SOPA Sponsor Accuses Wikipedia Of Spreading Misinformation

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act that has moved a number of sites, including Craigslist and Reddit to shut down for the day, accuses the biggest name involved in the blackouts, Wikipedia, of doing a disservice to its users by inciting outrage over the piece of legislation.

“It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act,” Smith said in a statement released yesterday. “The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.”

Opponents of the bill — which includes a lot of people from a wide variety of backgrounds — say it will stifle innovation and stunt growth of Internet start-ups, but Smith countered that they are simply mistaken.

“It’s disappointing that some SOPA critics appear not to have read the bill,” he said. “This bill will not censor the Internet. But it will protect American workers, inventors and job creators from foreign thieves who steal our products, technology and intellectual property.”

Speaking of intellectual property, according to this Vice.com story, Congressman’s Smith’s own re-election site was caught using a Creative Commons photo without any credit to the photographer (a big no-no).

“So according to the SOPA bill, should it pass, maybe I could petition the court to take action against http://www.texansforlamarsmith.com,”; the photographer told Vice.

Sponsor of online piracy bill calls Wikipedia blackout a ‘publicity stunt’ [TheHill.com]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. MutantMonkey says:

    “The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.”

    Shocker! In this report, a Senator that doesn’t understand the bills he is sponsoring.

  2. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    Translation:

    Lamarr Smith: “LIES! THE FILTHY PRO-PIRACY WEBSITE LIES!”

    (TVTropes has put up a SOPA notice too)

  3. dolemite says:

    Can someone show me the part in the bill that specifically says “all domestic websites and companies are immune to this bill”, as the Congressman states? I think it’s a case similar to the defense bill. “Sure, it does say we can detain Americans without the right to trial or lawyer, but com’on…you think we’ll use that?”

    You think I’m going to trust the MPAA, RIAA (known to lie and inflate numbers to the extreme) and the 11% approval rating, bought and paid for Congress over internet intellectuals that you know…actually understand the internet isn’t a series of tubes?

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Agreed. There is far too much potential for abuse of the bill’s powers, as they stand now, to blanketly state no ‘legitimate’ website anywhere will ever be harmed by actions taken under the authority granted by SOPA/PIPA.

      • Kuri says:

        They can take it down over the intended uses, to snuff out competition, to silence a single bad a review, or just a big “fuck you, that’s why”

    • Rachacha says:

      I believe where the Gentleman from Texas believes this is true is where the law would not block .com, .org and similar US based top level domains

      From PIPA:
      ‘‘nondomestic domain name’’ means a domain name for which the domain name registry that issued the domain name and operates the relevant top level domain, and the domain name
      registrar for the domain name, are not located in the United States

      What they fail to realize is that there are several “foreign” websites that have a US Based TLD (thepiratebay.org for example), and several US based organizations own non-US TLDs (bit.ly, twit.tv and others)

    • consumerfan says:

      It doesn’t need to affect US sites directly because a) those are already under US jurisdiction and can be taken down using other legislation and b) the US is pushing other countries to have their own version of the bill which would apply to US sites.

  4. CelticWhisper says:

    Too late, Smith. You lose. The people have spoken and if you have brain one in your head, you’ll abandon this abortion of a bill before you wind up plugging your political career in the face with a 12-gauge.

    SOPA and PIPA must be stopped. We do not care what the industry wants. We do not care what politicians claim the bills will do. We do not care that Hollywood and Washington want this. Our response to those who support SOPA and PIPA with “But but but…!” is “Too bad. Sit down, shut up, and maybe we’ll consider letting you keep your office.”

  5. Matthew PK says:

    Ars Technica has an excellent piece (and link to CATO) on why the jobs numbers are absolute nonsense.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/mpaa-attacks-ars-for-challenging-efforts-to-curb-content-theft.ars

  6. Guppy06 says:

    “The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites”

    Just like the DMCA!

    • scoutermac says:

      Technically the DMCA is violated every day by using a DVR and many other ways.

    • lostalaska says:

      DMCA! zing!

      It’s a good point, look at how the DMCA has been used to shut down so many things not to mention the fact that filing a DMCA takedown request on material that you don’t own doesn’t seem to have any consequences.

      The part that drives me crazy though is how SOPA/PIPA are doing an end run around any kind of judicial process to get what they want. It essentially says once you’re on their list your guilty until you can prove otherwise which seems completely backwards to US law.

  7. scoutermac says:
  8. Kaleey says:

    Ass. One big ass in a sea of slightly smaller asses. If the bill would allow someone to petition a site be blacklisted due to content (whether posted by the site’s creator or anyone else who can post to the site in a comment, etc), then any site where the public can post (even with a user account) is in jeopardy.

    The bill is good in THEORY. But then you mix greed, cutthroat politics, and general sliminess, and that is why it won’t work the way they want it to.

    example:
    The RIAA can create an account on consumerist, post a link to illegal content in the comments of several articles, and then petition that consumerist.com be shut down, because they are linking to illegal content. And they can do this for any site they don’t like.

    The power of this bill will be abused. End of story.

    • Difdi says:

      If the holder of a copyright posts a link to the intellectual property that copyright covers to a blog’s comments section, then no infringement has taken place, because the copyright owner has licensed the publishing.

      • tinyninja says:

        They likely wouldn’t choose user name RIAA.

        They’d make sure it couldn’t be linked to them. Easy enough–go to the library, create hotmail acct, linky, linky…the potential for sabotage is huge.

  9. donjumpsuit says:

    That’s a sweet rug!

  10. whogots is "not computer knowledgeable" says:

    How the hell would you know, Smith? You bragged earlier in the hearings that you don’t understand how the Internet works.

  11. eturowski says:

    So… let’s see…

    I can believe spokespeople from Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, Consumerist, and a host of other reputable websites with tangible examples of how SOPA/PIPA could easily be abused to the mass detriment of free speech and entrepreneurialism.

    Or, I can believe Lamar Smith, who receives the largest chunk of his campaigning funds from the “TV/Movies/Music” sector, as he nebulously claims, “Don’t worry, this bill won’t hurt a bit,” while providing no credible sources to support his babbling.

    It ain’t rocket science, folks.

    • Rachacha says:

      Or, if you think that Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, Consumerist etc are somehow biased (jobs, ad revenue etc), you can believe Vint Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the internet and several Internet security experts who have no financial interest in whether the internet stays alive who all believe that SOPA/PIPA is bad.

    • Eremis77 says:

      Exactly.

      It’s kind of a nice change of pace when someone is too dumb to hide their dishonesty.

      Last election in California, PG&E put forth Proposition 16, which would require a two-thirds voter approval for new local public electricity providers. They described it as “consumers’ right to vote”, when in reality it was an attempt to quash any opposition to them from local utility companies like SMUD. In the “pro and con” arguments on the ballot, the pro stance just kept repeating condescending language like “why wouldn’t you want the right to vote on it?” The con side repeatedly described the bill supporters’ ties to PG&E, and the huge sums of money ($46 MILLION!) spent on advertising. The proposition failed, but only by 2.8%.

  12. pop top says:

    I love how one of the biggest scare tactics that pro-SOPA people use is the “OMG FOREIGNERS” line. Why promote xenophobia? It’s dangerous and ignorant.

  13. Kuri says:

    Why doesn’t he just be honest and tell us to bend over?

  14. MonkeyMonk says:

    Lamar Smith is backpeddling and instituting major damage control since his sponsorship of this bipartisan bill basically shows he’s in the pocket of the MPAA and RIAA.

    He doesn’t work for the American people. He on the payroll of the corporations and special interests. I’m sure he was hoping this would all pass quietly and without scrutiny and now all the media attention is scaring him shitless.

    I hope the fine people of Texas see what a shill this charlatan is (and any other Senator or Representative supporting these bills) come the next election.

    • DrLumen says:

      Unfortunately this clown keeps getting re-elected. I would vote against him but am in a different district.

      He is absolutely clueless about anything tech related. He is merely a mouthpiece for any big corporation of the day that gives him money.I really doubt San Antonio has that many companies or people that have such a passionate opinions about the internet.

      Other great hits from this clown…
      Expansion of the DMCA
      Vote to pass a bill that limits the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to impose water quality standards.
      Vote to repeal energy efficiency standards of certain incandescent light bulbs.
      Vote to pass a bill that terminates the Federal Housing Administration Refinance Program.
      Voted NAY to pass a bill that establishes “whistleblower protections” for Offshore oil workers.
      Voted NAY to pass a bill that establishes new disclosure requirements for political advertisements and financing of campaigns
      Voted NAY to pass a bill that expands the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate food products and food facilities.
      Voted NAY to pass a bill that prohibits price-gouging of gasoline during times of an energy emergency.

    • deathbecomesme says:

      The problem is the people that elected Mr Smith are the ones that get their news/sermons from Fox News. There is no getting through that force field. Ever. You can’t fight stupid with facts

      • hmburgers says:

        The old saying used to be “…but will it get them off their tractors?” when referring to middle-American’s by so called high power people.

        In this case the people voting for someone like Lamar don’t have a clue that SOPA exists let alone how it may affect them. This campaign by major sites like wiki, google, etc is going get NOTICED.

        The problem now is how do you “educate” these people as to WHO is disrupting things… go to wiki and you get an ominous black page saying it’s down, then a wall of text… no where in that wall of text does Lamar or Smith appear… Nowhere on the Google page does Lamar or Smith appear. Craigslist simply lists him as a “supporter”

        Congress as a whole isn’t afraid of being unpopular. But individual members are.

        The most devastating thing that wiki, google, etc, could do is simply publish the name of the man who is sponsoring this bill. His name would become infamous for creating this situation and he would have a hard time living it down anywhere, let alone his home area.

        Asking people to write to their members of congress is great… hopefully some of them will listen… but singling out the sponsor of this bill will probably go much further toward making members of congress actually THINK about what they’re doing before they promote laws that are effectively purchased by rich and powerful organizations.

    • Flik says:

      Totally agree. Congressman Lamar can suck it.

      I’m really curious to see how much campaign reelection money he collected from his friends in Hollywood. I’m betting he’s at the bank, cashing the checks right now.

    • Dallas_shopper says:

      You mean the fine people who live in the 21st Congressional District in Texas:

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=TX&district=21

      I can’t vote for or against Lamar Smith; I’m in the 32nd Congressional District, represented by Pete Sessions.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=TX&district=32

      Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay me. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

    • SacraBos says:

      What you can do is send a copy of a large check to Lamar Smith – letting him know that if he votes for SOPA/PIPA that the “Pay To” will be made out to his OPPONENT.

      You can’t vote for him, but you can always donate to his competition to get him out of office.

  15. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    “”The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. “

    How about all the other kinds of websites? Sometimes – it’s an amazing concept – people actually stand up for other people. Sometimes – again – totaly amazing – people care about things that don’t directly affect them, or that open the door to affected them later on.

    And if you can actually believe – sometimes people care about the principle of freedom in addition to the practice of it.

  16. galm666 says:

    Sure, I’m going to trust the guy who has movie and television lobbyists as the highest contributors in his last election campaign. I’m gonna trust some guy who won’t put actual internet tech specialists and inventors on an advisory panel, but will put RIAA/MPAA types on the panel. Like I’m going to trust the guy who up and told the public, “I don’t know how the internet works.”

    That’s like trusting me to tell you how to build a house. I can tell you how it looks, but I can’t tell you squat about building it, and I have no business doing so.

  17. sqeelar says:

    Rentiers are so feudal system.

    Lamar’s idea of wealth is not labor or capital or entepreneur or techo/research invention, just a stagnant pay-for-use model that works well for landed gentry and gym, newspaper, and magazine subscriptions that never quite stop billing credit cards.

    His job creation strategy is to get his staffers hired by SOPAPIPA lobbyists to almost lobby (since fully lobbying is illegal and ironic for Judiciary Committee worker.

  18. gedster314 says:

    Too bad this guy didn’t learn from the Bush administration how to name a bill. “Stop On Line Piracy” just does not sound as good as the “Blue Skies Act” or the “Patriot Act.” If it was named “Stop Broad Band Congestion”, “Americans for the Liberation of Broadband” or “Broadband for All Americans” maybe the press and American people would have been Bammboozled enough to let it slide on through. At least he didn’t use the term “tubes” in the title so that makes the leading Congressional expert on the Internet.

  19. Beefaster says:

    that fact that this guy wears a wig says everything about his manhood and deceitfulness. He’s publically living a lie.

  20. Dre' says:

    Fuck you Lamar Smith. I hope you get hit by a slow moving bus.

    • teamplur says:

      See, that’s not nice, as a former school bus driver, I can tell you that an accident like that would likely result in the bus driver being fired, and probably losing his commercial drivers licence. And those accidents DO go on your record that insurance companies look at. Without a good letter of explanation from the employer or something else, the insurance company would not look kindly on that kind of hit. how can you wish for a hard working american to lose their job like that?

  21. Coffee says:

    “It’s disappointing that some SOPA critics appear not to have read the bill,” he said. “This bill will not censor the Internet. But it will protect American workers, inventors and job creators

    Funny how a term can become a part of political rhetoric so quickly that when I see its use, I immediately know that I will disagree with the person using it.

    • Conformist138 says:

      True. I’m now adding “foreign criminals” to the list.

    • LabGnome says:

      It is super nice of people to use language to immediately invalidate themselves for me. It saves me some time.

      job creators, foreign criminals (new one! YAY!), class warfare, socialist, etc.

      My list seems to be mostly jabbing at Republican BS, but I think a lot of that comes from them being more in my mind at the moment because of the Republican primaries.

      • dolemite says:

        For me, it’s all of those things, and then the minute they state something like “God told me to run for President” or some such.

      • Coffee says:

        It’s also because they’re generally much better than the Democratic Party at creating “-isms” memes (campaign slogans like “Yes we can” excepted). Hell, they did such a good job changing the meaning of the term “liberal” in political circles that a term that was considered fine 25 years ago is now anathema to liberal politicians in the midwest and south.

  22. oldwiz65 says:

    One wonders how much you have to pay a congressman to do your bidding? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? They don’t need to hide the money anymore – the SCOTUS has said that corporations can contribute unlimited amounts of money to any campaign. In my opinion, this makes bribery legal.

  23. vliam says:

    For the technically challenged members of Congress, you can hit escape during the redirection at Wikipedia to access the page you are looking for during this planned outage.

  24. limbodog says:

    in 2 years: Lamar Smith, MPAA lobbyist. He’s bought and paid-for.

  25. centurion says:

    I wouldn’t trust a white man named “Lamar”, and I don’t trust men with perfect hair. On top of that I don’t trust politicians, at all.

  26. The Twilight Clone says:

    Translation:

    I’m a douchebag arch-conservative from Texas, bought and paid for by huge corporations who stand to gain if this passes. Hopefully dimwitted Americans will listen to me. Also, I have no fucking clue what I’m talking about.

  27. doc-rch says:

    “job creators ” If I hear this term one more time I am going to puke. What the hell is a “job creator” anyway? How about “job god” of “job diety” or some other ridiclous term.

    Don’t people get hired because the person or company that hired them (employer) could not run their business without them. Who is doing whom a favor? Geez. Should “workers” or “employees” be called “business creators” because without them the business could not operate?

    How about “word creator?”

    • The Twilight Clone says:

      I think the “job creator” horseshit has begun to lose its luster. People aren’t buying it anymore.

      • MrEvil says:

        Since the US Economy has become a consumer economy there’s no such thing as the old definition of job creator. The only job creators in this country anymore are the consumers that spend money with businesses.

    • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

      “Job creators” is just code for “rich white men”.

  28. vdestro says:

    The United States Congress: A fully owned subsidiary of large corporations.

  29. Bluto says:

    “It’s disappointing that some SOPA critics appear not to have read the bill,” he said. “This bill will not censor the Internet. But it will protect American workers, inventors and job creators from foreign thieves who steal our products, technology and intellectual property.”

    Have you read the bill your masters wrote for you Congressman?

    Eh, keep fucking that chicken Lamar.

  30. ShreeThunderbird says:

    Apparently Congressman Smith isn’t familiar with the first amendment. Is there any institution in this country that spreads more lies and misinformation than the United States Congress? Right, I forgot Fox News.

    • hansn says:

      The distinction between the two, at least as far as the conservative parts of the US Congress go, are increasingly blurred. Presidential candidates are FNC contributors, and FNC shows play kingmaker by anointing “true conservatives.”

  31. Geekybiker says:

    Like many of the bill proposed by the entertainment industry they are good in theory. However they have also proved they will use the legislation like a club to curb competition and get rid legit content too. I have no doubt things would go very bad very quick.

  32. dolemite says:

    He’s probably thinking to himself: “How ironic…our bill that censors free speech is in danger due to the free speech process…thank goodness SOPA is cooking.”

  33. Professor59 says:

    He’s obviously not going to change his tune as long the the lobbyists money is in his pocket. He and your other representatives are just doing the job they are paid to do. Unfortunately, it’s not what the TAXPAYERS pay him to do.

    Ever wonder why someone with an apparently working brain will spend $2 million to get elected to a job that pays $100k?

    • eturowski says:

      Let’s see… free healthcare, a pension, media exposure to boost your ego, legal loopholes; plus, you get to ask for money from other people and companies to help you reduce that $2 million price tag to get elected.

      The reason Congress is such an attractive endeavor for many is because you get to make the rules, but you don’t have to play by them.

  34. PhiTauBill says:
    • scoutermac says:

      So basically a congressman wrote a bill to stop online piracy. The problem is he has no idea how the internet really works and the bill does not correlate at all to what is actually happening. So instead web sites that have nothing to do with online piracy will be targeted and the pirate bay will continue business as usual.

  35. BeerFox says:

    So basically, he’s using the old saw:
    “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear/hide.”

  36. Buckus says:

    Translation: “I have no idea WTF I’m talking about, but I do all my research on Wikipedia, and now the interns are bored.”

    • marks2l says:

      ten bucks says this boob has never even accessed wikipedia directly, probably has a staffer do the dirty work and deliver him a hardcopy of a two-sentence executive summary.

  37. SlimDan22 says:

    Look at what industry gave him the most money in donations, not a lot but still enough to make me not trust him.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811&cycle=2012

  38. LJKelley says:

    It just baffles me that the supporters of the bills (SOPA & PIPA) are generally just as loud about being against the great chinese firewall. If this bill passed we would emulate the Chinese, sure we wouldn’t at first block sites that criticise America or mention bad things in our past but the technology would be exactly the same (DNS manipulation) and easily circumvented if you switch to a foreign DNS provider. So this bill would not stop Americans tunneling out if they wished to pirate, but it would allow the American government and corporations to censor the majority of less tach savvy users.

    • econobiker says:

      Unfortunately the majority are not tech savy enough to tunnel out. IE that AOL still has customers who pay for email accounts.

  39. Dallas_shopper says:

    He sucks.

  40. ancientone567 says:

    Pardon me but screw you Texas Congressman Lamar Smith. I don’t like to argue with stupid, ignorant people.

  41. rooben says:

    egarding the statement that this affect only “Foreign Internet Sites”.
    I was reading the text of the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112MSBfkV:e3470:) and noticed the definitions:

    “FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site’ means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site. “
    So, this means that we need to know the definition of a Domestic Internet Site:

    DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site’ means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.”
    So that tells me there are two things that it takes to be considered domistic. First, IF there is a domain name, the domain name must be a “Domestic Domain Name”. ONLY if I have no domain name, do they care where the website is actually hosted (domestically or foreign).

    So now, what is a Domestic Domain Name?

    DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME- The term `domestic domain name’ means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.

    This means, if any American uses a foreign registrar, like GANDI, that means your website is a FOREIGN INTERNET SITE and completely subject to SOPA. This was common when it was cheaper to register using a euro than a dollar – but I bet nobody thought this would define them as a foreign site. There isno requirement for the operator, even the terminating IP address, would be outside the United States, simply the registrar used.

    Finally:

    Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site’ if–

    (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

    (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

    (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

    Besides the confusing reference to Paragraph 1, saying that the Attorney General CAN sieze a domestic website, this also states that this bill is targeting those breaking “section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code”. If we have US Code that deals with infringing content, then why do we need this bill? Why can’t the content owners have the government go after those breaking US Code? Do we really need to bypass the Constitution and due process?

  42. Portlandia says:

    I would never trust a man with a toupee that looks that bad.

  43. ScandalMgr says:

    http://www.vice.com/read/find-sopa-cosigners-copyright-violation

    If you’re bored tonight (or snowed in), see if you can find any examples of copyright violation by any of the 81 SOPA/PIPA co-sponsors and send your screengrabs or links to me, at jamie.taete@vice.com

    Vice.com needs you to need you to join in our big, crowd-sourced copyright violation adventure. Check out SOPA sponsor websites for takedown/lawsuit issues.

  44. Anonymously says:

    I don’t understand why Net Neutrality was framed as “government taking over the internet”, but these bills are not. Nevermind, just looked up that Fox News is owned by a supporter of the bill.

  45. lvdave says:

    I just wonder if this asshat has personally read the bill.. or just had his staffers write it.. I’d LOVE to quiz him on what it actually says (note: I HAVE read the bill in its entirety, and it flat reeks.. this turd gets passed and the Internet, as we know it, is over/done/fini)…

  46. Green Beer Day says:

    What no hate for Patrick Leahy who wrote PIPA? Both of them need booted from office.

  47. Dave on bass says:

    So this article and the comments pursuant thereto seem to be the perfect place to ask this: Even though those of us against SOPA (and indeed against the way Congress works in the first place, largely) are many, we are still probably a vocal minority compared to the entire population – I’m sure Johnny and Peggy-Sue Walmart haven’t the slightest idea this is even happening, let alone that it’s bad juju. Considering that, plus the fact that there’s never anyone on any of the various ballots that is much different, how can this kind of shit ever be actually changed? It gives me a growing sense of defeatism.

    Any chance when they’re all dead we’ll have a savvy, internet-generation Congress? (Still it’d be a generation and a half outdated even then.)

  48. ronbo97 says:

    The proponents of SOPA/PIPA are gonna wait until the current firestorm dies down, then try to push thru the provisions of the bill as attachments to other bills, eg., National Grandma’s Day bill, which will be approved when no one is looking, such as the day before Congress recesses for a national holiday, etc.

    We must be vigilant to assure that this doesn’t happen.

  49. drblair says:

    That picture just screams I AM A TURD

  50. farker22 says:

    that wig is pissing me off.

  51. SoCalGNX says:

    His picture here makes him look like stepford husband.

  52. baristabrawl says:

    This is shallow, but I don’t trust him based on his hair.

  53. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Know what? If you don’t live in his district you can’t email him through his website. BOO!!!!

  54. econobiker says:

    R.I.P. Ed Foster from the infamous Gripe Line

  55. IgnoramusEtIgnorabimus says:

    “He graduated from T.M.I.: The Episcopal School of Texas (1965), Yale University (1969), and Southern Methodist University Law School (1975).

    In 1969, he was hired as a management intern by the Small Business Administration in Washington, DC. He was a business and financial writer for the Christian Science Monitor in 1970. He was admitted to the State bar of Texas in 1975. He went into private practice in San Antonio with the firm of Maebius and Duncan, Inc.[3]” -wiki

    how about you leave the internet to the engineers?

  56. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Funny how this kind of thing makes you miss Ted Stevens…

  57. Miss Malevolent says:

    Don’t believe them, they will try and push this through another way…quietly. We have to make sure those that are friendly to SOPA and PIPA are voted out as quickly as possible.

  58. SalParadise says:

    Has anyone else noticed how lately how everyone is using projection? Not to put pictures of stuff up on the wall; projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby you take your worst quality and project it on to the people who disagree with you.

    In this case, we have Congressman Smith. who is using misinformation to sponsor and promote his bill, accusing the people who oppose him as the ones who are actually spreading the misinformation.

    At the risk of starting some sort of flame way, I just have to point out this appears to the the tactic of choice for the Republican Party these days. To cite one example, they ran an entire presidential campaign on the slogan “Country First,” and they then spent the next 3 years acting like it’s “Party First”.