|
The Amber Allert Law/RAVE Law abuse is starting now
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Emrld |
| The abuse of the RAVE law has begun. Don't these lame-ass bastards have some real crimes to attend to?THESE |
|
|
| djnaeblis |
| This is just crap. So dumb. I can earnestly say I hate the senator that pushed this. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
I'd like to throw a pie in his ing face.
He's on the same level with john ashcroft.
What a piece of . I'm going to write him some hate mail straight away....:whip:
If you live in Delaware, vote against this sack of ....
Ok, here's where to send hate mail -
http://biden.senate.gov/contact.html
Use the DC office, since he's mostly there:
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-5042
Fax: 202-224-0139
TDD: 202-224-5652
E-mail: [email protected]
Please barage his office with hate mail. I encourage people from other countries to join in as well if you love such US producers as BT, Gabriel & Dresden, etc.
This is an attack on the music we love, and this is the man responsible for it..... |
|
|
| Space Cadet |
| Pardon my language but this senator is one in studpid !!! What a ing hick, these people are soo hypocritical, I bet you this has snorted tons of cocaine when he was young. WTF, doesnt this wanker have anything better to do, pisses me off soo much. These s(DEA) even a few years back would always raid our club(Simon's) in Gainesville FL. Anyways sorry for the language again but I think people like this senator should be condemned to the highest levels of hell(I think Dante should have a special even crueler level of hell for an like this) Ok, I will def. send this inbred hick some hate mail..Pardon my french once again... |
|
|
| occrider |
| The sad part was that it was sneaked in ... :( It was rejected before by congress because nobody else really agreed with the bill. But since it was tacked on, like some stupid footnote, to a bill that WAS needed, any congressman who vetoed it would look like an ass. This really needs to be brought up to the supreme court, much like the patriot act. I do have some confidence that these bills will be revoked once cooler heads prevail. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| And these goddamn patriotic Americans claim we have so many freedoms... |
|
|
| P`zazz |
| I guess this is what they call the 'american dream' :rolleyes: |
|
|
| sash |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The sad part was that it was sneaked in ... :( It was rejected before by congress because nobody else really agreed with the bill. But since it was tacked on, like some stupid footnote, to a bill that WAS needed, any congressman who vetoed it would look like an ass. This really needs to be brought up to the supreme court, much like the patriot act. I do have some confidence that these bills will be revoked once cooler heads prevail. |
what's with this tacking on of bills? i saw an episode of the simpsons where they did this too... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by sash
what's with this tacking on of bills? i saw an episode of the simpsons where they did this too... |
Boy: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
Amendment: I'm not garbage.
I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal
For policemen
To beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
'Least I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
Boy: But why can't we just make a law against flag burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution...
Boy: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation Xers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
Boy: But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?
Amendment: Then I'll destroy all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back
I'll say that he's gay
Big Fat Guy: Good news, Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution!
Amendment: Oh, yeah! Door's open, boys!
Lisa: So it's true: some cartoons do encourage violence. [punches Bart]
Bart: Ow!
Lol that was a great episode. This was from a different episode but it's just as quality. You gotta hear Jack Sheldon sing it ... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by sash
what's with this tacking on of bills? i saw an episode of the simpsons where they did this too... |
The anti-rave law was "attached" onto a bill called the Amber Alert Bill - which is a child abduction law. The Amber Alert bill strengthens and enforces tougher penalties upon those who kidnap kids. It also has some stricter penalties on child pornography.
As you can see, this is very similar, if not identical to the anti-RAVE act, which enforces stricter penalties upon promoters and/or club owners when drugs exist upon their premises and/or events (dripping sarcasm). Fines of up to $250,000 and possible jail time can be given if one pill is found at a club/event. Don't you see how the AMBER alert and anti-RAVE act coincide so well together?
This is known as "back-door legislation", and it's quite popular with our Congress and Senators. It works like this (in a nutshell): a bill or piece of legislation is created by someone or a group of Congressman that they want passed. They pass it around to other Congressman and/or Senators to measure it up and see if it can gather support, and then they attempt to bring it onto the floor for debate and to get it passed. They notice, however, that there's not a lot of support for the bill, or it becomes unpopular to other Congressman and/or Senators to vote on it because there's a discerning voice in their districts. So these creators realize that the bill by itself will not get passed, and decide to "attach" their created bill onto another Bill that's more popular, and has a better chance of being passed. This popular bill, however, does not have to have any relation whatsoever to their proposal being attached. , half the time the other Congressman and/or Senators likely don't even read the "attached" bills. So the popular bill gets passed, and the attached bill gets passed along with it.
This is a watered-down version of what happens. There's a lot of under-the-table work involved at times with these measures as well, along with maintaining "good-ol' boys" networks, "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" type policies, etc. etc. that come into play as well. But that's the general summary of it. In this particular instance, Senator Biden had a crew of folks create this anti-RAVE act some months ago. It became very unpopular with other Senators and Congressman thanks to campaign groups and volunteer programs who held protests, gave hundreds of thousands of emails, letters, and faxes from concerned citizens showing grave concern for the bill to their elected officials in their respective districts. The unpopularity grew, and the bill was never passed (I don't think it was even put onto the floor, but I'm not sure). So Biden and crew decided to back-door the bill to a very popular Amber Alert Bill, from which he knew it would pass. And lo and behold, we have enforcement on this bill.
This is only the beginning. Do you think they will target Eminem concerts? How about Rolling Stone concerts? They probably won't even go after Phish (which is totally insane, considering they could open up a drug cartel after busting that concert!!!) No, they will target raves and clubs, period. They merely have to threaten promoters and/or club owners, and that will shut them down for good. Something must be done. It is pure discrimination based on musical tastes. It truly sickens me. |
|
|
| sash |
| So does this mean that basically anything can be passed as long as it's quietly tacked on to a popular "must pass" bill? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by sash
So does this mean that basically anything can be passed as long as it's quietly tacked on to a popular "must pass" bill? |
Now you're getting it! U.S. Dirty Politics 101. It happens all the time. Usually, however, the attached bill does have some relevancy to the primary bill. I wrote to my Senators and Congressman about this. One of the Senators (Pat Roberts (R) Kansas - major who also supported the bill!) wrote back and told me that something had to be done to curb drug use amongst kids. I guess this was his means of telling me that the relation between the two bills was kids. I'm guessing that most ravers are of legal age, if not a little lower here, and that most club goers are in their mid-twenties, so Robert's answer was a complete copout. I wrote back and asked him to specify the relevancy between the 2 bills (Amber vs. anti-RAVE). Funny, I haven't heard back from him yet (and I doubt I will).
But yes, this happens all the time, and it's quite dirty. One of the many loopholes in U.S. politics. |
|
|
|
|
