I love how this is all pin-pointed on Bush.

Everythings pin-pointed on Bush. That's why he got re-elected. People love to pin their problems on him.

Glad to see all the anti-Bush folk decided just to scroll past my post and refuse to acknowledge that I actually bring up some good points...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's okay man.

 

 

 

Stupid people like Carlo get their news from The Daiy Show and don't understand anything.

 

 

 

They can only quote other people, and make fun of Bush. They can't defend their points, ever.

 

 

 

Yes, this means try to defend your point.

Nice try. I'm not gonna take the bait though. I'm tired of arguing with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I don't watch the Daily Show.

It's funny that kids complain about this.. This law exists off the internet, why shouldn't it exist on the internet as well? It's okay to harass someone on the internet, but not in a newspaper? IMO, there's no difference between the two.

Nice try. I'm not gonna take the bait though. I'm tired of arguing with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I don't watch the Daily Show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice try at what?!?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just pointing out your ignorance.

 

 

 

Bush caused Hurricane Katrina, and then when he realized not enough black people died (Kanye West), he sent Rita over.

I said Bush started Katrina now? What else did I say?

I said Bush started Katrina now? What else did I say?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I quote you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wait. :roll:

 

 

 

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Usenet isnt the internet :)

Glad I don't live in the United States :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wewt for us! :D

Guess it's time for us to legally change our real names to our screennames.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"First name Pooping, last name Man."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Luckily I don't live in the US.

Guys I'm serious here! I want to know what they consider to be "annoying".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is a person's perception of annoying can be completely different to someone elses. Because we had a similar problem here in England over the term "excessive force" for restraining someone breaking into your home.

And how many Americans are there that don't do this today?

But Usenet isnt the internet :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's part of the internet.

 

 

Glad I don't live in the United States :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You live in the same city as me :o Im shocked, noone lives here. And I mean noone. Like noone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Puts you down on ignorant people to ignore on Tip.it list*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Does the same to you*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's fine with me coming from someone who was temp banned.

 

 

 

Since I have never seen you before. And you did not justify your reason what so ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention your horrible sig.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was banned for saying the uncencored version of wagon. And your sigs like amazing, its like the "dope" dude. Its so good. Man I wish I had that sig... :roll: I know mine isnt good, but do you think I really care that much? Your sig is pretty pixelated too dude, its not like its uber amazing or anything.

I was banned for saying the uncencored version of wagon. And your sigs like amazing, its like the "dope" dude. Its so good. Man I wish I had that sig... :roll: I know mine isnt good, but do you think I really care that much? Your sig is pretty pixelated too dude, its not like its uber amazing or anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um I don't care about your actual sig. Just the person in it.

 

 

 

Either way, my point remains.

 

 

 

You managed to argue with the smallest part of my post, but not the main idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and back up your point a little bit.

Poopingman is annoying me. Sort him out Bush. kthxbai

:lol:

Isnt it illegal to enforce something that A) Doesn't tangibly exist B) Infringe on our rights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think thats the most ridiculous thing thats ever been thought of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I totally forgot: Heil Democracy! *Salutes and burns a flag*

Hahaha, that's too funny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't get jailed, i'm Canadian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(/-\|V/-\|)/-\ PVV|V5 J00

Isnt it illegal to enforce something that A) Doesn't tangibly exist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So would that make it legal for me to threaten your life? Surely you don't consider threats as "tangible?"

 

Isnt it illegal to enforce something that A) Doesn't tangibly exist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So would that make it legal for me to threaten your life? Surely you don't consider threats as "tangible?"

 

 

 

Ya but his life is "tangible"

 

 

Isnt it illegal to enforce something that A) Doesn't tangibly exist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So would that make it legal for me to threaten your life? Surely you don't consider threats as "tangible?"

 

 

 

Ya but his life is "tangible"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what about psychological abuse?

Okay, I know that plots to overthrow the government and conspiracy to murder and what not are not tangible either but what i meant by tangible was that like, its saying you can't think about something. I find it's just as ridiculous. Eg. on the internet, they can't prove you said anything. As someone said earlier you could write someone elses name on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is so like that one law. . . in the 1920's. . .where you couldn't disagree with the government. Ahh stupid U.S. history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still can't imagine this is a law :cry: It offends my intelligence that this was passed as a law

Okay, I know that plots to overthrow the government and conspiracy to murder and what not are not tangible either but what i meant by tangible was that like, its saying you can't think about something. I find it's just as ridiculous. Eg. on the internet, they can't prove you said anything. As someone said earlier you could write someone elses name on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is so like that one law. . . in the 1920's. . .where you couldn't disagree with the government. Ahh stupid U.S. history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still can't imagine this is a law :cry: It offends my intelligence that this was passed as a law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is nothing like that law in the 1920's. The problem with this law is that it can't be enforced, nor do we have a definition of annoy. (What's annoy is defined another problem could be that annoying someone is too easy for it to be punishable.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your definition of tangible doesn't make any sense because according to your definition "you can't prove I said anything" in real life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree that it can't be enforced and so it its silly. I do agree that we don't even know what "annoy" is and that's silly. I do agree that the entire concept of the law is silly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But to say that its illegal to make laws against something that doesn't "tangibly exist" is ridiculous. Its also ridiculous to to compare it to when the law was passed that said you can't disagree with the government - that is an entirely different issue. :?

I remember the law. It created groups to spy on other people that were "commnunits". Then it was labeled unconstitutional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point i was trying to make is that it is stiffeling (sp??) our freedom of speech, the most basic right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It made sense at the time.

I remember the law. It created groups to spy on other people that were "commnunits". Then it was labeled unconstitutional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point i was trying to make is that it is stiffeling (sp??) our freedom of speech, the most basic right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It made sense at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand freedom of speech - but let's say that the Senators are viewing annoying as harrassment. Harrassment is against the law - yet it is still free speech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagreeing with the government and harassing (or annoying) other people are two compeltely different things.