|
|
On November 15 2011 23:56 TheBomb wrote:
This is part of a new world system where if you happen to post a what would otherwise be fair usage video or picture or whatever you will be shut down and what is scary is that most of these laws go all over the world.
This is a new world system of corrupt ways and corporate domination.
this is exactly right, theres nothing we can do about this, the corperations are going to shut down any outlet of freedom left in the world
|
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me.
|
The person debating with Issa atm is spouting just pure bs at the moment.
Just started watching the stream at the moment. Issa at least seems pretty level headed. And so does this Scott guy.
And clerk behind Issa is hot.
|
On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me.
People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote."
|
On December 16 2011 10:08 Razith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:05 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:05 Razith wrote:On December 16 2011 10:03 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:03 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 10:00 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:00 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 09:56 Scribble wrote:
Was the loser pays all amendment the amendment that was just voted against 22-11? yes, the utah guy suggested the loser pays system and it got voted down on other note i would like to request the chair for an amendment on the amendment that the chick behind MR.ISSA is hot but old. She might not even be in her thirties. + Show Spoiler + lol, count the makeups and plastics.... so far we could see a constant of 22 'no's and these are the people who will vote to pass the bill.... gosh this is unacceptable =_= What plastic? She looks like a normal woman with makeup but hotter. Its funny cause she knows she's on camera, watch how she acts. Also, the clerk is WAY hotter. I have to disagree with that but yield my time. If the gentleman will yield his time, I would like to point out the obvious age lines and heavy makeup on the amendment, and would like to direct your attention to the younger, hotter amendment which captures the whole need of an amendment rather than obscure desire of the old amendment. I thank the gentlemen and yield back.
I take offense to the "obvious age lines and heavy makeup" phrase the gentlemen has uttered and would like to have it stricken from the record. I yield my time back to the gentlemen.
|
On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me.
They are trying to ad amendments, as in alterations of the current proposed bill.
In other words small/large changes in the bill to make sure it doesn't create loopholes etc.
|
On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote."
So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)?
Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur?
|
On December 16 2011 10:08 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:07 Kazeyonoma wrote:On December 16 2011 10:06 Zalithian wrote:
Clerk seems pretty and intelligent. I would take her over the chick behind Issa. To reiterate, Goodlatte is a douche I take offense to your douche statement. I yield my time. For real or sarcasm? 
just a joke, he is a douche =P
|
On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote."
The emphasis is on "vote" :D
|
Are they currently discussing it?
|
On December 16 2011 10:12 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote." So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)? Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur?
They won't be voting on the bill for a while. These are just proposed changes before they vote on the bill to try and make it more acceptable or likely to pass. Unfortunately they don't want loser pays because they don't give a shit about due process and are bought out by the entertainment industry.
|
On December 16 2011 10:10 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:08 Razith wrote:On December 16 2011 10:05 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:05 Razith wrote:On December 16 2011 10:03 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:03 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 10:00 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:00 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 09:56 Scribble wrote:
Was the loser pays all amendment the amendment that was just voted against 22-11? yes, the utah guy suggested the loser pays system and it got voted down on other note i would like to request the chair for an amendment on the amendment that the chick behind MR.ISSA is hot but old. She might not even be in her thirties. + Show Spoiler + lol, count the makeups and plastics.... so far we could see a constant of 22 'no's and these are the people who will vote to pass the bill.... gosh this is unacceptable =_= What plastic? She looks like a normal woman with makeup but hotter. Its funny cause she knows she's on camera, watch how she acts. Also, the clerk is WAY hotter. I have to disagree with that but yield my time. If the gentleman will yield his time, I would like to point out the obvious age lines and heavy makeup on the amendment, and would like to direct your attention to the younger, hotter amendment which captures the whole need of an amendment rather than obscure desire of the old amendment. I thank the gentlemen and yield back. I take offense to the "obvious age lines and heavy makeup" phrase the gentlemen has uttered and would like to have it stricken from the record. I yield my time back to the gentlemen.
I thank the gentlemen. In my statement direct toward the old amendment I had no intent to offend the gentlemen and would like to apologize for the misinterpretation of my statement however I am stating facts and personal offense to said stated facts should not take priority over the importance of the young amendment and should still be included in the record. I yield my time. Thank you mister chairman.
|
Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so:
I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves.
|
On December 16 2011 10:13 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:12 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote." So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)? Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur? They won't be voting on the bill for a while. These are just proposed changes before they vote on the bill to try and make it more acceptable or likely to pass. Unfortunately they don't want loser pays because they don't give a shit about due process and are bought out by the entertainment industry.
for a while, a few hours or for a while, some months?
thanks for clarifying.
|
Oh sweet jesus. It's WATT AGAIN
|
On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote:
Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so:
I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves.
It affects every US website,so yea if you like TL it concerns you as well
|
On December 16 2011 10:15 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:13 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:12 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote." So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)? Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur? They won't be voting on the bill for a while. These are just proposed changes before they vote on the bill to try and make it more acceptable or likely to pass. Unfortunately they don't want loser pays because they don't give a shit about due process and are bought out by the entertainment industry. for a while, a few hours or for a while, some months? thanks for clarifying.
I am not sure how long until it will be voted on. Hopefully someone else in here may have a better approximation.
|
On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote:
Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so:
I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves.
If this passes in the US, it's likely to jump on the next boat over the atlantic.
|
On December 16 2011 10:14 Razith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:10 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 Razith wrote:On December 16 2011 10:05 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:05 Razith wrote:On December 16 2011 10:03 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:03 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 10:00 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 10:00 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 09:56 Scribble wrote:
Was the loser pays all amendment the amendment that was just voted against 22-11? yes, the utah guy suggested the loser pays system and it got voted down on other note i would like to request the chair for an amendment on the amendment that the chick behind MR.ISSA is hot but old. She might not even be in her thirties. + Show Spoiler + lol, count the makeups and plastics.... so far we could see a constant of 22 'no's and these are the people who will vote to pass the bill.... gosh this is unacceptable =_= What plastic? She looks like a normal woman with makeup but hotter. Its funny cause she knows she's on camera, watch how she acts. Also, the clerk is WAY hotter. I have to disagree with that but yield my time. If the gentleman will yield his time, I would like to point out the obvious age lines and heavy makeup on the amendment, and would like to direct your attention to the younger, hotter amendment which captures the whole need of an amendment rather than obscure desire of the old amendment. I thank the gentlemen and yield back. I take offense to the "obvious age lines and heavy makeup" phrase the gentlemen has uttered and would like to have it stricken from the record. I yield my time back to the gentlemen. I thank the gentlemen. In my statement direct toward the old amendment I had no intent to offend the gentlemen and would like to apologize for the misinterpretation of my statement however I am stating facts and personal offense to said stated facts should not take priority over the importance of the young amendment and should still be included in the record. I yield my time. Thank you mister chairman.
If Issas aide was that old and would have done plastics, then she wouldn't have such "age lines" however the clerk doesn't have "age lines" sho she would be liklier to have done plastics.
But it matters little, since relative age isn't the only thing that decides how good looking someone is.
|
On December 16 2011 10:15 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:13 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:12 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote:
Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote." So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)? Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur? They won't be voting on the bill for a while. These are just proposed changes before they vote on the bill to try and make it more acceptable or likely to pass. Unfortunately they don't want loser pays because they don't give a shit about due process and are bought out by the entertainment industry. for a while, a few hours or for a while, some months? thanks for clarifying.
weeks/months
this is jsut to amend the current bill, after however many ammendments are voted on, it'll end up being finally voted upon to see if it gets passed, if ti does from the council then it'll move up to the house of reps, where it'll be voted, and if passed, will go up to the senate, voted, and if passed, go to obama, and obama will veto it, it'll go back to the house, where it'll need 2/3rd vote to pass, which then goes to senate and requires another 2/3rd vote to pass, FINALLY to become law, in which case, someone can plead that this violates their constitutional rights, take it to the supreme court, and THERE a precedence will be set and cannot be suaded by lobbyist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2pjWf.jpg)
