23 UTC 2006 |
I"M GOING TO MAQKE A BIKE OPATH UP JEP"S BACK IF HE KEEPOS POSTING UNWANTED
ANNOUNCEMENTS
|
trap
|
|
response 55 of 253:
|
Jan 6 01:14 UTC 2006 |
vote to impeach scoundrel bush:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
|
trap
|
|
response 56 of 253:
|
Jan 6 01:14 UTC 2006 |
vote to impeach scoundrel bush:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
|
trap
|
|
response 57 of 253:
|
Jan 6 01:15 UTC 2006 |
vote to impeach scoundrel bush:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
|
trap
|
|
response 58 of 253:
|
Jan 6 01:17 UTC 2006 |
vote to impeach scoundrel bush:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
vote to impeach scoundrel bush:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
|
johnnie
|
|
response 59 of 253:
|
Jan 6 01:59 UTC 2006 |
I dunno how things work in your country, but here in the USofA, the
President cannot be removed from office via votes on a website.
|
twenex
|
|
response 60 of 253:
|
Jan 6 14:54 UTC 2006 |
Heh. Imbecile.
|
tsty
|
|
response 61 of 253:
|
Jan 7 09:00 UTC 2006 |
must be a cyklone clone/supporter ... maybe not sewer-brazil anymore,eh?
|
trap
|
|
response 62 of 253:
|
Jan 9 12:06 UTC 2006 |
vote to impeach scoundrel bush:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org
|
nharmon
|
|
response 63 of 253:
|
Jan 10 02:45 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, that'll work.
|
naftee
|
|
response 64 of 253:
|
Jan 10 04:51 UTC 2006 |
Guys !
I sure hope nobody shuts us down for being annoying !
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html
|
tod
|
|
response 65 of 253:
|
Jan 10 16:50 UTC 2006 |
It seems that it challenges the First Amendment since someone could easily
write an anonymous letter to the editor of some web based news column which
flames an entity and be held accountable under this fascist legislation.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 253:
|
Jan 10 17:28 UTC 2006 |
The Federalist Papers, published in 1788 to support the adoption of the US
Constitution, were written under the pseudonym "Publius". I'm sure they
annoyed someone. So, today, authors of a similar documents would be charged
with a crime?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 67 of 253:
|
Jan 10 17:30 UTC 2006 |
no, but anne coulter would track them down for a little
christian bsdm session.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:01 UTC 2006 |
re #67
If they included that tidbit in the legislation then it would be less
offensive.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 69 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:09 UTC 2006 |
try not to imagine anne dressed as a priest while
pegging the u.s. constitution with a 600 volt
buttbuster vibe-er-ater
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:13 UTC 2006 |
<tries real hard>
|
mcnally
|
|
response 71 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:13 UTC 2006 |
re #66: At the time the authors of the Federalist Papers would also
have been charged with a crime (which is no doubt why they were published
pseudonymously.)
I point this out because it's worth underscoring Rane's excellent point.
I don't like to use the word "un-American" because I think it's been robbed
of much of its meaning and tainted by those who sling it at anyone who
disagrees with them, but in a genunine and historical sense I believe this
law is not just a bad idea but fundamentally un-American.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:16 UTC 2006 |
Its as ugly as the library record lack of privacy. Monitoring everyone's
knowledge and opinions should be scaring the hell out of people but apathy
is getting the best of this country.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 73 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:25 UTC 2006 |
but the SHOPPING MALL is great!
|
twenex
|
|
response 74 of 253:
|
Jan 10 18:30 UTC 2006 |
People won't wake up until the consequences are dire. They never do.
|
gull
|
|
response 75 of 253:
|
Jan 10 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Privacy and anonymity are hard sells because most people feel that they
don't have anything to hide. The unwritten assumption is that if you
*do* feel like you have something to hide, you must be doing something
wrong.
|
slynne
|
|
response 76 of 253:
|
Jan 10 21:53 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, that is why you will never see the general population happy about
cameras in a public bathroom. Because there are still things people
would rather do in private.
|