If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Democrat Senate plan to make all bloggers with more than 500 readers register with the government. Chavez heard muttering why didn't he think of that first?   (arstechnica.com) divider line 203
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

10287 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2007 at 12:46 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-01-18 05:48:21 PM
All bloggers who get paid for it, is the way the law's written. It still stinks and it won't survive a court challenge, especially if they pick the fight in the 9th Circus.
 
2007-01-18 05:50:11 PM
From RTFA:

First, a couple of facts: though groups like the Family Research Council claim that "the liberal leadership in the US Senate seeks to silence groups like the Family Research Council," the bill was actually cosponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top Republican leader in the Senate.

What's more, the bill appears to be an exact reintroduction of last year's S.2349, which was introduced by Trent Lott (R-MS) and actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, complete with section 220.

So much for the liberal plot. In fact, some liberal groups oppose the measure, including the ACLU. The group argues that the reporting requirements are "onerous" and that "people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well."
 
2007-01-18 05:51:44 PM
Way to mislead what the article actually said smitty.

-1
 
2007-01-18 05:54:59 PM
aengus66: From RTFA:

First, a couple of facts: though groups like the Family Research Council claim that "the liberal leadership in the US Senate seeks to silence groups like the Family Research Council," the bill was actually cosponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top Republican leader in the Senate.

What's more, the bill appears to be an exact reintroduction of last year's S.2349, which was introduced by Trent Lott (R-MS) and actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, complete with section 220.

So much for the liberal plot. In fact, some liberal groups oppose the measure, including the ACLU. The group argues that the reporting requirements are "onerous" and that "people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well."



In other words subby, eat a dick.
 
2007-01-18 09:11:00 PM
It looks like a bipartisan plan to stifle any dissent that would interfere with their re-elections.


/Oh, I see "Democrat Senate" vice "Democratic Senate!"
It's like moran and moron, if you get over excited people will just think you are nuts.
 
2007-01-18 10:37:14 PM
Headline totally ignores facts? Check.
Mysterious missing "ic" on Democratic? Check.
Reference to socialist leader? Check.

Right wingers are really tipping their hand with this. If you guys could have waited a few months, you would have been able to find plenty of legitimate issues to complain about. Instead, in your zeal to nail the Dems, you've jumped the gun and fallen all over yourselves over absolutely nothing. I'm sure the Librul Media will still get the blame when your future GOTCHA!s go unreported.

/plan is crap
//just like it was last year
 
2007-01-18 11:39:33 PM
subby should be dragged out back and bludgeoned with his headline. Next time, RTFA completely.

/-1 for you
//no soup for you, either
 
2007-01-19 12:50:50 AM
Why are people so interested in who's sponsoring this tripe? Man, this us-versus-them shiat really works on Americans, doesn't it?
 
2007-01-19 12:52:48 AM
Or, you know, there's always Google.
 
2007-01-19 12:53:08 AM
That doesn't sound like something the Democratic led Congress would do.
 
2007-01-19 12:53:10 AM
Descartes: /Oh, I see "Democrat Senate" vice "Democratic Senate!"
It's like moran and moron, if you get over excited people will just think you are nuts.



Actually, no, it's not, and perhaps you are correct.
 
2007-01-19 12:53:43 AM
Not only is this a repeat, but the Subby cherrypicked the "facts".
 
2007-01-19 12:54:24 AM
They stripped this amendment/section from the bill since this article was written.
Senate voting record
 
2007-01-19 12:54:34 AM
damageddude: Way to mislead what the article actually said smitty.

-1


submitter didn't mislead, he misread. Or, more accurately, he apparently didn't rtfa beyond the first paragraph.
 
2007-01-19 12:55:14 AM
To all liberals about to spew diatribe about the right wing, lets keep in mind that not all right wingers are crazy.

/mainly, me
//and that for every crazy right-winger there's a loony left-winger.
///thanks.
////excessive slashies to tell subby to rtfa because you make right wingers look like idiots. thanks.
 
2007-01-19 12:55:29 AM
For the love of Christ. This is the second attempt at this topic. Can you PLEASE get the proposal CORRECT. FFS. You people are convincing me that Americans are stupid.
 
2007-01-19 12:56:43 AM
The dumbass in question of course being subby
 
2007-01-19 12:57:35 AM
Subby's Dicketry aside, what grounds do they have to make someone register just because they have a somewhat popular website? How is it the government's business what I want to put on my website? As long as it isn't kiddy porn or photo/video evidence of me committing crimes.
 
2007-01-19 12:57:36 AM
`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--

`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.


kinda important.
 
2007-01-19 12:57:41 AM
Just stop it subby, you are hurting america and wetting your pants.
 
2007-01-19 12:58:23 AM
Whichever party is sponsoring this bill, it still sucks massive flaccid donkey penis, and good on the ACLU for being against it. The fact that people in both parties want it passed just proves that sometimes, both parties are part of the same hypocrisy.

And really, are they dumb enough to think this will survive a court challenge?
 
2007-01-19 01:00:20 AM
CrispyG4: //and that for every crazy right-winger there's a loony left-winger.


let me know when the left gets us into a pointless quagmire costing thousands of lives and countless more injuries.
 
2007-01-19 01:00:58 AM
Observation:

The voting to strike this amendment had every voting (one didnt vote) Republican vote to REMOVE the record. I could only spot two Democrats who voted to strike this amendment.

So, if you like this amendment, you're siding with the Democrats in the Senate...if you do not like this amendment, you are siding with senate Republicans this time.

Seems like some partisan farkers are forgetting their party lines!

/I didnt care as much about the amendment after learning the paying requirements, but still I'm glad its gone.
 
2007-01-19 01:02:38 AM
CrispyG4: To all liberals about to spew diatribe about the right wing, lets keep in mind that not all right wingers are crazy.

/mainly, me


Right, you're not crazy everyone else is...

/rollseyes
 
2007-01-19 01:04:03 AM
Would this apply to a political blogger? Not usually. Because section 220 is only a series of changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, that legislation's other rules still apply. According to OMB Watch, a government accountability watchdog group, the LDA's registration requirement is only triggered by groups that spend more than $24,500 on lobbying semiannually and employ a least one person who spends 20 percent or more of their work time on lobbying. The bill also concerns only the federal government; groups operating at the state level are exempt. - tfa
 
2007-01-19 01:04:17 AM
Honestly, there isn't much a difference between the two parties in terms of the politicians. Both main sides have done too much spending and both really just act according to what they think will get them re-elected... even if it isn't in the interest of the country. I say screw pretty much all of them truthfully.

/Middle finger to those calling me a right-winger in the other thread.
//Hate the policies of all politicians.
 
2007-01-19 01:05:17 AM
Donald_McRonald: don't discount that "is retained by one or more clients" line, since it also excludes blogs who are political but get their money from advertisements. Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA, has a good summary of it.
 
2007-01-19 01:06:18 AM
God I wish I could force them to refer to these sites as "Assault Blogs".
 
2007-01-19 01:07:51 AM
ath0: don't discount that "is retained by one or more clients" line, since it also excludes blogs who are political but get their money from advertisements.

I'm not excluding it, I just think the $25,000 quarterly budgetary req is a much bigger hurdle.
 
2007-01-19 01:07:56 AM
Lehk: let me know when the left gets us into a pointless quagmire costing thousands of lives and countless more injuries.

On or about Jan. 14th, 2008
 
2007-01-19 01:09:21 AM
Saddam, boogeyman = old and busted

Chavez = teh new hotness?
 
2007-01-19 01:09:29 AM
You know, that was wrong. You said got us into. I don't recall the date on the vote for military action in Iraq. So it should be a date in the past, not in the future. 2008 is when the war will be over and everyone will come home, right?
 
2007-01-19 01:10:41 AM
CrispyG4

//and that for every crazy right-winger there's a loony left-winger.


Except the radical left are not given vital positions in the government.

We need about 6 years of radical leftists going absolutely batshiat with the full support of the mainstream media before things even out.
 
2007-01-19 01:10:54 AM
There whould be voting to out subbby enabled on Fark, if enough people think that the submitter can't read an article well enough to write a headline.
 
2007-01-19 01:11:50 AM
koan: We need about 6 years of radical leftists going absolutely batshiat with the full support of the mainstream media before things even out.

Coming right up!
 
2007-01-19 01:13:04 AM
Why do you get to rename my party? I mean..
 
2007-01-19 01:16:04 AM
"Grassroots Lobbying" is an oxymoron - no such thing.

Lobbying mean trying to influence CONGRESS - grassroots activism means your trying to influence your fellow citizens (from the grassroots level - not Congress). Anyone trying to interfere with or regulate grassroots activism is a fascist (or communist).
 
2007-01-19 01:16:29 AM
Man On Pink Corner
Oh HELL yes ...
 
2007-01-19 01:20:40 AM
would like to cast my vote for 'subby is an asshat' too!
 
2007-01-19 01:22:43 AM
Cerebral Ballsy

If there was a way to punish dumbfarkery on fark you'd lose a ton of regulars. Not that that's a bad thing. They'd just need to use a light touch.
 
2007-01-19 01:24:16 AM
So FARK would definitely have to report, as it accepts advertising money and has a political point of view.

Get ready to prove how many readers you have or don't have, great ready for a mountain of paperwork to read just to find out what and when you have to report, then get ready to pay lawyers to submit the paperwork for you, then get ready for the government inquisition when someone challenges your status.

Don't let the supporters of this crap try to tell you it will only apply to big bloggers. All bloggers, even those with 1 reader, will have to prove to the government how many readers they have or don't have. What happened to free speech?
 
2007-01-19 01:24:32 AM
very sad


your country is so messed up
please be cool and take it back

pleeeeeazzzzzeee
 
2007-01-19 01:25:44 AM
Time Magazine's Person of the Year: Right, you're not crazy everyone else is...

In his defense, I'm a batshiat loony madman.
 
2007-01-19 01:26:10 AM
Poor subby. " all bloggers " WAS misleading, though.

People who can be influenced by blogs and op-eds w/out checking facts...probably can't operate a voting booth, anyway.

/not easily influenced
//might need to work on ability to vote
///procrastinates much
 
2007-01-19 01:28:15 AM
LeBain: So FARK would definitely have to report, as it accepts advertising money and has a political point of view.

WRONG!
i21.photobucket.com
 
2007-01-19 01:28:42 AM
Know what? I'm calling Shenanigans.

That's right, Shenanigans on all of you. If this bill was written by Rick Santorum or Tom Delay (I know they're not in the congress anymore)every damn one of you would be frothing at the mouth. For God's sake, stop playing Donkey V. Elephant for five seconds and look at what is happening to our country.
 
2007-01-19 01:32:24 AM
Democrat = noun
Democratic = adjective

Looks like subby failed writing as well as reading comprehension. Or maybe it's our modern lifestyle, ensuring that few people have the attention span to read more than a paragraph at once.

/oooh, shiny...
 
2007-01-19 01:33:19 AM
First, a couple of facts: though groups like the Family Research Council claim that "the liberal leadership in the US Senate seeks to silence groups like the Family Research Council," the bill was actually cosponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top Republican leader in the Senate. What's more, the bill appears to be an exact reintroduction of last year's S.2349, which was introduced by Trent Lott (R-MS) and actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, complete with section 220.

Those damn Democrats who uhhh, are really Republicans uhh. The Democrats must of brainwashed those Republicans or something right?

Yes folks it has gone THIS far through the looking glass that the democrats are being blamed for the actions of Republicans.

But it's ok subby realizes that many will just read the headline or the first paragraph in the article and call the talk shows and tell all their friends.

Republicans are so embarrassed about what they stand for the are trying to pin it on Democrats.

I will wish we could Troll points to people on here when they do things this underhanded and why do things like this get green lighted when they are so false?

Way to go with the bi-partisanship Republicans in congress! The Demos let you have a say and you add crap to it and then blame the Democrats for it. It's probably their fault for being bi-partisan, right?
 
2007-01-19 01:33:47 AM
I think the best thing that could happen to our country would be a constitutional ammendment to limit the amount of laws that can exist to 1 page 12pt font.

This is a reasonable amount of information for a person to remember and it would get congress pass laws that prevent crime instead of "shake the magic eight ball - Communist bloggers writing hate speech against unions bashing minimum wage laws by the republicans"
 
2007-01-19 01:34:14 AM
lehk:let me know when the left gets us into a pointless quagmire costing thousands of lives and countless more injuries.

I assume you mean after Vietnam, right.

/rollseyes
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report