On 1/29/2013 12:21 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
ill-informed racist
Really? And you call me a "troll", too?
anti-Obama diatribe that has no place on this list.
I never said anything about Obama, but, at face value, the 'Disclose' Act was totalitarian in nature. Something I'd expect to see only seriously proposed in the old Soviet Union. Those who enthusiastically supported it are/were statist thugs. Proposing a bill which limits free political speech by putting ridiculous and hugely-expensive burdens on "mom & pop" bloggers typing from their living room computers is something straight out of East Germany circa 1960 (except with today's technology). If that means I'm talking about Obama, so be at... "if the shoe fits..." but to say this is "racist" is laughable. Also, you can try to dismiss the Disclose act critics by throwing labels at them... but interesting that you didn't go on record challenging the facts in that wsj op-ed, or go on record supporting the Disclose act. ("attach the messenger" as a means of avoiding the actual subject material... much like your 100% baseless "racist" accusation towards me.) Also, you're right, at a couple of points, I did get FCC and FEC labels mixed up. But my larger points stand. The campaign finance law passed several years ago and the proposed 'Disclose' Act demonstrated less than pure intentions regarding the Federal Government's desire to control information. And the Federal Government's "net neutrality" proposals ARE 100% all about 4th amendment violations, as a means towards controlling information. Even if I'm wrong and those proposing "net neutrality" have 100% best intentions (they don't), then a trampling of the 4th amendment would STILL become a "law of unintended consequences", at least in the implementation proposes I've read. -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ rob@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032