Republicans Propose Bill To Impose Fines For Live-Streaming From House Floor (digitaltrends.com) 157
Likely in response to the 25-hour sit-in staged by Democrats earlier in 2016, protesting the lack of gun reform, House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed new fines and ethics violations for House members that take photo and video from the floor of the chamber. Digital Trends reports: According to Bloomberg, the first violation will net violators a $500 fine, which will be deducted from member's paychecks. Second and subsequent violations will carry a steeper fine of $2,500 per incident. Not only that, any other incidents that may disrupt decorum could be sent to the House Committee on Ethics, potentially leading to sanctions. "These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," a spokeswoman for Ryan said in a statement. Taking photo or video had already been prohibited on the floor, but was never enforced. But after the sit-in, led by John Lewis (D-Ga.), Ryan called a recess, effectively ending the C-SPAN broadcast. That is when Democrats used their phones and took to social media. "The imposition of a fine could potentially violate both the First Amendment, as well as, the Speech and Debate clause, which creates extensive protections for speech by legislators," Chip Gibbons, who serves as the policy and legislative counsel for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation, told Digital Trends in an email. According to Gibbons, courts have already found that under certain circumstances, recording footage does fall under speech. "Given the public interest -- and inherently political nature of the act -- it seems likely that videos, photography, and live streaming from the House floor would also be found to be speech, and protected by the First Amendment," Gibbons said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like people voting for politicians who have lied to them is not a single-party issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump admitting at one of his thank you tour stops that all of it, the "lock her up", "drain the swamp" etc, was all BS just to elected.
notice how the audience is confused by what is going on, as trump tells the people who elected him, that the things he told them was crap to get elected.
this from the man who "tells it like it is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Care to explain Reagan's Administration then?
The real face of government (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd be the legislature: as unaccountable, secretive and corrupt as ever.
Re:The real face of government (Score:5, Informative)
So much for transparency....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for transparency....
According to Trump we should just move on and ignore the fact that he only one as a result of Russian hacking of emails. (Yes, the previous statement is true. It did more than enough damage to be his margin of victory, as did Comey's interference. Either alone were enough given the margin.)
Meanwhile his running mate is suing to keep his emails hidden. link [cnn.com] Now the republicans are saying that they have a right to hide what goes on in the people's house.
Every single person who votes for that should be impe
Re:The real face of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statements about Russian hacking causing enough damage to alter the outcome are factually not supportable.
Simple as that.
Trump won because he ran a smarter race for the electoral college vote. He also appealed to middle America which HRC ignored or insulted.
Now to the point of the original post, i.e. the House streaming being shut down - it is ALL political theatre just like the staging of the sit-down was. As for transparency - really? How is passing a 2000 page health care law behind closed doors that you have to vote for before you can read it transparent?
I just hope that Trump manages the Congressional tendency to spend spend spend by both parties. We need to get our debt under control. That is going to be a good trick in itself with all the promised infrastructure work, etc. I'm more likely to believe that THAT promise won't be met.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that Russia hacked the DNC, RNC, and any other political systems they could get into, that's just standard espionage. I do doubt that the hacking and the leaks were anything other
Your free speech is fine (Score:2)
At least they haven't threatened anybody with jail time or the rack. Your free speech is still fine ... so long as you pay the fine.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be the legislature: as unaccountable, secretive and corrupt as ever.
As befitting a democracy, no?
So... (Score:1)
...who gets to fine C-SPAN?
Re: So... (Score:3)
I suppose they get to turn off CSPAN when they're about to engage in some particularly egregious bipartisan tyranny?
Re: So... (Score:5, Informative)
They've done it before... in fact that's exactly what this seems to be about.
They want the ability to impose a media blackout should something happen in the chamber they want to keep under wraps.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Must be preparing to vote to ratify the TPP soon, then.
Re: So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even assume that's not going to happen, it's a pretty disturbing proposal, especially considering it seems to be in response to this:
But after the sit-in, led by John Lewis (D-Ga.), Ryan called a recess, effectively ending the C-SPAN broadcast. That is when Democrats used their phones and took to social media.
So Democrats staged a public protest. Republicans shut down the broadcast. Democrats resorted to broadcasting online by streaming from their phones. Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal. That's pretty fucked up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is also a constitutional problem with such a law, specifically Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
That first bit is why (for example) the Senate was fully within it's rights to refuse to even hold a hearing on Merrick Garland, and why they can choose if the cameras are on or not.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why there is a way to amend the Constitution. At that it already has been amended to stop Congress from passing laws limiting speech. Amendments override the original, just a shame that Americans seem to universally not follow the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how it is written. Typically, an open meetings law would make it illegal for even a small number of senators to meet without the cameras on, which would make it illegal to turn the cameras off even if Ryan calls for a recess as long as there is any sort of large group activity (formal or otherwise) going on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
whomever told you John Lewis supports repealing the 2nd Amendment, lied to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even assume that's not going to happen, it's a pretty disturbing proposal, especially considering it seems to be in response to this:
But after the sit-in, led by John Lewis (D-Ga.), Ryan called a recess, effectively ending the C-SPAN broadcast. That is when Democrats used their phones and took to social media.
So Democrats staged a public protest. Republicans shut down the broadcast. Democrats resorted to broadcasting online by streaming from their phones. Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal. That's pretty fucked up.
Because Patriots know that the utmost secrecy is mandatory for the proper functioning of Government.
It's funny that some of the same peopel who jack off while thinking about Julian Assange and Edward Snowden ae so certain tht a Republian majority must do it's work in secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal.
Actually, Republicans respond by adding a penalty to the existing rules against photos and videos from the floor. From TFS:
I.e., they aren't making it illegal. It was already against house rules.
What's remarkable is that the video while the house was out of session was being done for purely political purposes, something that C-SPAN was created to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Republicans respond by adding a penalty to the existing rules against photos and videos from the floor.
It was technically against the rules, but with no penalty, and not enforced.
What's remarkable is that the video while the house was out of session was being done for purely political purposes, something that C-SPAN was created to avoid.
Nonsense. The whole of Congress exists for political purposes. Speeches made by Senators and Representatives are all political. The first amendment protections of speech and protest are for the purpose of protecting political speech. And CSPAN is there to record ongoing politics. The purpose of the rules in Congress are not, or at least should not be, to silence the opinions of those who disagree with the political party in pow
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The whole of Congress exists for political purposes.
Perhaps you misunderstand what "political purposes" means? The whole of congress exists to create legislation and funding in conformance to their duties as outlined in the US Constitution.
The "whole of Congress" does not exist as a forum for members to stand up and campaign for votes from their constituents. That is what I mean by "political purposes".
Speeches made by Senators and Representatives are all political.
The fact that many of them take advantage of the situation to make such speeches does not mean that it is the reason the congress exists.
And CSPAN is there to record ongoing politics.
No, C-SPAN is ther
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're making the rather childish mistake of thinking that you can separate, "the business of governance" and "politics".
But at least you did admit that the Republicans are not trying to make it illegal, just attach a penalty to an existing rule that previously had none.
Taking a penalty-less procedural rule and attaching legal consequences *is* "making it illegal".
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're making the rather childish mistake of thinking that you can separate, "the business of governance" and "politics".
I think you are making the childish mistake of confusing "the purpose for" and "how it is being used". The purpose of congress is not to play politics or get free speech time to constituents. That it is being used for that, and has confused people into thinking that it why congress is there, is a bad thing. Rules that reduce the misuse of congress are a good thing.
Taking a penalty-less procedural rule and attaching legal consequences *is* "making it illegal".
I think you missed a few ESL classes. No, it isn't. The rule existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, a 'rule' that has never been enforced? That means there has never been a test in court.
This 'rule', it imposes a fine? Was the 'rule' ever confirmed by the Senate? Ratified by a sitting president?
That's rather important, wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So... (Score:2)
Ryan is wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Ryan is wrong, but for the right reasons.
They should be broadcast, for all to see ... on the Comedy Channel .
Re: (Score:1)
How is it not more of a scandal that the Republicans keep trying to fuck with your democracy? Like when they introduce voter registration laws that are laser targeted at Democrat voters.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it not more of a scandal that the Republicans keep trying to fuck with your democracy? Like when they introduce voter registration laws that are laser targeted at Democrat voters.
Basic - We are angels, they are devils politics. You can see in here where there is support for making federal governing secret by the same people who railed on about Obama's lack of transparency.
They don't care they've all been trained to hate, and they do it so well.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want legal voters. The rules pushed by democrats make illegal voting trivial. We can't get on a commercial airplane anywhere in the world with the rules the democrats want to use. Is voting at least as important as flying? Registering to vote in the USA is easy. Showing up to vote is easy for the vast majority of people. Just show a state ID. Most people show a drivers license, but a state ID is acceptable too. Democrats complain that payment is needed to get a state ID. Not for low income people. It is free for them. It is a hassle to get any ID/DL. That is just the nature of dealing with the govt. It is a hassle 1-time every 10 years where I live. My last new DL required paying $10 by mail. I sent a cheque. They mailed the new DL back a few days later, reusing the old photo. My next one (in 2019) will be a major hassle thanks to the federal Real-ID requirements. THESE requirements are inconvenient, but ensure only legal residents get state IDs. They are the primary door into "the system" to provide access to govt programs, so a little extra care makes complete sense to me.
Utter BS.
Re: (Score:2)
What is utter BS?
Mexico and India manage to have Voter IDs for everyone, are you saying it is impossible for Americans to get voter IDs?
Or ... perhaps you're saying Black people are too stupid to get them because they don't know where the DMV is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...Not for low income people. It is free for them....
I think you are confusing regular state ID with state ID for voting purpose. An example is to look at Wisconsin state ID for voting purpose [wisconsindot.gov] and a non-government site [bringitwisconsin.com] giving the similar information (but incomplete especially the header).
Re: (Score:2)
They have proven voter fraud in this last election. No, I am not talking about fictional "Russian" hacking, I am talking about complete and utter incompetence or malfeasance in several areas, exposed by the bullshit Recall orchestrated on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign by Jill Stein. We're talking huge problems in largely democrat voting precincts. Can't really blame any of that on Republicans or Russians, and the MSM didn't see it fit to report.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... [thegatewaypundit.com]
While I don't know if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly [ballotpedia.org] wealthy [nytimes.com], as well as well paid [wikipedia.org].
Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."
I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.
Someone should start a gofundme in advance to pay this -- any lawmaker that's filming during a C-SPAN blackout and fined under this policy can get reimburdged from the gofundme account when the video is uploaded.
There, problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
My local congress critter is already doing this. It's a great way to get campaign contributions. That $500 fine out of his pocket turns into many thousands of dollars of campaign contributions, a great investment all around.
"Congress shall make no law..." (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
they could've stopped right there
Given how unproductive the House and Senate have been over the past few years (putting petty politics over most everything else), I'd say the subject and your comment are both pretty accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot about Article I, Section 5 which says in part:
Re: (Score:2)
And you forgot Amendment 1, which says, in its entirety,
Members of the legislature are still citizens, if I remember correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
What difference does being a citizen make? Most of the Constitution references people, not citizens and when citizenship is important, it references it
Re: (Score:2)
Members of the legislature are still citizens, if I remember correctly.
Members of the legislature already have a lot of laws and rules limiting their rights to free speech because of their position. Campaign finance, for one category. Robert's Rules of Order during legislative sessions for another.
Rules that are intended to stop the process on the floor from becoming media circuses are a good thing. Too many elected officials view the ability to get up and yammer on while being covered by C-SPAN as a great way to show their constituents how hard they work, and they speechify
Re: (Score:2)
They were in control of the House as late as 2010, and they did not create such a rule, so nah.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, the Dems do not hesitate to use the rules to their advantage even when not in control -- that's how the whole sit-in thing started. So, don't be so quick to say "nah".
Re: (Score:1)
If you look at the top of this page, to the section we like to refer to as the "summary", you will see the rule was proposed by Paul Ryan (R - Douchebagistan) in the current session of Congress and reported on December 24, 2016. If you look closely, you will see that certain phrases are underlined, indicating that
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the top of this page, to the section we like to refer to as the "summary", you will see the rule was proposed by Paul Ryan (R - Douchebagistan) in the current session of Congress and reported on December 24, 2016.
No, if you look in the summary you will see that it clearly says that the rule was already in place but not enforced. The rule wasn't created on Dec. 2016 if it was already in place. Do you have information about when the rule was actually created, and not just political pot-shot insults to make?
If you look closely, you will see that certain phrases are underlined, indicating that you can go to a source by clicking on it.
I've read those sources. None of them say when the rule was created. I'll assume you don't have that information either, since you could have linked to it.
Re: "Congress shall make no law..." (Score:2)
Transparency of the democratic process is paramount.
Anybody hindering transparency must be exterminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics violations? (Score:2)
... House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed new fines and ethics violations for House members ...
I find it very hard to imagine how this could be an ethics violation, unless one considers the possibility that members of the House don't understand what the word "ethics" means -- or "violation" for that matter, given some members beliefs on rape.
Re:Ethics violations? (Score:5, Funny)
I find it very hard to imagine how this could be an ethics violation, unless one considers the possibility that members of the House don't understand what the word "ethics" means -- or "violation" for that matter, given some members beliefs on rape.
If the members of the House have any "ethics" at all, you can be fairly certain that they either stole them from someone else, or received them from a lobbyist as a bribe.
Re: (Score:2)
... or received [ethics] from a lobbyist as a bribe.
How deliciously ironic.
Transparently self serving (Score:1)
Since we have C-SPAN, we've already established a tradition that the people have a right to see what their elected officials are doing. Let's ponder that...our...elected...political...representatives. Paul Ryan is proposing that broadcasting their activities in their place of work is unethical unless they explicitly are OK with being watched at that time via C-SPAN. He is asking that we not be allowed to observe and evaluate their activities; activities that we are paying for.
Anyone who might suggest that t
double edged sword (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, you should not wish for everything to be broadcast, recorded, and open for all to see. You may find that some things get done faster, and better, when they are not being aired for all to hear. I could argue that congressional matters, being broadcast for all to see, has resulted in congressmen playing to the cameras, holding hearings that are often public theater, taking extreme positions for publicity, voting nonsensically and against better judgement so that their constituents see them doing so. A lot more work could be done behind closed doors, where representatives don't feel the need to be so extreme for the cameras, and so shallow on real issues.
Careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes, you should not wish for everything to be broadcast, recorded, and open for all to see. You may find that some things get done faster, and better, when they are not being aired for all to hear. I could argue that congressional matters, being broadcast for all to see, has resulted in congressmen playing to the cameras, holding hearings that are often public theater, taking extreme positions for publicity, voting nonsensically and against better judgement so that their constituents see them doing so. A lot more work could be done behind closed doors, where representatives don't feel the need to be so extreme for the cameras, and so shallow on real issues.
If our elected officials are too cowardly or unethical such that they act one way when they are being watched vs when they are not watched, the solution is not to let them do all their work without supervision. If their excuse for acting nonsensically and against their better judgement is that they have no choice because their constituents are watching them, they have too little moral and intellectual integrity to do the job they are paid for. Furthermore, given that their record is supposedly public proper
Re: (Score:2)
If our elected officials are too cowardly or unethical such that they act one way when they are being watched vs when they are not watched,
Please tell me that you do not act differently when you are being watched than when you are not. Please tell me that MOST people do not act differently. Please tell me that our cherished celebrities do not act differently -- have you ever seen some of the photos of them when they don't think anyone is watching, compared to when they do?
It is not cowardly to use an opportunity for free video time to speak to one's constituents and show them how hard you are working for them. It may be unethical, but that de
Re: (Score:1)
Of course I act differently when no one is watching. The difference is that my job isn't to be the people's actual representation in government. If I request that no one watch what I'm doing so that I can do it without fear of their judgement, that's called malpractice.
No one is judging, in this case, Reps for acting differently at home when we can't watch them. We are judging them for asking that they be able to represent us without us knowing how they're doing so. There are already laws in place to deal w
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I act differently when no one is watching. The difference is that my job isn't to be the people's actual representation in government.
Where did you get the idea that a congressman's job prohibits him from acting differently when he is being watched from when he isn't? That's just nuts.
If I request that no one watch what I'm doing so that I can do it without fear of their judgement, that's called malpractice.
That's not what is happening here.
an attempt to be able to act one way and then tell the American people that no, it didn't really happen that way, and you have to take my word for it since we told C-SPAN they couldn't record it and banned other reps from doing it either.
Nobody is banning C-SPAN from covering house sessions live. If the house isn't in session, it isn't doing anything official. If you think you have a right to have live video of what congressmen do while the house is not in session, where does that stop? Cameras in their offices so we can see who they are meeting with? Camer
Re:double edged sword (Score:4, Interesting)
When the work of Democracy is done in secret you've lost the entire basis of representative democracy. The citizenry can't hold their representatives to account if they don't know what their representatives are doing. Secrecy is an anathema to democracy. As another poster has said, there should be a federal open meetings law that prevents congress from doing such things.
Re: (Score:2)
We have something of a problem then, in the media-driven modern world: Politicians can't be allowed to plot secret deals behind closed doors, but they are also unable to do the business of government in public because they have to be constantly performing to the crowd. A crowd which largely sees even suggesting giving any ground as treason to the party, if not the country. Secret closed-door meetings are where things actually get decided. Don't blame congress for that: Blame the voters, and America's fundam
Bzzt, failed analysis on "free speech" (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously.
First, it's explicit in the Constitution that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Whatever rules a House likes for its proceedings are the rules, and whatever punishment it designates for violating them is the punishment. The case law on that goes on to state that this means that the courts may not hear a case on such matters; no Federal court has the authority to even hear a case on the rules, much less get to the point that it can rule whether something is free speech or not.
Second, the Speech or Debate Clause only protects members form being held responsible "in any other Place"; their own House is perfectly allowed to hold them responsible for what they say. In accordance with the previous bit.
Third, this isn't a law, it's a proposed rule of the House, in the decidedly non-public forum of the floor of the House. The First Amendment doesn't remotely apply, at all, either literally or in any of its court-extended meanings. Even if the courts were allowed to rule on the rule (see the first problem), current precedent would fall on the side of the rulemakers.
Why do they get to (Score:4, Insightful)
have their cell phones on the floor! When we visited DC this summer we were not allowed to take our cell phones into the viewing gallery while the senate was in session. Just so happens they were voting on the Zika funding bill the FIRST time. Both parties were acting like little 2 year olds! They should all be thrown out and we should all be thrown out and we should re-vote for EVERY one of them!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties were acting like little 2 year olds! They should all be thrown out and we should all be thrown out and we should re-vote for EVERY one of them!
I firmly believe that in an alternate universe, Hillary decided to run in 2016 on a platform of getting rid of the "do-nothing Congress", and won in a landslide.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Trained Seal (Score:2, Funny)
Idiots (Score:3)
Idiots, they are going to harm their own interests in the future when they get stymied by their own rules...
re: Republicans Propose Bill To Impose Fines For L (Score:1)
NOW, under this totally politically biased issue - we go back to the 'good old days' of hidden, smoke-filled rooms with absolutely NO visibility (to the PEOPLE) of the actions taken in the hallowed halls of our grand democracy - a SUPPOSEDLY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT body of people dealing with our country's legislative processes - where the decisions being made are too 'sensitive' or too 'critical' to be made public can be taken - - - in OUR NAME - - - to determine the laws and actions enacted into our nation's
If you do not have good arguments... (Score:2)
"The People's Work' (Score:2)
These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," a spokeswoman for Ryan said
That's rich. In case you'd forgotten, the incident that caused this is when The House went into recess [wired.com] rather than work on more legislation, and the minority party thought they ought to stay and get more work done. The current Congress [wikipedia.org] ended up being the 3rd least productive in history [insidegov.com] (being edged out for worst only by the previous two).
So the FIFY here is "These changes will help ensure order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives' home districts so lawmakers can continue to not do th
Our Founders Would Grab Their Rifles (Score:2)
The United States government was not supposed to be a black box.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss slashdot being free of politics, and covering linux stuff instead.
Mod this up! Yeah, I really miss that. I liked the previous intense discussions on things like CPUs, OSs, computers, phones, et al. These days, there's a liberal sprinkling of politics to make it clickbait
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's freedom of speech is being violated here? They're still perfectly free to say whatever they want, and they'll have exactly as large an audience as they would have when the first amendment was added to the constitution. Their freedom of speech does not require your personal ability to listen.
And oddly enough, the first amendment doesn't cover the freedom to record nor broadcast whatever the hell you want to whomever you want whenever you want, given that those technologies didn't exist at the time.
No
Re: (Score:2)
Who's freedom of speech is being violated here? They're still perfectly free to say whatever they want...
The "freedom of speech" is being infringed when you tell people where and when they can do it, or when you say, "it can't be made public". Obviously those things can be restricted in some cases, e.g. you can't share classified information, but adding new restrictions on the freedom of speech shouldn't be taken lightly. It certainly shouldn't be done by one political party in order to shut up their opposition-- which is exactly what the first amendment was written to prevent.
And oddly enough, the first amendment doesn't cover the freedom to record nor broadcast whatever the hell you want
What, are you retarded? They d
Re:Darn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why elide "social justice"? Don't want to talk about the pathetic BLM pandering scene your congressional shit birds live streamed from the floor?
Re: (Score:3)
Also they're not "my" congressional shit birds, because I'm not a Democrat, or a liberal. But I have to say that you're behaving an awful lot like the kind of whiny little tumblrite that makes other whiny little tumblrites shriek "essjaydubya!" as if it actually meant something.
Re: (Score:3)
The bills were there. They didn't want to create the fund to pay it. It's not new debt.
Debt is fine when a republican creates it. Didn't Cheney say "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". They get tight under democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ryan is a cancer. You can't "fix" a cancer to "act nice". You have to cut it out or nuke it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)