Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate

[TruthMonger <tm@dev.null>]

Declan McCullagh wrote: 
> Danny,
> Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise"
> is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT
> supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of
> the conference committee who did not endorse it."

  Do people actually listen to the CDT and give them money, or do they
just give them money?
  Every time I have read one of the CDT's releases, I have to shake my
head and read it again in order to make certain it not is some kind of
spoof by a semi-retarded government spook. The releases are ofen not
even consistent within themselves, let alone when compared to their
other press releases and the claims of their employees in emails.
  I keep reading variations of "We're fighting for peace, and fucking
for virginity!" or some such nonsensical crap.

  Invariably, after the dust has settled, and the CDT embarks on some
new campaign, I look at their new releases, or the email of their
employees, and I see them claiming all kinds of things which I remember
as being the complete opposite of their claim.
  The last two times this happened, I checked the archives myself, but
this time I am going to just take the word of the other hundred people
who post to say that the CDT is full of lying, fraudulent fucks.

  Is it really that easy to make bucks in the 'Defenders of Freedom'
marketplace? Maybe I need to start an organization to save the rest
of you poor, pathetic creatures on the list from [Your Cause Here].
  What are the high-dollar buzzwords, these days? Liberal, Democracy,
Freedom? How about 'Free-Dumb' to get a little cash coming in from
slow Republicans, too?

  What is *really* scary is the thought that the people who give money
to the CDT probably vote, too.

TruthMonger