|
|
|
January 13th, 2006
10:37 am
I wish I'd had the balls to do this, though I'm disappointed by the lack of turnout.
EDIT: Hmmm, let me take that back. I was fairly certain this was a hoax since the references I'd seen to it were both *.com.com links made to look like c-net and so on.
I had thought it was similar to telling hypersensitive people of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. I was incorrect.
You can verify it yourself (and access an online transcription of the bill) via the Library of Congress. If you search for "Violence Against Women Act", it's the reauthorization (at the moment, #19 on the resuls). The bill is H.R.3171.IH
Maybe I should go into covering presidential elections...
|
![[User Picture]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/51476191/1164090) | | From: |  sakiroa |
|---|
| Date: | January 14th, 2006 12:21 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
So, when exactly did news.com.com become something to pay attention to? 8) ; )
When you can throw it at uber-liberal wackjobs and watch 'em go. I'm puzzled by your statement vs. the link -- which is to a KatFireblade post in the guerlilla news community.
I note that people are quick to point out that Bush signed this bill -- and slow to point out that every Senator, Democrat and Republican, voted for it (making it veto-proof, incidentally).
The language looks objectionable, but I have not looked more seriously into this.
The technique of including items into bills has been part of the process for centuries -- and I am very much in support of line-item vetos. Sadly, they were declared unconstitutional.
===|==============/ Level Head As noted in my edit, I was reasonably sure it was a hoax. At the time of my posting, the only links I could find to it were on *.com.com. Moreover, I'd found two references on com.com appearing to be two different sites.
I've since noticed some slightly more authentic news sources discussing it. Additionally, I did a search through the Library of Congress confirming the bill and the wording.
Apologies for the misinformation. See below reply to level head. I was sure this was a hoax (and have since confirmed it isn't by a Library of Congress search). | | From: | sakiroa |
|---|
| Date: | January 14th, 2006 10:56 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
No shame in that at all, trust me. I couldn't be sure myself, and I would have undoubtedly thought it was a hoax myself immediently if the link weren't presented to me originally by very credible friends. If I was absolutely sure it was true, I'd have probably presented it in a rant and not a silly joke.
Actually, I even had one typed up. so the use of the anonymous re mailer could be construed as a federal offence if used in conjunction with "annoying" email ?
2 years fed prision time ..
Your comment annoys me. To the brig with you! ; ) |
|
|
|
|
LiveJournal.com |
