torrentfreak.com— A few days ago the petition reached its goal of 25.000 votes, and the Obama administration has now issued an official response.
Feb 1, 2012View in Crawl 4
OUTRAGEOUS! Here is a quote from the same people who said they will not enforce the laws: "The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress..." http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch
Essentially the White House has said they will not do the job the f**kING CONSTITUTION mandates they do. Why? Well, because we have a sentence written in our website terms about how we won't respond. That's why! Simpy unacceptable.
It is brand new so it may take a bit to show up. Let's not let up on this! It's no longer about just internet freedoms, it has become about special interests demanding our government be sold to the highest bidder.
It was copied directly from the White House page upon completion of the petitioning process. On Windows 7 Chrome I get no errors, but on IE9 it blocks "some" content with certificate errors. When I look at the page in IE9 while it's NOT allowing the content to display I cannot see anything missing.
I also tried on XP with IE8 and got no security warnings. It appears to be intermittent, depending on your OS or browser version. It's totally fine, I promise!
Apparently you can't read. If you can quote me saying "bribery" then I would be interested in seeing it. 'Quid pro quo' is not bribery, so I think maybe YOU need to get a dictionary.
'Quid pro quo' - means an equal exchange by the two and only two parties.
Neither do the 'politicians' who accept the MPAAs advances 'repay' but the consumers and second the amount exchanged is not equal either.
So no, it is clearly BRIBERY and in no way Quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo only becomes bribery when there is an identified exchange. In this case, "this for that" was discussed, making it quid pro quo, but there was no actual exchange made, thus it is not technically "bribery".
I believe that Congressional rules forbid quid pro quo, but under current law only bribery is illegal. As I said before, please understand the difference.
Which is a common practice in US politics. Why do you think we have so many entitlement programs we can't afford? They were implemented to buy votes. The last laugh is on the American voter because the "free ride" is over and we are now being forced to deal with it and pay the massive bill we have been ignoring for decades.
Ah, I see how you are thinking - and indeed, there are voters who vote in favor of their wallets. Actaully, ever voter does. However, their are also voters who, besides paying FOR their wallet, pay WITH their wallet to get even MORE in their wallet. I think that is the difference between a fair democracy and a corrupted one.
Unfortunately, I do not know a place on earth where corruption does not exist. Some places have more corruption than others tho. I would imagine the States is in the lower middle, with Russia and middle Eastern countries on the top end, and Skandinavian countries on the bottom end. Let's look at the welfare and healthcare systems in those countries and see if we can see some correlation. Than see if we can apply that correlation and predict which other countries have got lots of corruption, and which countries don't.
"We the People" website is becoming more and more disappointing. They give crap answers to (and lump together all) petitions regarding marijuana, medical or otherwise. None of the petitions for any of the issues have resulted in anything nearing a policy change or investigation. Now this. There are actually petitions asking them to take the petitions more seriously, and one of them got around 35,000 signatures.
If the President will not act, then the people should act. It's time to stop consuming MPAA content that provides the big benefits to the MPAA. Do not go to the theater - this will enjoin the theaters. Do not buy the DVD's - this will enjoin the retailers. Cancel the cable movie channels - this will enjoin HBO/Showtime/Cinemax. Write letters to each explaining your decision to stop consuming MPAA content.
DO go to other forms of entertainment, zoos, art museums, small local music venues, independent films, and community theaters. There is a large amount of under appreciated entertainment available that is not under the control of MPAA. Embrace and enjoy it. Major motion pictures are not more important than our freedoms. So far, they cannot force you to purchase their content.
My 12 year old daughter understands what's at stake. If she understands, we can make more people understand.
And you'd be wrong. She actually came to me first and asked about it. She was very concerned. Some of the services she uses and enjoys could be directly effected by it, as the "blackout" day was very effective. Many kids are more tech-savvy than our Congressmen.
Indeed, boycotting is the most powerful tool in the consumer arsenal and seldom used anymore. We also need to get the snakes out of Washington that perpetuate this sort of thing.
Besides, those "other forms of entertainment" you mention are far more culturally and intellectually positive than watching the garbage produced by the movie and television industry.
The more the MPAA beats their war drum, the more they alienate themselves from their core demographic.
if you don't like it, then put your money where your mouth is and vote against an administration that simply says "no comment" and looks the other way when the mpaa pulls this crap.
on a side note, does obama have any ties to mpaa money? we all know that biden does.
what hilarious about it? It's rather a ridiculous situation that is the current reality. In what sense I defend their failure? Did I say about vote meaning defending them? I mentioned taking a whole picture into account for what the best action to take. The other sides are worse in many aspect. Too small area here to mention them, but you can search Google or Digg about what they did to this country, if you don't already know.
If you're still stoned like that, to summarise, I don't defend any of their act in the message above. I only mentioned about what best action to take as a citizen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
do you even know what your side is up to? they defend these people left and right. they want to privatize everything, give more to multinational corporations, and make sure that around half of the US is unable to feed their families. they dont care about anyone that cant pay for their time. republicans have lost touch with the average American, if they ever had it to begin with, and they only see profits. money is not everything. money should not equal power and greed is not good. until we get this through the thick heads of republicans we are all doomed, if its not to late that is.
No. That time has passed. See my earlier post. It's obvious that money is more influential than the people in the long run. The only way to keep the MPAA from impacting the Congress/Administration is to take away the MPAA source of funding. Hit it at it's source - MPAA's bank account.
Voting out people only puts in different people who may be equally corruptible. It's only addressing the symptom. We have to address it at the source - by reducing/eliminating the amount of money that the MPAA has available. Make the MPAA a liability, not an asset.
Boycott MPAA products. Boycott SOPA Sponsors and Supporters. Only when Businesses see no profit in SOPA, will they will abandon it.
See a play. Go to a local concert. Go roller skating. Take an Art class. Go to the library. Ride a bike. See a museum. There are so many things you can do that are equally fun, often less expensive, and more enriching than sitting in a dark room for 2 hours.
Or, fix the problem at the source. We need a constitutional amendment that says that corporations and individuals cannot spend money on politics. End lobbyists. End political ads. End propaganda news.
Every news station will be required to have footnotes for individuals who care to research the topic on their own. Reinstate the "no lying on news shows and passing it off as fact" laws that were lifted.
And we need a separate amendment that states:
Any government employee responsible for making the law, enforcing the law, or adjucating, if convicted of a criminal offense, automatically receive maximum penalties.
And another amendment:
Every eligible citizen that can vote is required to vote on voting day. Government holiday. Also, that the citizens, not the legislature, shall be required to set the legislative agenda.
This will stop government employees and legislature from taking bribes, will give citizens an equal chance to get elected once money is out of the equation, and get rid of out out of touch legislatures with their agenda set by corporations.
"Or, fix the problem at the source. We need a constitutional amendment that says that corporations and individuals cannot spend money on politics. End lobbyists. End political ads. End propaganda news. "
and where exactly is campaign financing supposed to come from? you are taking a system where it is extremely difficult for someone who isn't rich to run for office, and replacing it with one where it is downright impossible.
"And we need a separate amendment that states:
Any government employee responsible for making the law, enforcing the law, or adjucating, if convicted of a criminal offense, automatically receive maximum penalties."
yeah, lets take the judicial role out of the courts. what could possibly go wrong /s
"And another amendment:
Every eligible citizen that can vote is required to vote on voting day. Government holiday. Also, that the citizens, not the legislature, shall be required to set the legislative agenda."
we have enough ignorant uninformed voters already. if someone can't make the effort to participate in what has devolved into american idol, and they have to be forced to vote or face reprimand, there is clearly no way they are making an educated vote.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The judicial role would be in the court. There would still be due process, therefore your argument is invalid.
The first amendment that I propose would stop prison population bonuses to judges, like Judge Mark Ciavarella that was caught funneling kids into a Detention Center for petty crimes, and then receiving a payout from the detention center.
This will also stop police brutality. If a cop assaults a suspect and it is proven in court, that cop automatically receives the maximum assault sentence.
And, if every citizen voted it would be great. Nobody could complain about the government because the government is entirely kept in check by it's people. People would have honest news and be able to make an informed decision to balance the powers of the government exactly as they see fit.
Government ignoring pressing issues, letting corporations stomp on people's rights? Wait till next year. Government getting too powerful? Next year the citizens will trim it back.
Compare that to modern USA, where one party tries to suppress votes of demographics that don't agree with them. Also, if the citizens set the legislative agenda we would have as much or as little government as we want. As it stands now, we can't force our legislature to vote on pressing issues. A good example of citizens being helpless against our government, besides this one, is the fact that Obama's internet chat ignored the top voted 18 out of 20 questions because they had to deal with drug policy or cannabis. It's obvious that the citizens are concerned with this issue.
and? there should not be campaign financing. that is one of the problems of today. the super-pacs made today used to be ILLEGAL. all it tells us is that they are bought from the very beginning. what do you thing is would to happen if one of these republican candidates actually won. their "corporate donor" would tell them what to do since they already gave millions to get them there. you shouldnt need millions to run. money does not mean they are better, it does not mean that they are intelligent, it doesn't even mean they are qualified to begin with. the only thing money brings to the table is corruption and vile. do you even think before you post?
"The judicial role would be in the court. There would still be due process, therefore your argument is invalid."
you are advocating a constitutional amendment to ensure that the law doesn't get applied fairly and evenly based on the merits of the case, but instead by who is accused of the crime. if someone advocated this same policy against i minority, everyone would (rightfully so) be up in arms over it.
"And, if every citizen voted it would be great. Nobody could complain about the government because the government is entirely kept in check by it's people. People would have honest news and be able to make an informed decision to balance the powers of the government exactly as they see fit. "
you are being an idealist. mandating people to vote doesn't mean they are magically going to care and become educated voters. if someone can't bother to learn who they are voting for, they have no place in the polling booth.
"As it stands now, we can't force our legislature to vote on pressing issues. A good example of citizens being helpless against our government, besides this one, is the fact that Obama's internet chat ignored the top voted 18 out of 20 questions because they had to deal with drug policy or cannabis. It's obvious that the citizens are concerned with this issue."
and your proposals do nothing to address this
@rjopling
"and? there should not be campaign financing."
lol, you are kidding, right? how on earth is someone supposed to run a national campaign with no money besides what they have in their personal bank account? tv/radio/internet ads, lawn signs, transportation, webhosting and many other things cost money, and big money at that. so do organizing events to meet with the voters
your ideal of running a campaign without money might work for alderman/selectman in a small city or town, but beyond that your ideal is completely out of touch with reality.
"do you even think before you post?"
i think you should be asking yourself that question.
That would require the recipients to draft legislation reducing their own funding or risking punishing themselves. Any effort on that front would take too long. The lobbyists and politicians know that. We're running out of time.
We can't fix the system by demanding the system fix itself. We have to be the "barbarians at the gate" and hit them directly where we exercise direct control - by starting here and now to boycott them.
The Arts are supposed by enrich the people. When they fail to do that, they damage society and should be eliminated. There are artists against SOPA because they see and understand this.
its not the administration that is in on it. its the house of representatives and i believe that the republicans are in control so....
to be fair this is way beyond one party or another. it is the whole government that is to blame. get rid the of corporate money flowing into Washington, make it illegal to bribe politicians, and then we might get a government that works for the people again. we need a separation of government and state. the only thing the corporations are fighting for is their best interests and as we all know whats good for them is s**t for the rest of us.
that'd be okay cause turbo tax timmy is in charge now not bernake. he already bailed. i wish warren buffet would be treasury sect though. but he's passed on the post four times. says he hates politics and doesnt wanna stoop to their level.
Today I'm going to beg the question.
Ellen at Swarthmore said she would appreciate it if I talk about the misuse of the phrase begs the question. "I keep seeing it as a way to say 'The question begs to be asked' or 'The question that should be asked'," she says.
Well, Ellen, you're right. You do hear it used to mean "raises the question," but that's not what it really means.
The Right Way to Use "Begs the Question"
Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support (1, 2). It can be a premise that's independent from the conclusion (3) or in a simpler form, the premise can be just a restatement of the conclusion itself (4, 5).
For example, let's say Squiggly is trying to convince Aardvark that chocolate is healthful, and his argument is that chocolate grows on trees, so it must be healthful. Aardvark could rightly say there's no proof that something is good for you simply because it grows on a tree. Some things that grow on trees are poisonous--Chinaberry tree fruit, for example (6). So Squiggly's argument is based on a faulty premise.
Aardvark could correctly say that Squiggly's argument begs the question. What does growing on trees have to do with being healthful, anyway?
I remember what begs the question means by thinking that THEE argument raises a specific question--it begs *the* question--What's your support for that premise? OR more informally, What does that have to do with anything? You use the phrase begs the question when people are hoping you won't notice that their reasons for coming to a conclusion aren't valid. They've made an argument based on a lame assumption. The question is What's your support for that premise?
Here's an example of a simple argument that begs the question. This one just restates the conclusion as a basis for the conclusion: Chocolate is healthful because it's good for you. That begs the question. How do you know chocolate is good for you? Again, the question is What's the support for your premise? or What does that have to do with anything? If I didn't just accept that chocolate is healthful, I'm not going to accept that it's healthful because you say it's good for me. They're the same thing. Make a better argument.
The Wrong Way to Use "Begs the Question"
Sadly, begs the question is used wrong a lot. It took me about two seconds to find good examples of bad usage in the news. Many people mistakenly believe it's OK to use the phrase to introduce a clever or obvious question. For example,
After chronicling Natalie Coughlin's accomplishments, a reporter writes: "All of which begs the question, is Coughlin the best female swimmer this country has ever seen?" The reporter is using begs the question to mean something like "makes me wonder."
Here's an example from another paper:
"Board members’ explanations to the public grow more and more vague. This begs the question: What is going on in the minds of these officials who were appointed to serve us?" Again, the reporter seems to think begs the question means something like "makes me wonder" or "leads us to ask."
Common Usage Versus Established Meaning
In fact, that wrong usage is so common some people will argue it's not an error anymore (7). But I'm firmly in the camp that believes it's worthwhile to stick to the formal definition. There are plenty of phrases writers can use when they mean "makes me wonder" or "raises the question." There's no hole in the English language that needs to be filled, so there's no reason to use begs the question improperly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What little I did read wasn't relevant to my statement. Which was an assertion that a refusal to take action or comment on a request for investigation regarding government corruption raises the question of whether that entity is likewise corrupt.
I can't expect to save everyone, but if at least one person reading your comment goes on to mine and learns something, there will be a reversal of entropy in human conversation, however slight. I am proud of myself.
That an idiom's meaning has commonly come to mean "raises the question" or "causes one to ask?" when the original meaning was to highlight circular reasoning?
While it is interesting from a trivial knowledge perspective to know that the original meaning was corrupted by a mistranslation of Aristotle from the original Greek to Latin, and then to English (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm), the nature of an idiom is that its meaning is not predictable from the usual meaning of its constituent elements.
Idiom, from the Greek idíōma, meaning peculiarity or oddity.
The Administration IS the MPAA and RIAA. It's simple math. That bunch has probably made more money throughout the decades than anyone. In all that time they infiltrated the government using the money they have made to take it over.
We always wondered who the real power was that was in charge. Now we know. Even Saddam Hussein during his court and imprisonment said, "This is all just Hollywood."
What difference does that really make since legislation is drafted and written in the LEGISLATIVE branch, NOT the executive branch (aka Obama Administration)?
Are we to assume from your disingenuous implication that Conservatives are LESS corrupt? Ba-ha-ha...AS IF!
Legislation already exists to prevent outright bribery and extortion. So execution of those laws, or at a minimum investigation to see if they've been broken, falls to the bought-and-paid-for executive branch.
No, I'm not saying conservatives are less corrupt. I'm saying that at this point it is futile to believe that any Federal politician has not been bought off with campaign cash. It just so happens that the Democratic party is the more obvious recipient at the moment.
Trust me, we share the same contempt for corruption.
I realize anti-corruption legislation exists, but it has been rendered ineffective as a result of judicial/legislative sabotage, watered down penalties, lax enforcement AND corrupt politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. Remember, the executive branch doesn't write legislation, only Congress can do that. This explains why we see so much corruption from legislators.
While corruption has become MUCH worse in ALL 3 branches of our government over the past 30 years, the best way to solve it would be to elect legislators who would champion genuine and enforceable campaign finance reform laws along with strict anti-corruption legislation. This requires a sustained push from the American people because it threatens organized special interest group agendas and their army of lobbyists. They wouldn't take this kind of threat lightly.
Agreed. And given the corrupting influence of private money funding election campaigns, I would suggest the first order of business is to make all federal elections taxpayer funded, otherwise any progress will be undercut later by those who think they can get one up on their competitors on the sly.
then lets stop it by enacting a separation of corporation and state. lets get rid of nameless people giving UNLIMITED amounts of money to potential candidates. lets stop the outright buyout of the political process by the lobbyists in Washington. you say that bribery and extortion is illegal but they do it every day and no one says a word. the whole system has been bought for day one and it has been the best investment for the rich.
i like unions but the money cant be involved. unions are there so the workers have a way to unite against unfair business practices. the only real power they hold is collective bargaining but yes money should not be collected. if anything i want to start a new union that is free where it takes a democratic approach to workers rights. they vote for decisions instead of them being told by the higher ups. bring back the unions that we started with, instead of the crap they have now.
then lets stop it by enacting a separation of corporation and state"
Now that's a great idea. I have been using that exact statement for over a year. This is exactly what needs to happen.
When the darkes ages in full force..we were in them largely because the populations were being ruled by a very corrupt Catholic church. They ruled with an iron hand and din;t want people to be educated. Educated people would threaten their power hold and job security.
What had to happen eventually? Separation of church and state. The powers that be..are at it again.
Why do you suppose all the social sites of the net (at least the ones who have the biggest populations) are all of a sudden changing their privacy and censoring policy? Because the government are getting uneasy about the uprisings. They want to maintain that power and so by having these companies changes their privacy and censor policies...they can more efficiently know who you are if you are involved in leading a revolution against them. They know that the social sites are useful to the rest of us to get our message out there. They don't want that.
They want OBEDIENT workers to buy and sell stuff to keep the economy moving to pay for their wars and other agendas.
I don;t care what you say..we are NOT going back to the 80's. If you think that people are just going lay back and let Hollywood and the RIAA government dictate how the future is going to roll...you got another thing coming mister man.
The MPAA and RIAA have this pipe dream that people are just going to drop it and run right out with their wallets to the record stores...yeah right. Not as long as there are people like me (and we are many) educating those people about the price fixing and the tactics of buying politicians they won't. I'm going tell people if they want a certain title..wait til it shows up in the reduced to clear bin...or a pawn shop. There are many ways to boycott.
The sleeping giant (the public) is waking up. But not only that..but understand that when the older people are gone...the younger generation that you **** are trying to corral now...won't forget. We'll change these laws in the near future.
and as for "LEGISLATIVE branch, NOT the executive branch"...those are useless titles...just there to make you think they have democratic operations.
The nature of petitions are the people are asking for a favour from those in power. The people accepting the petition may decline to act on them.
Make no mistake about this. It is a political game not a technological one. It is played in the political arena not the tech one. Thinking otherwise will only reduce the effectiveness of any actions now and in the future.
Well there it is...Obama is also in the pocket of the entertainment industry. I'm beginning to believe that through all this we are seeing who the real government is...you know...the real owners of the country. It the RIAA and MPAA.
The government seems to think that this is all gonna go away if they "look the other way"...or enact enough laws. Got news for ya there Mr. President...It ain't.
These people seem to think we're all just gonna go running back to the record stores, tongues hanging out and open wallets. This isn't the 80's and we're all a lot more informed.
Hell will freeze before I will ever spend $20 on a CD.
The way I see it...the government is set up like this. There are two parties..GOP and DEMS. They are nothing but front end props. They have just a enough differences between them to make it look believable. And MAYBE years and years ago the two were actually entities who were for the people.
What has happened is over the years as a few business became very powerful..they started infiltrating the government with their people. Over time they took it over and it's now sliced up like this...banks, big oil, Hollywood and the large music labels...four slices with big oil being possibly having the largest slice.
That club has been kind of leery about letting software and technology companies in there because at this point they don't know who's side they are on.
So..as I said the government is sliced up into four main parts (there maybe little slivers to others) but all in all the government is a conglomeration of corporations with as I said the GOP and the Democrats as front end props to make it look like you have choice. This is part of the reason why there is only 2 parties in the US...any more than that would could risk their cover or possibly too hard to manage.
It has to be this way because there is no other reason why a record company or a movie studio could have this kind of sway with a government...not to mention internationally speaking.
It's already been said on here, "Rul of law..rule of law!!"
Yeah? Funny isn't it how they wanted to through rule of law and due process out the window just here a few weeks ago with SOPA. And...where is the rule of law when it comes to the normal citizen?...It doesn't exist.
So what would the incentive be for running for president if it's just a front? It's good paying job especially when you have those types of companies running it.
quick question, who isn't? the real owners are not just the entertainment industry, its the .01%. the people who can buy any vote they want, and who regularly flood Washington with special interests.
The almighty dollar from corporate lobbyists and the ultra-rich is buying our government and purchasing our politicians, turning them into their own personal puppets. They've done it for a long time and will continue to do so.
This is not our government, it's theirs. If you don't realize that fact by now, you're either looking at the world through "rose-colored glasses" or you have not educated yourselves enough.
Does it suck? Hell yeah. Is there a damn thing we can do about it?
I think you know the answer.
my best friend's aunt makes $81 every hour on the internet. She has been without work for 7 months but last month her check was $9090 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://ddp.net/dgz
I suppose the white house is partially correct, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't I dunno call Eric Holder and tell him to do his damn job for once in his career, next time pick an AG who isn't a corporate crony.
I'll wait til it's in the reduced bm or at a pawn shop. Then i will let my friends borrow it..or I will just have them all come over and watch it with me.
MrFrogyFeb 1, 2012
OUTRAGEOUS! Here is a quote from the same people who said they will not enforce the laws: "The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress..."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch
Essentially the White House has said they will not do the job the f**kING CONSTITUTION mandates they do. Why? Well, because we have a sentence written in our website terms about how we won't respond. That's why! Simpy unacceptable.
MrFrogyFeb 1, 2012
HERE IS THE NEW PETITION, please participate and sign! I have reworded it to avoid the banned "law enforcement action" language that prompted the White House to not respond to our previous petition.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/make-statement-regarding-chris-dodds-recent-quid-pro-quo-threats-relating-hollywood-donations/t0J9lMjw
It is brand new so it may take a bit to show up. Let's not let up on this! It's no longer about just internet freedoms, it has become about special interests demanding our government be sold to the highest bidder.
norman619Feb 2, 2012
Why does that link generate a security alert?
MrFrogyFeb 2, 2012
It was copied directly from the White House page upon completion of the petitioning process. On Windows 7 Chrome I get no errors, but on IE9 it blocks "some" content with certificate errors. When I look at the page in IE9 while it's NOT allowing the content to display I cannot see anything missing.
I also tried on XP with IE8 and got no security warnings. It appears to be intermittent, depending on your OS or browser version. It's totally fine, I promise!
norman619Feb 2, 2012
Actually I use Firefox and that is giving the security error.
shwaavayFeb 2, 2012
Pssssst...
Bribery. You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
MrFrogyFeb 2, 2012
Apparently you can't read. If you can quote me saying "bribery" then I would be interested in seeing it. 'Quid pro quo' is not bribery, so I think maybe YOU need to get a dictionary.
murxFeb 2, 2012
'Quid pro quo' - means an equal exchange by the two and only two parties.
Neither do the 'politicians' who accept the MPAAs advances 'repay' but the consumers and second the amount exchanged is not equal either.
So no, it is clearly BRIBERY and in no way Quid pro quo.
MrFrogyFeb 2, 2012
Quid pro quo only becomes bribery when there is an identified exchange. In this case, "this for that" was discussed, making it quid pro quo, but there was no actual exchange made, thus it is not technically "bribery".
I believe that Congressional rules forbid quid pro quo, but under current law only bribery is illegal. As I said before, please understand the difference.
breadfredFeb 2, 2012
Paying for votes a bribery - isn't it?
norman619Feb 2, 2012
Which is a common practice in US politics. Why do you think we have so many entitlement programs we can't afford? They were implemented to buy votes. The last laugh is on the American voter because the "free ride" is over and we are now being forced to deal with it and pay the massive bill we have been ignoring for decades.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Ah, I see how you are thinking - and indeed, there are voters who vote in favor of their wallets. Actaully, ever voter does. However, their are also voters who, besides paying FOR their wallet, pay WITH their wallet to get even MORE in their wallet. I think that is the difference between a fair democracy and a corrupted one.
Unfortunately, I do not know a place on earth where corruption does not exist. Some places have more corruption than others tho. I would imagine the States is in the lower middle, with Russia and middle Eastern countries on the top end, and Skandinavian countries on the bottom end. Let's look at the welfare and healthcare systems in those countries and see if we can see some correlation. Than see if we can apply that correlation and predict which other countries have got lots of corruption, and which countries don't.
Don't expect the results to be shown on Fox news.
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
"We the People" website is becoming more and more disappointing. They give crap answers to (and lump together all) petitions regarding marijuana, medical or otherwise. None of the petitions for any of the issues have resulted in anything nearing a policy change or investigation. Now this. There are actually petitions asking them to take the petitions more seriously, and one of them got around 35,000 signatures.
sacrabosFeb 1, 2012
If the President will not act, then the people should act. It's time to stop consuming MPAA content that provides the big benefits to the MPAA. Do not go to the theater - this will enjoin the theaters. Do not buy the DVD's - this will enjoin the retailers. Cancel the cable movie channels - this will enjoin HBO/Showtime/Cinemax. Write letters to each explaining your decision to stop consuming MPAA content.
DO go to other forms of entertainment, zoos, art museums, small local music venues, independent films, and community theaters. There is a large amount of under appreciated entertainment available that is not under the control of MPAA. Embrace and enjoy it. Major motion pictures are not more important than our freedoms. So far, they cannot force you to purchase their content.
My 12 year old daughter understands what's at stake. If she understands, we can make more people understand.
Angry_MuppetFeb 1, 2012
I doubt your 12 yo daughter gives a s**t.
niceguyvanFeb 1, 2012
She probably does given the RIAA has sued little girls
letherialFeb 1, 2012
curious, how do you know what his 12yo does or does not care about?
sacrabosFeb 1, 2012
And you'd be wrong. She actually came to me first and asked about it. She was very concerned. Some of the services she uses and enjoys could be directly effected by it, as the "blackout" day was very effective. Many kids are more tech-savvy than our Congressmen.
chadpyleFeb 1, 2012
Indeed, boycotting is the most powerful tool in the consumer arsenal and seldom used anymore. We also need to get the snakes out of Washington that perpetuate this sort of thing.
Besides, those "other forms of entertainment" you mention are far more culturally and intellectually positive than watching the garbage produced by the movie and television industry.
The more the MPAA beats their war drum, the more they alienate themselves from their core demographic.
emfkFeb 1, 2012
Chris Dodd and the MPAA still suck!
reaper527Feb 1, 2012
if you don't like it, then put your money where your mouth is and vote against an administration that simply says "no comment" and looks the other way when the mpaa pulls this crap.
on a side note, does obama have any ties to mpaa money? we all know that biden does.
moducFeb 1, 2012
easy said than done. The other party is worse currently for the taking the whole thing into consideration.
There must be other ways to do it than vote. Sure vote matter, not voting, or voting otherwise may making "things" worse.
So, besides publicity through petition, forums (like this), and the media, there needs other way to right the wronged.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Angry_MuppetFeb 1, 2012
Hilarious, you defend Obama's failure/complicity by saying the other sides worse.
moducFeb 1, 2012
what hilarious about it? It's rather a ridiculous situation that is the current reality. In what sense I defend their failure? Did I say about vote meaning defending them? I mentioned taking a whole picture into account for what the best action to take. The other sides are worse in many aspect. Too small area here to mention them, but you can search Google or Digg about what they did to this country, if you don't already know.
If you're still stoned like that, to summarise, I don't defend any of their act in the message above. I only mentioned about what best action to take as a citizen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 1, 2012
I think you shut your eyes to what your currently supported party wants to do and what it is about.
You do not help the problem, you move it to a different ideology...you, nor your party will solve it as long as your blind like everyone else.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
do you even know what your side is up to? they defend these people left and right. they want to privatize everything, give more to multinational corporations, and make sure that around half of the US is unable to feed their families. they dont care about anyone that cant pay for their time. republicans have lost touch with the average American, if they ever had it to begin with, and they only see profits. money is not everything. money should not equal power and greed is not good. until we get this through the thick heads of republicans we are all doomed, if its not to late that is.
sacrabosFeb 1, 2012
No. That time has passed. See my earlier post. It's obvious that money is more influential than the people in the long run. The only way to keep the MPAA from impacting the Congress/Administration is to take away the MPAA source of funding. Hit it at it's source - MPAA's bank account.
Voting out people only puts in different people who may be equally corruptible. It's only addressing the symptom. We have to address it at the source - by reducing/eliminating the amount of money that the MPAA has available. Make the MPAA a liability, not an asset.
Boycott MPAA products. Boycott SOPA Sponsors and Supporters. Only when Businesses see no profit in SOPA, will they will abandon it.
See a play. Go to a local concert. Go roller skating. Take an Art class. Go to the library. Ride a bike. See a museum. There are so many things you can do that are equally fun, often less expensive, and more enriching than sitting in a dark room for 2 hours.
mnewcomb59Feb 1, 2012
Or, fix the problem at the source. We need a constitutional amendment that says that corporations and individuals cannot spend money on politics. End lobbyists. End political ads. End propaganda news.
Every news station will be required to have footnotes for individuals who care to research the topic on their own. Reinstate the "no lying on news shows and passing it off as fact" laws that were lifted.
And we need a separate amendment that states:
Any government employee responsible for making the law, enforcing the law, or adjucating, if convicted of a criminal offense, automatically receive maximum penalties.
And another amendment:
Every eligible citizen that can vote is required to vote on voting day. Government holiday. Also, that the citizens, not the legislature, shall be required to set the legislative agenda.
This will stop government employees and legislature from taking bribes, will give citizens an equal chance to get elected once money is out of the equation, and get rid of out out of touch legislatures with their agenda set by corporations.
reaper527Feb 1, 2012
"Or, fix the problem at the source. We need a constitutional amendment that says that corporations and individuals cannot spend money on politics. End lobbyists. End political ads. End propaganda news. "
and where exactly is campaign financing supposed to come from? you are taking a system where it is extremely difficult for someone who isn't rich to run for office, and replacing it with one where it is downright impossible.
"And we need a separate amendment that states:
Any government employee responsible for making the law, enforcing the law, or adjucating, if convicted of a criminal offense, automatically receive maximum penalties."
yeah, lets take the judicial role out of the courts. what could possibly go wrong /s
"And another amendment:
Every eligible citizen that can vote is required to vote on voting day. Government holiday. Also, that the citizens, not the legislature, shall be required to set the legislative agenda."
we have enough ignorant uninformed voters already. if someone can't make the effort to participate in what has devolved into american idol, and they have to be forced to vote or face reprimand, there is clearly no way they are making an educated vote.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnewcomb59Feb 2, 2012
The judicial role would be in the court. There would still be due process, therefore your argument is invalid.
The first amendment that I propose would stop prison population bonuses to judges, like Judge Mark Ciavarella that was caught funneling kids into a Detention Center for petty crimes, and then receiving a payout from the detention center.
This will also stop police brutality. If a cop assaults a suspect and it is proven in court, that cop automatically receives the maximum assault sentence.
And, if every citizen voted it would be great. Nobody could complain about the government because the government is entirely kept in check by it's people. People would have honest news and be able to make an informed decision to balance the powers of the government exactly as they see fit.
Government ignoring pressing issues, letting corporations stomp on people's rights? Wait till next year. Government getting too powerful? Next year the citizens will trim it back.
Compare that to modern USA, where one party tries to suppress votes of demographics that don't agree with them. Also, if the citizens set the legislative agenda we would have as much or as little government as we want. As it stands now, we can't force our legislature to vote on pressing issues. A good example of citizens being helpless against our government, besides this one, is the fact that Obama's internet chat ignored the top voted 18 out of 20 questions because they had to deal with drug policy or cannabis. It's obvious that the citizens are concerned with this issue.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
and? there should not be campaign financing. that is one of the problems of today. the super-pacs made today used to be ILLEGAL. all it tells us is that they are bought from the very beginning. what do you thing is would to happen if one of these republican candidates actually won. their "corporate donor" would tell them what to do since they already gave millions to get them there. you shouldnt need millions to run. money does not mean they are better, it does not mean that they are intelligent, it doesn't even mean they are qualified to begin with. the only thing money brings to the table is corruption and vile. do you even think before you post?
reaper527Feb 2, 2012
@mnewcomb59
"The judicial role would be in the court. There would still be due process, therefore your argument is invalid."
you are advocating a constitutional amendment to ensure that the law doesn't get applied fairly and evenly based on the merits of the case, but instead by who is accused of the crime. if someone advocated this same policy against i minority, everyone would (rightfully so) be up in arms over it.
"And, if every citizen voted it would be great. Nobody could complain about the government because the government is entirely kept in check by it's people. People would have honest news and be able to make an informed decision to balance the powers of the government exactly as they see fit. "
you are being an idealist. mandating people to vote doesn't mean they are magically going to care and become educated voters. if someone can't bother to learn who they are voting for, they have no place in the polling booth.
"As it stands now, we can't force our legislature to vote on pressing issues. A good example of citizens being helpless against our government, besides this one, is the fact that Obama's internet chat ignored the top voted 18 out of 20 questions because they had to deal with drug policy or cannabis. It's obvious that the citizens are concerned with this issue."
and your proposals do nothing to address this
@rjopling
"and? there should not be campaign financing."
lol, you are kidding, right? how on earth is someone supposed to run a national campaign with no money besides what they have in their personal bank account? tv/radio/internet ads, lawn signs, transportation, webhosting and many other things cost money, and big money at that. so do organizing events to meet with the voters
your ideal of running a campaign without money might work for alderman/selectman in a small city or town, but beyond that your ideal is completely out of touch with reality.
"do you even think before you post?"
i think you should be asking yourself that question.
sacrabosFeb 1, 2012
That would require the recipients to draft legislation reducing their own funding or risking punishing themselves. Any effort on that front would take too long. The lobbyists and politicians know that. We're running out of time.
We can't fix the system by demanding the system fix itself. We have to be the "barbarians at the gate" and hit them directly where we exercise direct control - by starting here and now to boycott them.
The Arts are supposed by enrich the people. When they fail to do that, they damage society and should be eliminated. There are artists against SOPA because they see and understand this.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
its not the administration that is in on it. its the house of representatives and i believe that the republicans are in control so....
to be fair this is way beyond one party or another. it is the whole government that is to blame. get rid the of corporate money flowing into Washington, make it illegal to bribe politicians, and then we might get a government that works for the people again. we need a separation of government and state. the only thing the corporations are fighting for is their best interests and as we all know whats good for them is s**t for the rest of us.
evildeadashFeb 1, 2012
As i've said before. We are petitioning the same people who accept the bribes. So who actually thought this would go anywhere?
chadpyleFeb 1, 2012
You got it. It's like asking Ben Bernanke to audit the Fed.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2012
that'd be okay cause turbo tax timmy is in charge now not bernake. he already bailed. i wish warren buffet would be treasury sect though. but he's passed on the post four times. says he hates politics and doesnt wanna stoop to their level.
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
Begs the question whether the administration is also benefitting from this MPAA payday.
The_SovereignFeb 1, 2012
No, it doesn't.
Grammar Girl here.
Today I'm going to beg the question.
Ellen at Swarthmore said she would appreciate it if I talk about the misuse of the phrase begs the question. "I keep seeing it as a way to say 'The question begs to be asked' or 'The question that should be asked'," she says.
Well, Ellen, you're right. You do hear it used to mean "raises the question," but that's not what it really means.
The Right Way to Use "Begs the Question"
Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support (1, 2). It can be a premise that's independent from the conclusion (3) or in a simpler form, the premise can be just a restatement of the conclusion itself (4, 5).
For example, let's say Squiggly is trying to convince Aardvark that chocolate is healthful, and his argument is that chocolate grows on trees, so it must be healthful. Aardvark could rightly say there's no proof that something is good for you simply because it grows on a tree. Some things that grow on trees are poisonous--Chinaberry tree fruit, for example (6). So Squiggly's argument is based on a faulty premise.
Aardvark could correctly say that Squiggly's argument begs the question. What does growing on trees have to do with being healthful, anyway?
I remember what begs the question means by thinking that THEE argument raises a specific question--it begs *the* question--What's your support for that premise? OR more informally, What does that have to do with anything? You use the phrase begs the question when people are hoping you won't notice that their reasons for coming to a conclusion aren't valid. They've made an argument based on a lame assumption. The question is What's your support for that premise?
Here's an example of a simple argument that begs the question. This one just restates the conclusion as a basis for the conclusion: Chocolate is healthful because it's good for you. That begs the question. How do you know chocolate is good for you? Again, the question is What's the support for your premise? or What does that have to do with anything? If I didn't just accept that chocolate is healthful, I'm not going to accept that it's healthful because you say it's good for me. They're the same thing. Make a better argument.
The Wrong Way to Use "Begs the Question"
Sadly, begs the question is used wrong a lot. It took me about two seconds to find good examples of bad usage in the news. Many people mistakenly believe it's OK to use the phrase to introduce a clever or obvious question. For example,
After chronicling Natalie Coughlin's accomplishments, a reporter writes: "All of which begs the question, is Coughlin the best female swimmer this country has ever seen?" The reporter is using begs the question to mean something like "makes me wonder."
Here's an example from another paper:
"Board members’ explanations to the public grow more and more vague. This begs the question: What is going on in the minds of these officials who were appointed to serve us?" Again, the reporter seems to think begs the question means something like "makes me wonder" or "leads us to ask."
Common Usage Versus Established Meaning
In fact, that wrong usage is so common some people will argue it's not an error anymore (7). But I'm firmly in the camp that believes it's worthwhile to stick to the formal definition. There are plenty of phrases writers can use when they mean "makes me wonder" or "raises the question." There's no hole in the English language that needs to be filled, so there's no reason to use begs the question improperly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
TL;DR
What little I did read wasn't relevant to my statement. Which was an assertion that a refusal to take action or comment on a request for investigation regarding government corruption raises the question of whether that entity is likewise corrupt.
The_SovereignFeb 1, 2012
I can't expect to save everyone, but if at least one person reading your comment goes on to mine and learns something, there will be a reversal of entropy in human conversation, however slight. I am proud of myself.
I see you learned your lesson, at least.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
That an idiom's meaning has commonly come to mean "raises the question" or "causes one to ask?" when the original meaning was to highlight circular reasoning?
While it is interesting from a trivial knowledge perspective to know that the original meaning was corrupted by a mistranslation of Aristotle from the original Greek to Latin, and then to English (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm), the nature of an idiom is that its meaning is not predictable from the usual meaning of its constituent elements.
Idiom, from the Greek idíōma, meaning peculiarity or oddity.
The_SovereignFeb 1, 2012
Close. I would emphasize the last paragraph from that link, though, because you still seem to miss the point.
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
That assumes you had a point to be made, vs playing Digg trivial pursuit.
Angry_MuppetFeb 1, 2012
I beg to differ.
The_SovereignFeb 1, 2012
Denied.
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
Excellent childish response.
skinturtleFeb 1, 2012
The Administration IS the MPAA and RIAA. It's simple math. That bunch has probably made more money throughout the decades than anyone. In all that time they infiltrated the government using the money they have made to take it over.
We always wondered who the real power was that was in charge. Now we know. Even Saddam Hussein during his court and imprisonment said, "This is all just Hollywood."
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
What difference does that really make since legislation is drafted and written in the LEGISLATIVE branch, NOT the executive branch (aka Obama Administration)?
Are we to assume from your disingenuous implication that Conservatives are LESS corrupt? Ba-ha-ha...AS IF!
Point fail!
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
Legislation already exists to prevent outright bribery and extortion. So execution of those laws, or at a minimum investigation to see if they've been broken, falls to the bought-and-paid-for executive branch.
No, I'm not saying conservatives are less corrupt. I'm saying that at this point it is futile to believe that any Federal politician has not been bought off with campaign cash. It just so happens that the Democratic party is the more obvious recipient at the moment.
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
Trust me, we share the same contempt for corruption.
I realize anti-corruption legislation exists, but it has been rendered ineffective as a result of judicial/legislative sabotage, watered down penalties, lax enforcement AND corrupt politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. Remember, the executive branch doesn't write legislation, only Congress can do that. This explains why we see so much corruption from legislators.
While corruption has become MUCH worse in ALL 3 branches of our government over the past 30 years, the best way to solve it would be to elect legislators who would champion genuine and enforceable campaign finance reform laws along with strict anti-corruption legislation. This requires a sustained push from the American people because it threatens organized special interest group agendas and their army of lobbyists. They wouldn't take this kind of threat lightly.
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
Agreed. And given the corrupting influence of private money funding election campaigns, I would suggest the first order of business is to make all federal elections taxpayer funded, otherwise any progress will be undercut later by those who think they can get one up on their competitors on the sly.
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
You've got my vote/support.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
then lets stop it by enacting a separation of corporation and state. lets get rid of nameless people giving UNLIMITED amounts of money to potential candidates. lets stop the outright buyout of the political process by the lobbyists in Washington. you say that bribery and extortion is illegal but they do it every day and no one says a word. the whole system has been bought for day one and it has been the best investment for the rich.
Graf_OrlockFeb 2, 2012
Agreed, assuming we're talking about all money regardless of non-public source. No PACS, no corporations, no unions, no wealthy individuals.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
i like unions but the money cant be involved. unions are there so the workers have a way to unite against unfair business practices. the only real power they hold is collective bargaining but yes money should not be collected. if anything i want to start a new union that is free where it takes a democratic approach to workers rights. they vote for decisions instead of them being told by the higher ups. bring back the unions that we started with, instead of the crap they have now.
skinturtleFeb 2, 2012
then lets stop it by enacting a separation of corporation and state"
Now that's a great idea. I have been using that exact statement for over a year. This is exactly what needs to happen.
When the darkes ages in full force..we were in them largely because the populations were being ruled by a very corrupt Catholic church. They ruled with an iron hand and din;t want people to be educated. Educated people would threaten their power hold and job security.
What had to happen eventually? Separation of church and state. The powers that be..are at it again.
Why do you suppose all the social sites of the net (at least the ones who have the biggest populations) are all of a sudden changing their privacy and censoring policy? Because the government are getting uneasy about the uprisings. They want to maintain that power and so by having these companies changes their privacy and censor policies...they can more efficiently know who you are if you are involved in leading a revolution against them. They know that the social sites are useful to the rest of us to get our message out there. They don't want that.
They want OBEDIENT workers to buy and sell stuff to keep the economy moving to pay for their wars and other agendas.
skinturtleFeb 1, 2012
I don;t care what you say..we are NOT going back to the 80's. If you think that people are just going lay back and let Hollywood and the RIAA government dictate how the future is going to roll...you got another thing coming mister man.
The MPAA and RIAA have this pipe dream that people are just going to drop it and run right out with their wallets to the record stores...yeah right. Not as long as there are people like me (and we are many) educating those people about the price fixing and the tactics of buying politicians they won't. I'm going tell people if they want a certain title..wait til it shows up in the reduced to clear bin...or a pawn shop. There are many ways to boycott.
The sleeping giant (the public) is waking up. But not only that..but understand that when the older people are gone...the younger generation that you **** are trying to corral now...won't forget. We'll change these laws in the near future.
and as for "LEGISLATIVE branch, NOT the executive branch"...those are useless titles...just there to make you think they have democratic operations.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
that what i love about the republicans. all of their support comes from people over 50, another 10 years and they die off. God Bless America.
blankmikeFeb 1, 2012
The nature of petitions are the people are asking for a favour from those in power. The people accepting the petition may decline to act on them.
Make no mistake about this. It is a political game not a technological one. It is played in the political arena not the tech one. Thinking otherwise will only reduce the effectiveness of any actions now and in the future.
skinturtleFeb 1, 2012
Well there it is...Obama is also in the pocket of the entertainment industry. I'm beginning to believe that through all this we are seeing who the real government is...you know...the real owners of the country. It the RIAA and MPAA.
skinturtleFeb 1, 2012
The government seems to think that this is all gonna go away if they "look the other way"...or enact enough laws. Got news for ya there Mr. President...It ain't.
These people seem to think we're all just gonna go running back to the record stores, tongues hanging out and open wallets. This isn't the 80's and we're all a lot more informed.
Hell will freeze before I will ever spend $20 on a CD.
Graf_OrlockFeb 1, 2012
Surprised?
Though in truth it's more than the RIAA/MPAA - anyone with a big enough wallet is a friend of the administration and Congress.
skinturtleFeb 1, 2012
The way I see it...the government is set up like this. There are two parties..GOP and DEMS. They are nothing but front end props. They have just a enough differences between them to make it look believable. And MAYBE years and years ago the two were actually entities who were for the people.
What has happened is over the years as a few business became very powerful..they started infiltrating the government with their people. Over time they took it over and it's now sliced up like this...banks, big oil, Hollywood and the large music labels...four slices with big oil being possibly having the largest slice.
That club has been kind of leery about letting software and technology companies in there because at this point they don't know who's side they are on.
So..as I said the government is sliced up into four main parts (there maybe little slivers to others) but all in all the government is a conglomeration of corporations with as I said the GOP and the Democrats as front end props to make it look like you have choice. This is part of the reason why there is only 2 parties in the US...any more than that would could risk their cover or possibly too hard to manage.
It has to be this way because there is no other reason why a record company or a movie studio could have this kind of sway with a government...not to mention internationally speaking.
It's already been said on here, "Rul of law..rule of law!!"
Yeah? Funny isn't it how they wanted to through rule of law and due process out the window just here a few weeks ago with SOPA. And...where is the rule of law when it comes to the normal citizen?...It doesn't exist.
So what would the incentive be for running for president if it's just a front? It's good paying job especially when you have those types of companies running it.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
quick question, who isn't? the real owners are not just the entertainment industry, its the .01%. the people who can buy any vote they want, and who regularly flood Washington with special interests.
skinturtleFeb 2, 2012
agreed.
badsyntaxFeb 2, 2012
It isn't the white houses job to investigate this, sorry folks.
It is police, FBI, FEC, those sorta organizations, and they should be doing it all the time...
However, maybe they are just overloaded with all the congressional investigations into ethical charges.
I know how to fix it, don't re-elect the f**ker in November, but I'd be surprised to see that happen.
analogkid1Feb 2, 2012
The almighty dollar from corporate lobbyists and the ultra-rich is buying our government and purchasing our politicians, turning them into their own personal puppets. They've done it for a long time and will continue to do so.
This is not our government, it's theirs. If you don't realize that fact by now, you're either looking at the world through "rose-colored glasses" or you have not educated yourselves enough.
Does it suck? Hell yeah. Is there a damn thing we can do about it?
I think you know the answer.
BrushTeethFeb 2, 2012
Just give me a hammer and 30 seconds. all your problems will be solved
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
more crookedness from the mouse that roared. time for a change in mangement in november.
lizardking7112Feb 1, 2012
And this surprises anyone from the "transparency administration"? This is the same guy that signed the NDAA into law.
farone3538Feb 2, 2012
please digg that http://digg.com/news/business/soundclick_artist_scorpbeats_untagged_rap_rnb_hiphop_dirty_south_instrumentals_for_19_99 thank you
MorrisonEbonyFeb 1, 2012
my best friend's aunt makes $81 every hour on the internet. She has been without work for 7 months but last month her check was $9090 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://ddp.net/dgz
diyayadav02Feb 8, 2012
http://needing.u.cc
diyayadav02Feb 8, 2012
http://needing.u.cc
carinsurancepricecomparisonFeb 3, 2012
Chris Dodd and the MPAA so bad...
murrhoundFeb 2, 2012
As per usual the government does whats best for them and ignores the people
craigreedFeb 2, 2012
I suppose the white house is partially correct, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't I dunno call Eric Holder and tell him to do his damn job for once in his career, next time pick an AG who isn't a corporate crony.
karmashockFeb 2, 2012
Clearly winning a petition is totally meaningless. Shocking.
khairul20uapstuFeb 2, 2012
congratulations
jklnnobFeb 1, 2012
Hope you are enjoying Today Ghost Hunters Marathon . On SiFi Channel. And go to see Woman in Black ate the movies.
skinturtleFeb 1, 2012
I'll wait til it's in the reduced bm or at a pawn shop. Then i will let my friends borrow it..or I will just have them all come over and watch it with me.
uursssFeb 1, 2012
http://ulenn.com/windows-8in-ilk-deneyimini-yasayin/