Friday, January 19, 2007

You can have my blog when you pry it from my cold, dead hands

Lobbying backlash could hit bloggers
A bill that Senate Democrats have touted as a means to curb corruption in Washington could instead target some political bloggers with new regulations and even criminal penalties.

You dirty rat politicians always claiming to want to "clean" up when you are the dirty filth that has corrupted this country. You overpaid, overhyped, pampered babies. You are no better, no more important than the guy who cleans the toilet at Wal-Mart. And actually he serves a function that probably benefits more working Americans.

19 comments:

BEAR said...

Mr. Daniel, I thought about you (and others) when I first heard about this fresh assault upon the first amendment. The simple response is to disclaim any impetus to political action on the part of your readers. Since the lefties always hog over 1/2 of your comment space, there is no issue regarding "fairness." The inherent insult works against the traitorous left. Thus, kaelri's (and other's) idiocy works against her own desire to deny both reality and your right to speak freely. The only other alternative is open rebellion. My guess is that the terrorists will be so busy slitting liberal (and other pervert's) throats, that the "fairness" doctrine will be moot. BTW, I'll email you re the brain-dead bimbo in the top-to bottom bhurka I saw today.

Daniel said...

I give free speech to everyone here.

Anonymous said...

Daniel, you say in your profile that Jesus is one of your interests, so I was wondering if you could help me with a few questions:

1) How do you reconcile Jesus' conception of people and human dignity with the racist crap you spew on this blog?

2) Who would Jesus deport?

3) Which of the reactionary pieces of anti-immigration legislation oozing through the halls of Congress would Jesus urge his congressman to vote for?

4) What would Jesus have thought of working people's tax dollars being spent to build a wall between two countries?

5) Jesus was a carpenter, as you know, so I'm wondering if you think he would have volunteered his services to help build the wall.

6) What would Jesus have said about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who have died as a result of the American invasion and occupation of their country?

7) Suppose you had a guy who was both responsible for the deaths of all those Iraqis AND claimed to live his life according to Christ's principles. What do you think Jesus would have thought about that?

Mike said...

What exactly is the bill trying to do to bloggers??

Kaelri said...

I actually agree with you here, Daniel. I'm pretty close to an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment. (So your friendly ursine contributor here owes someone an apology. ;)

But devil's advocate: the restrictions only apply to "certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives." If a person, not to mention a group, is spending thousands of dollars (as an investment in their blog, I assume) on trying to influence voters and representatives, then what makes them different from a lobbyist with a website?

MaxRedline said...

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) found 220 to be overly broad, and was able to get an amendment in that removed Section 220 entirely. Subsequently, S.1 passed the Senate by a vote of 96-2.

BEAR said...

kaelri, a lobbyist is an employee, or, at least, a hired gun for one or more special interests. Mr. Daniel is neither. As with the silent imams from the religion of death, where is the outrage from the left on this issue? Oh, yeah, the lefties are promulgating this and other assaults on free speech....sheesh.

Anonymous said...

Jesus wouldn't break the law by coming here illegally.

Kaelri said...

"kaelri, a lobbyist is an employee, or, at least, a hired gun for one or more special interests. Mr. Daniel is neither."

Which would account for his not pouring $25,000+ into this blog, wouldn't it?

"where is the outrage from the left on this issue? Oh, yeah, the lefties are promulgating this and other assaults on free speech....sheesh."

Did you read the article, Bear? I'm sorry if this is a bit of a shock to your system, but right now, you're in agreement with the ACLU.

"'You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so,' said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. 'Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity.'"

As for why there's no real outrage, though, it's because... well, it's not outrageous. 99% of blogs involve no exchange of money whatsoever. It's not a good thing, and clearly it should be changed, but frankly, there are more important things to worry about.

bjdorr said...

I agree with you, Daniel, that you have free speech on your blog. Try posting a conservative viewpoint on portland.indymedia.org and wait... and wait... and wait... Oh don't waste your time with the Indymedia crap.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:06,

Jesus did break the law. He freely broke the laws of the wealthy and privileged castes. (Among other things, He overturned the tables of the moneychangers. What do you imagine would happen if Jesus walked into a bank today in downtown Portland and overturned someone's desk?) The result was that they tortured and crucified him. I have to think that if Jesus Christ himself came down from the Heavens, landed in Mexico and attempted to walk across the border into the United States, some asshole "Minuteman" would scoop his Holy ass up and call for government officers to take him away, and Daniel would congratulate them for scoring a win over the "alien" masses.

Bobkatt said...

" If a person, not to mention a group, is spending thousands of dollars (as an investment in their blog, I assume) on trying to influence voters and representatives, then what makes them different from a lobbyist with a website?
Well, one thing that makes a blogger different than a lobbyist is that they don't have direct contact with the representatives. No one has to read the blog if they don't want to. I wish lobbyists were limited to having websites to influence lawmakers instead of cruising the halls of congress applying their opinions and pressure on them.
This amendment was defeated 55-43 and all 43 naysayers were Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Why is everything about being Jesus equated with the side that kills babies and erases His name from public sight?

Why do I have to be a left-leaning Marxist to be a Christian now?

That's baloney

BEAR said...

kaelri, you idiot. The first amendment is first for a reason. For an assault upon it from the left to result in no outrage is, in and of itself, an outrage. Your continued denial of reality and lack of regard for the foundations of this great country is shameful, but not a surprise. Thank you for, once more, validating a hearty contempt for liberal, anti-american slime.

Daniel said...

RE: The Bible and breaking the law...

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be in subjection to rulers and to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

1 Peter 2:13 Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme;

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Kaelri said...

"kaelri, you idiot."

Good of you to start right off with a constructive approach...

"The first amendment is first for a reason."

I doubt that's true, but either way, I believe it's a moot point. The constitution is the constitution.

"For an assault upon it from the left to result in no outrage is, in and of itself, an outrage."

I don't know if you've noticed, Bear, but in the last six years there have been a ridiculous number of assaults on the constitution. I have no choice but to triage.

"Your continued denial of reality"

What parts of reality am I denying, pray tell? Name some.

"and lack of regard for the foundations of this great country"

To which foundation would you like me to pay more respect? Name some.

"is shameful, but not a surprise. Thank you for, once more, validating a hearty contempt for liberal, anti-american slime."

Shameful? Contempt? Slime? You don't think you're being a little too PC? Come on, Bear, if I'm a delusional, morally-depraved, baby-killing puppy-raping enemy of American civilization who is beyond all hope of salvation, then why hold back your open hatred?

Amy the Razor said...

Anon:

Please allow me to give this answer a try.

#1) I think you will find that in the Bible there are many many refrences to cities with walls around them...It was a safety issue.(Mexico could and should build a wall to protect themselves.

#2) Jesus was fair and just...he would deport anyone who has broken immigration laws. He said to obey the laws of the land.If you would like exact refrences please let me know and I will provide those verses.

#3)Jesus would have voted for laws that would ensure safety of the people.
#4) Jesus would be all for protecting people.

#5)Jesus was a carpenter on that point you are correct however in the Biblical times a "carpenter" was a stone mason. If building a wall would protect people then he may have volunteered to help build it.

#5) Jesus did say that the people in the middle east region would NEVER stop fighting ...it wouldnt matter if we were there or not.
#6) The Bible is full of wars...that is humanity.
#7) Although I do agree that George Bush says he is a Christian, I do not believe he fully believes what the Bible says or we would not try to creat a democracy in the middle east...like I said ..the Bible says they will never stop fighting and WE cannot make them.So my guess is that Jesus would think GWB just like you and I is a hypocrite.

Amy the Razor said...

Anon 1206...if i may just point out one small thing about your bank analogy...if Jesus went to a bank and turned over tables he would be on the banks property...andhe would be arrested however ...the money changers were in GOD'S house...a bit of a difference.

Anonymous said...

viagra suppliers in the uk problems with viagra which is better cialis or viagra viagra england buy viagra in london england viagra dosages viagra soft tabs buy viagra online uk viagra for sale without a prescription new viagra viagra online uk viagra for sale without a prescription cheap viagra canada viagra rrp australia