Or your ass will get tossed into jail 
Apologies if this is a repost.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Karnaj said:
I'm suing you all for annoying me.
Fat chance of that. I'm not anonymous!
This law should just read, IRC Now Illegal.
It's not something people hear about.
There is his DC Office contact information. Call and let him know what you think of this particular vote. I'm sure that he'll appreciate it.
quote:
Cobalt Katze thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
How can you sue someone that doesn't reveal their real name?
The government owns the interweb. IT KNOW EVERYTHING
quote:
The propaganda machine of Cobalt Katze's junta released this statement:
How can you sue someone that doesn't reveal their real name?
Get the server's IP address, do a reverse DNS lookup and see who owns the IP. Contact that company (or, more accurately, have your lawyer do it) and get the IP address of the offending poster. Reverse DNS, see which ISP owns that, contact the ISP, get their records, and sue the shit out the offender.
I dunno if it'll hold up in court, but if the hosting company and ISP are cooperative, then it's a piece of cake to get someone's real name.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Cobalt Katze was listening to Cher while typing:
How can you sue someone that doesn't reveal their real name?
This appears to be a criminal statute, so you wouldn't as much sue someone as the executive would come after him. The police have an extensive power of subpoena which they can use to expedite the process Karnaj described.
quote:
To grease the rails for this idea, 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. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
Yuck, it's retarded as hell when politicians do that to get stupid bills passed.
quote:
Mayor of Townsville's account was hax0red to write:
Yuck, it's retarded as hell when politicians do that to get stupid bills passed.
Articals that I have read on the issue on blaming the president for the bill, saying that he should have vetoed it because it is a stupid law. However, the backlash from vetoing a bill that has to do witht he protection of women would have created a much larger shit storm.
quote:
Naimah got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Articals that I have read on the issue on blaming the president for the bill, saying that he should have vetoed it because it is a stupid law. However, the backlash from vetoing a bill that has to do witht he protection of women would have created a much larger shit storm.
It's an issue which would really have to be tackled by a president who wanted to make a huge stink about it, not just stop one or two instances. It would be pretty bad PR-wise if he vetoed this after the fact, but if a president got up and stated that he would veto bills which contain regulations completely alien to the actual subject matter of the law in question from X date onward, it would put congress on the defensive in justifying why they can't just split those bills into different thematically consistent parts.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about dark elf butts:
Articals that I have read on the issue on blaming the president for the bill, saying that he should have vetoed it because it is a stupid law. However, the backlash from vetoing a bill that has to do witht he protection of women would have created a much larger shit storm.
And that's exactly the point. Politicians have the power to insert their own agendas into bills that the President could not politically veto due to the backlash it would cause. If I'm not mistaken, this power can also be used as a weapon to prevent bills from passing by injecting clauses that would be foolish not to veto.
I see it as a flaw in the system that has been abused continuously.
The bottom line is that congress needs to stop tacking shit on.
quote:
Mod had this to say about Tron:
It's an issue which would really have to be tackled by a president who wanted to make a huge stink about it, not just stop one or two instances. It would be pretty bad PR-wise if he vetoed this after the fact, but if a president got up and stated that he would veto bills which contain regulations completely alien to the actual subject matter of the law in question from X date onward, it would put congress on the defensive in justifying why they can't just split those bills into different thematically consistent parts.
If a President were to take this course of action nothing would get done in Washington for his entire term. His own party would turn against him. Congress would continuously put bills entitled "Feed Starving Black Babies Affected by Urban Blight" and other things of that nature and force him to veto or cave while destroying any chance that he had at being an effective political force.
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a line item veto that could be overturned with a simple majority, but congress would never let that through as it would be a severe cut into their sphere of power.
