Highway Safety Agency Silences Engineers 284
nbauman writes "Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters, according to the New York Times. If the officials want to say anything it has to be off the record. The only one they can quote is Nason herself. However, she refused to be interviewed about the no-attribution policy."
Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole issue of lack of transparency is becoming a larger and larger problem with the government and again.... if we are not careful will result into a slide into fascism. Transparency of government is one of the bedrocks of a democracy, hell, even a republic. The current Whitehouse administration has dramatically accelerated this move towards fascism and again, I have to quote Milton Mayer's book They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1939-1945 where an anonymous professor said "What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. "
This sort of thing is a classic fascist move where *free* representatives from government are not allowed to speak to a *free* press. Granted, if you are in the uniformed services or currently employed by a federal office engaged in sensitive work (one of the dozen or so intelligence agencies), then this sort of censorship is acceptable. However, this administration has censored publicly funded scientists engaged in research that potentially impacts upon political policy of the current administration and now National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration officials from talking? One has to wonder just what it is that Bush and Co. want to keep from the American people. What is NHTSA hiding from us?
What moves like this do is open the possibility of lack of oversight when it comes to issues of bribes, coercion and worse. Imagine if a powerful automotive manufacturer were to have a fundamental safety problem with one of their automobiles. Without access by the public and the free press whose job it is to ask the hard questions, we open ourselves up to abuse, manipulation and more unpleasantness than you may imagine.
People need to become more involved in politics, get rid of your disillusionment of representative government and make a difference. Don't be sheep and become satisfied with the current state if you are not happy with it and help, but don't be stupid about it. Work within the system because with the current administration, they will view any extreme political moves as a justification for expanding their controls even further over the populace. Demand more of our politicians. Expect transparency, honesty and be more willing to support impeachment of those officials who do not represent the will of those who elected them. Look beyond single issues in those candidates whom you vote for. Don't be seduced by claims of piety or religious devotion as one mans beliefs are another's anathema. I am not saying that religion is bad as I possess strong spiritual beliefs, but be wary of those who wear religion on their sleeves. And do not accept as this NHTSA official maintains that the only way to say anything is if it is off the record. Ms. Nason, you are a government employee working for an office whose role is to protect the American citizen, save lives and prevent injury. You are not entitled to any special protection under the Constitution than the rest of us and you ultimately answer to the American people, not a transient senior government official intent on building a political legacy. Shame on you for gagging the scientists under your watch whose duty it is to serve the American people and report to them on issues related to safety and well being on the roads and highways.
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm wrong or missing something please let me know.
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither can an official spokesman, unless he surveys every member of the organization and confirms that each agrees with the statement.
An official spokesperson typically only speaks for the executives. To act otherwise is to give legs to the lie that corporations are persons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither can an official spokesman, unless he surveys every member of the organization and confirms that each agrees with the statement.
Come off it - all you really need is the position of the people running things. They decide what the coporation does, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the heads of intelligence agencies during the lead up to Iraq? [globalpolicy.org] Or Christy Todd Whitman's claims about the safety of the WTC site after 9/11 [wikipedia.org]?
There are some organizations whose only credibility comes from the expertise of the non-executive staff. Execs can make claims about what actions their organization will take, but they're not the only important opinions in matter
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I work for the federal government, and reporters conduct interviews with our staff quite often. These interviews are usually arranged through a public affairs official, and I'm sure someone saying something not inline with the "official voice" would face reprimand.
However, we can also expect (in most cases) whistle-blower protection if we report improp
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Informative)
"Speaking on background" doesn't mean that the employee can be quoted without named attribution, it means that the employee can't be quoted period. In the journalism game, background means that the source proivdes information, but that what the source actually said cannot be repeated through quotes. Thus, the reporter has to paraphrase the content to be used, and anybody who disagrees with the source or the paraphrased information has far greater room to maneuver, because the published information effectively becomes hearsay.
Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
On one hand the government insists reporters name their anonymous sources. Refusal to answer is contempt of court.
On the other hand, the reporter is forbidden to name their source if that person is employed by the NHTSA.
That sort of dilemna seems destined to trigger a long series of court challenges and appeals. This regulation is one that only a lawyer would impose. Wait, Ms. Nason's background and qualifications are... Oh, never mind!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not totally shutting people up, but it slows things down a lot. An engineer can speak to the press and then the journalist can try to get official, on-the-record confirmation. It doesn't let the administrator absolut
Re: (Score:2)
There are far too many people on the internet spouting all sorts of opinions on subjects which they may not even have any education or
Re: (Score:2)
May we have an example or two, please?
I think you are missing something ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think you are missing a point, and an important one.
There are many shades of "being allowed to speak to the public" when it comes to organisations.
If the only thing Miss. Nason was interested in was ensuring, in good faith, that individuals don't hijack the authority of the organisation, then it would have been sufficient, even appropriate, to insist that only the PR office could speak "for the organisation", and that everyone one else could only speak "on a personal title".
Instead she went a step further. She not just centralised the authority to speak for the organisation, but also forbade individuals to speak out on a personal title. They have to be anonymous. The point is that the expertise in the NHTSA about technical matters is with the engineers, not with management. And unless you wanted to know about NHTSA policies, why would you want to speak to anyone but an engineer?
In fact, the article quotes the former head of the NHTSA:
"My God," said Joan Claybrook, who was N.H.T.S.A. administrator from 1977 to 1981 and is now president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Given that N.H.T.S.A. is the leading source of automotive safety information in the United States, its researchers are public officials and people are entitled to "know what information they have, whether it is on paper or in their heads," Ms. Claybrook said.
This seems a much more reasonable stance: we, the public, pay for the NHTSA, and so we should have some way of knowing what their findings are. And it should be up to *us* to decide if we want to hear the opinion of NHTSA management or its engineers.
Unfortunately it seems typical of a certain philosophy on government to restrict access to potentially unfavourable news as in:
"Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.".
*coughs* "We" were finding a lot of stuff "did not have to be on record". Sorry, but who are you to decide that? It just sounds like a flimsy pretext for spin-doctoring to me, coupled to a corporate philosophy of information-control.
There are many thing that a corporate mindset is more efficient at than a civil-servant mentality, but honesty and transparency aren't among them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that creepy Order of the Arrow group that keeps me up at night. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Pinky says "Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
The Brain will say "The same thing we do every night, Pinky - Try to take over the world!" but first we'll make some super-paranoid nutjobs into the spokesperson for the opposition and this time we'll succeed!
Seriously the only thing the nutjob does is make the rational voice easier to dismiss
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) You, being a state agency, have hired somewhere between the worst and mediocre engineers. (My apologies to the few exceptions to this rule).
2) They have performed work that you, personally, are not able to check.
3) Thes
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows, but my guess would be the truth about car accidents. I seriously doubt, this move is pure politik. I bet the bulk of it is large corporate car manufacturers. (Let's sit back, and see if the trend of recalled motor parts and assemblies sharply decline as investigators now have one more hurdle to jump in investigating a liability civil case against, say, General Motors for faulty break-lines or weak headers.)
Also, you have emissions testing, which will have to go thr
Re:Shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
The more people in the public realize this, the faster foreign investment will flee the scene, the less likelihood there will be that the resources might materialize in the future.
Bureaucrats and politicians don't keep secrets when things are going well, they shout from the rooftops.
They also don't waste time enforcing secrecy when things aren't going badly, because it generates no return.
They enforce secrecy when things are absolutely fucked, and they wish to prevent a panic.
At this point, things have become desparate enough, and the US has become unpopular enough, that the only way they can survive is to engage in colonialism and exploit foreigners through force of arms, which is the one area where they are still doing well.
Sorry to burst anyones bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you be more wrong? (Score:2)
If engineers no something is dangerous, nothing prevents them to go to the press.
Want to be paranoid? annonymously suggest to a member of the media to get copise of documents. That are all publicly available.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then where do you get the official information about the condition of the infrastructure? Because there is now apparently only one official source, and she refuses to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, in my instance, I told them to shut the fuck up and if they even remotely thought that I was going to never speak to the media they may as well go fuck themselves, because I'll talk to whomever I goddamn want.
There were of course certain things that legally I could not discuss, which was a different matter....but they learnt quickly that I wasn't going to sit back & let myself be fucked on the council table under some self-righteous gag order.
This to me is really no better....government NEEDS to be as transparent as possible, or otherwise, bottom line, its the citizens that get fucked. This gag order for the NHTSA is no better than what the rest of council tried to do to me - and if I was employed by the NHTSA I would gladly put my opinions of right and wrong over my job, and tell them to go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a lot like a corporate person making statements about their company. It really is a bad idea and justa asking for trouble.
Having a central point of contact for communication is a good ting, it keeps information correct and safely dispersed.
Re:Shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I'm all for open access to the press (speaking as a former reporter). However, I have to confess that in this case it's not fascism, it's just sensible public relations. I don't think it's about muzzling whisteblowers, it's about making sure people talking to the press are trained to pick their words carefully in a situation where public hysteria or calmness is at stake.
If you allow any random employee from within the organization - who probably hasn't had media training - to be quoted by reporters, then serious bad PR or misinformation can result. I think what's driving this in particular is a desire not to have Joe Engineer who's used to talking with other engineers give raw quotes to a clueless reporter and have his words completely misunderstood and thereby throw the public into a tizzy.
A fanciful but illustrative example: Joe Engineer from NHTSA may talk to the New York Times and use some intra-agency jargon like "in our latest survey, 99% of the bridges in the country got a designation of 'likely to collapse'." It turns out that 'likely to collapse' is an agency term measuring whether it is more likely to collapse or be struck by a meteor, but the reporter (who doesn't know any better, and wouldn't be expected to know better unless Joe explains it to him - and we've never heard before of a technical person who fails to explain their jargon) puts in the paper verbatim: "NHTSA says 99% of bridges likely to collapse." (Cue mass hysteria.) Executives and other people in the organization who are given media training are at least taught how to choose their words for public consumption carefully (whether they do it properly or not is a different issue).
So, as much as I enjoy getting into a tizzy about censorship, I gotta say there isn't much here to get worked up about, let alone decry as government "fascism." The TSA and airport security procedures, though ... don't get me started about those guys.
WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
The term was coined by a propagandist because "Propaganda" sounds bad, especially after a world war. Naturally, one would expect a propagandist to leverage their expertise on their own profession and they have.
Controlling the message from public experts so it can be "fixed" by propagandists may not in and of itself be fascist but its certainly a characteristic of commonly known fascist governments. It is actually an essential part of authoritarian government and not of fascism.
American media already acts in similar ways to authoritarian systems and no killings or torcher are required. Its not as easy as knowing most official 'news' is lies like Iranian radio, its more a advanced next generation. Social Engineering.
politicalcompass.org is required reading for anybody who wants to refer fascism
Re:Shame... - Secrecy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping stuff a secret from your own citizens is far more harmful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's important to realize the wrong hands aren't always trying to hurt people. And calling this movie fas
Re: (Score:2)
Like PRNewsire [prnewswire.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
yeah (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree (Score:5, Insightful)
This is to save taxpayer money. After all, if engineers were to let slip how bad our crumbling infrastructure has gotten, we might actually have to fix it, and that's very expensive. And you don't want your taxes raised, do you?
Of course not.
</sarcasm>
Greetings from Minnesota (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i have an excellent commentary on that (Score:4, Funny)
Rather than "censorship"... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'll drive off that bridge when I get to it.
What are they trying to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Full and open disclosure, along with rational discussion about the best way to put our country back on track, is what we need. Unless they are trying to protect some awful secret...
Re: (Score:2)
Here in California, CalTrans does have its own engineers and crews. It waged a bitter battle a few years ago where it wanted to be able to exempt the cost of worker salaries in bids on contracts, with the justification that it was already going to pay them, so they shouldn't have to factor in their costs. Outside contractors, of course, argued that this was only a method to guarantee that CalTrans would underbid e
Re:What are they trying to hide? (Score:4, Insightful)
man, it is amazing how someone can get 1/10th the data, not get the story straight, admit you dont know the conclusion of the situation, YET you find it to be a reason to distrust CA government.
I which that was a unique way of thinking.
Not Sure I Disagree With This Completely (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Sure I Disagree With This Completely (Score:4, Insightful)
This type of control is the rule rather than the exception in companies. Part of the purpose is to contain trade secrets and to protect the reputation of the company, but it's also to prevent the spread of false information. Engineers and scientists aren't infallible. (What's worse, most of us think we know more than we really do, love it when people ask us our opinions, and aren't slow to speculate.) Even when we're right, we might exaggerate or use technical jargon, as you pointed out. A system has to exist to make sure that technically vetted, relevant information is provided to the public.
If this is some kind of cover-up, it's a pretty crappy one. As the summary says, engineers are still permitted to speak "off the record," so it's not like the flow the information has been completely stopped. Also, there are whistleblower laws.
Re:Not Sure I Disagree With This Completely (Score:4, Insightful)
"This type of control" is not the rule for a public agency
That's pretty much what they do, hire people tto provide "technically vetted, relevant information" and to set policy.
Cool... (Score:2)
Re:Cool... (Score:4, Funny)
Ah yes, the Highway Safety Agency was created by Nazi refugee scientists, and are really devoted to the resurrection of Hitler. They have been summoning aliens to earth since the 1950s, and are responsible for the Roswell crash since they sent the maps to the aliens upside-down.
The "high ways" are not actually made for driving on, that's just what they "tell you". They are in fact a very elaborate way of communicating with the aliens. They are a in lack of better comparison, a written language. The "high ways", clearly visible from space, tell the aliens where and when to land.
The UFOs really are Nazi escape pods returning to earth and infiltrating Washington. 19th august 2011 they will simultaneously seize control over the US, and turn it into the Fourth Reich.
Simple Compromise (Score:2, Insightful)
Downside of off-the-record commentary (Score:3, Insightful)
Having attribution for quotes makes them able to be verified. Disclosing journalistic sources doesn't quite enable the same degree of many-eyeballs as disclosing software source does, since every reader can't just call George Bush up and personally ask him if he said such-and-such, but it does at least assure that if a quote becomes a point of contention and controversy, someone will check it out. Also, if a quote is attributed to a specific individual, there's a reasonable chance of determining whether they said that. If it is just attributed to "sources close to so-and-so" there's really no way to know if someone among this unspecified group of individuals may or may not have said it. In all, "sources speaking on the condition of anonymity say..." is just journalist talk for "rumor has it that..."
Relevant Question (Score:4, Funny)
Propaganda and censorship? Of course it's a Bushie (Score:5, Interesting)
They're LUCKY (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
a bold violation of Federal law (Score:3)
the public's business is PUBLIC, you pinhead appointees. deal with it.
January 20, 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:January 20, 2009 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tool for Cover-ups? (Score:5, Insightful)
---
Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.
---
This seems to me that this would make it so that the following would be easily plausible:
1. Reporter gets bad news about something which effects the public from one of their engineers, staff members, or experts but cannot attribute their source.
2. Reporter has to leave it as a "trusted source" causing many to doubt the validity of the claims. (Or, alternately it is never released simply because the news outlet can not attribute the source).
3. Since Ms. Nason did not explicitly allow that exchange to take place (or for it to be attributed to the source) the facts can be denied (or at least remain unverifiable) on the grounds that the NHTSA has never "officially" released such information. Or, the Public has never even heard of it depending on how the media outlet handles the previous decision (#2).
This only seems to me to be a method of covering up something. Is there any legitimate purpose for an organization such as this to withhold information from the public? Especially that which would come (potentially) from Engineers or other "experts" on the matters with which they are being questioned.
- Toast
Well, yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Government, on the other hand, IS owned by the citizens so anyone who draws a paycheck from our taxes is beholden to us in my opinion.
Who won ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did we bother winning the cold war? Was it so our own government could take 100% of the credit for destroying America instead of having to share it with a nuclear armed enemy?
Pretty easy to tell who won. (Score:2)
Nor do we have camps of people like you chipping uranium ore by hand out of mines in Alaska.
Try reading a little about what real fascist states do to the populace before you whine again from your luxury home on your own (read: not state) computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Then blackhole NHTSA (Score:2)
Nichole R. Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, put a new rule into effect that NHTSA officials, including scientists and engineers, are no longer allowed to be quoted by reporters
Wouldn't it be a shame if the next time NHTSA or Nason has something they'd like to brag about, they call a press conference...
...and nobody shows up?
Political big-wigs thrive off of getting press for their stupid pet projects. The press could kill her career in a heartbeat simply by
I work in government and I don't talk to the press (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I work in government and I don't talk to the pr (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about reporters wanting to speak with the experts in the field to go over the details of something. Would you rather talk to an economist or the PR officer for a fund management company about what the Fed might be about to do with interest rates and what the effects might be? Would you rather speak to a NASA scientist or to a PR officer about
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The case where an engineer has a responsibility to talk to the press is if they know of a safety or financial issue that they
Re:I work in government and I don't talk to the pr (Score:4, Insightful)
But I disagree, when part of you aims is to educate then the experts need to do some communicating with the public. If the agency in question isn't there to educate the public then sure the technical people can hide away in their labs. If a particular engineer doesn't like talking to the press they don't need to, but allowing people to ask technical questions and get answers directly from the technical folk it very useful.
It'll be great fun when the presenting of "A new approach to the geometric control of ultra-long span cable stay bridges" at http://www.bridgemanagement2007.com/ [bridgemanagement2007.com] is done by the PR department and not engineers.
Wall of Text hits for 2d4 points of damage (Score:3, Funny)
Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
"Reporters" (and I use the term loosely) are trained by large newspapers, journalism programs and the like to qualify sources and to confirm things.
Now we have a bunch of "journalists" that publish whatever comes into their heads, don't bother to confirm anything and will print nonsense. This isn't just bloggers, this is major publications.
Can you believe that organizations would like to limit the damage that can be caused by some stray remark that is published?
Re: (Score:2)
This goes for anyone and everyone in government. They are paid by us and need to answer to us and do what WE say, not the other way around. We n
Re: (Score:2)
Reporters (and I use the term loosely) are CURRENTLY trained by corporations, large media companies, and "journalism programs" and the like to increase circulation and marketshare.
Unions & the civil service system protect us. (Score:4, Interesting)
Suppose an employee defies this prohibition and speaks with the press. Management is constrained in how it can retaliate. Certainly it can deny future advancement opportunities, but most employees are semi-immune to this type of intimidation because of the civil service system.
Don't get me wrong -- the same protection that apply to a conscientious employee who feels the need to speak with the press also protects (to a limited degree) someone who sits and plays solitaire all day. But Unions and the civil service system shine at moments like this.
not so sinister (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not so sinister (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the reason we're even reading this article, though, is that it's talking about a government agency, not a private corporation. Limiting the amount of access the media has to government operations reduces transparency and, in this case, allows a single person to control what the media officially hears.
That said, employees can still speak anonymously to the media, and if something goes really wrong inside the agency, that's probably what will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not follow. Just because you work for a company that forbids its employees from speaking to the media (is this a firable offense?), that doesn't mean that the NHSTA is not trying to cover up problems. There is no connection between
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because the people those employees work for, don't want their employees to do that. Who do government employees work for?
Your large organization has a policy of not letting peons talk to the public, but you can bet your ass that if The Board of Directors wanted to talk to an employee, the board would have that access. The thing is, with government, the public and the
Quote her - Okay... (Score:2)
Spin control (Score:2)
While I can understand having communications channeled through an official source, I find it odd that the person has to be the head of the agency.
The words 'spin control' come to mind, especially when that person is a lawyer and the agency is one that affects our lives on a daily basis.
I also wonder if the person has ever heard of the concept of delegating a the job of 'official source' to a department which can assign different people to different projects based on expertise.
It almost sounds like a lawyer
Nicole R. Nason's backgound (Score:2)
I found this entry http://www.zimbio.com/Nicole+Nason+-+Department+o f +Transportation [zimbio.com].
Ms. Nason's career path: Law Student, Lawyer for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, counsel and communications director for Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss of Florida, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Congressional Affairs w/ the U.S. Customs Service, Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs at the NHTSA, and finall
And another freedom bites the dust. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe its time for another Richard Davis bill? That would send the loudest message I believe. In case there are younger readers here, the Richard Davis bill (it had a number but after 30 some years you expect me to remember that? Dontbesilly dear children) was the congressional response, passed both houses by 98%+ yea vote, removing the 4.7 Million dollars the project was estimated to cost from the BATF budget, enjoining them from moving any other monies they may have laying about into the project, and removing the salary (with similar enjoinders about finding other funds to pay him with) of the little demi-god (Richard Davis) who came up with the project in the first place. Nothing gets you fired quite as positively and finally as an act of Congress.
His offense? He was gonna register all our guns... He went public with the plan while congress was on the campaign trail, BIG mistake, and when they reassembled, the country was literally on fire over it politically, hell I had two personal meetings with my Senator at the time, Pete Dominici, over it myself. First order of business, took about 10 days to get all the i's dotted & t's crossed.
Yeah, we need another Richard Davis bill.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
When in doubt, do it. It's much easier to apologize than to get permission.
-- Grace Murray Hopper
Compare to Your Company (Score:2)
Yes, but I don't have to live by the rules your company's HR department promulgates, and even you can leave the firm if you wish. So, you can't be suggesting there's no difference, can you?
To state the obvious, citizenship in a country (or simply being subject to the jurisdiction of its laws and policies regardless of my citizenship) is not an
Re: (Score:2)
In our overlitigious society, this is a good policy, because otherwise, a carelessly-made remark by an engineer representing the NHTSA could result in some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This restriction is just what a department head would do in a business.
The general discourse should be on how we want
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
F'ing morons.
Re: (Score:2)
100% Troll
Republican TrollMods can't hear the truth. They need highway safety engineers silenced. They even need questions about their responsibility for silencing them silenced.
Republican freedom: the right to remain silent, and no others.