Search This Blog

Monday, April 9, 2012

A review of sorts. Anonymous posting.


West Virginia

Last updated: January 11, 2012
(a) It is unlawful for any person, with the intent to harass or abuse another person, to use a computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant or other electronic communication device to:(1) Make contact with another without disclosing his or her identity with the intent to harass or abuse;
(2) Make contact with a person after being requested by the person to desist from contacting them;
(3) Threaten to commit a crime against any person or property; or
(4) Cause obscene material to be delivered or transmitted to a specific person after being requested to desist from sending such material.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Electronic communication device" means and includes a telephone, wireless phone, computer, pager or any other electronic or wireless device which is capable of transmitting a document, image, voice, e-mail or text message using such device in an electronic, digital or analog form from one person or location so it may be viewed or received by another person or persons at other locations.
(2) "use of a computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant or other electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, the transmission of text messages, electronic mail, photographs, videos, images or other nonvoice data by means of an electronic communication system, and includes the transmission of such data, documents, messages and images to another's computer, e-mail account, mobile phone, personal digital assistant or other electronic communication device.
(3) "obscene material" means material that:
(A) An average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is intended to appeal to the prurient interest, or is pandered to a prurient interest;
(B) An average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find, depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexually explicit conduct consisting of an ultimate sexual act, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, an excretory function, masturbation, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sadomasochistic sexual abuse; and
(C) A reasonable person would find, taken as a whole, lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly permit a computer, mobile phone or personal digital assistant or other electronic communication device under his or her control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section.
(d) Any offense committed under this section may be determined to have occurred at the place at which the contact originated or the place at which the contact was received or intended to be received.
(e) Any person who violates a provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $500 or confined in jail not more than six months, or both fined and confined. For a second or subsequent offense, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or confined in jail for not more than one year, or both fined and confined.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

THE NORMAN STALKER IS IN TROUBLE!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHO SHE'S RELATED TO!!!!!!!!!

Etater Moderator said...

Well, if this person is a political candidate or county(state) employee or family member of one, they could be in bigger trouble because of posting their threats anonymously.

Anonymous said...

Im confused here who is stalking who?

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Norman wants to open this door.

Etater Moderator said...

Sure we do!!! Want to play with us?

Etater Moderator said...

Norman already opened this door (well actually, the sheriff's dept did at 11 pm) and he WON because he didn't post anonymously! That has all been hashed out though! We have some serious experience now! Would love to play with you sheriff dept and magistrate members and family! You declare your harassment as "setting the record straight" but we can all see through the smoke screen. It's bullying. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

Why not just disable anonymous commenting? You guys set the rules after all.

I'd personally love to see how the well of comments runs dry when Norm can't troll his own page anonymously.

And then to claim you're the victims of bullying? Hysterical.

Voter said...

Looks like to me that someone got their little ass scorched and can't handle playing by the rules set by the WV legislature not the Etater staff. Too bad. Da widdle Norman Stalker don't wike what she weads and has to pout.

Anonymous said...

The Commentator has such a renowned reputation for understanding the nuances of the law when it comes to the issue of speech. Remember that time Norman won his case before the supreme court? Yeah, neither do I.

Voter said...

I'm confused. What does Norman apparent loss have to do with posting anonymous on this blog site?

Anonymous said...

Exposing Norman's half-truths and slander is a far reach from "to intentionally harass or abuse" someone over the computer. These moderators and Norman need to get better advice before making threats to folks they (by allowing anonymous posting) encourage to comment on here.

Etater Moderator said...

So now we're supposed to hold your hand and get rid of the capabilities to post anonymously because you don't have enough self respect than to compose threatening and harassing posts? I'm sorry, I'm not following you.

Anonymous said...

One thing that makes this site what it is ,is people being able to say what they want.Dont change that .The words of tbis person just goes to show the mind set of those supporting the oppsite side.and how out of touch they are.Norman says some outlandish things himself let us not forget that.In the end the fools will be exposed.Evidence rules not words.

Anonymous said...

I thought I was reading everything. Where are the threats? I have not seen them. I thought Norman was harassing Kathy, Bob, and Dave. Norman, why are you allowed to call Bob a pimp and worse? Looks to me like you could get in trouble for that. I've played with the big boys before and I know a bully when I read what you write. You just are not used to someone calling your hand. Norman, don't bite off more than you can chew. Looks like you have some experience in chewing. Please, tell me where the threats are.

Etater Moderator said...

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

Anonymous said...

Still waiting on an example of threats.....

Anonymous said...

I suppose norman means that I am related to "Cousin" Kathy. Kust remember the door swings both ways and I feel like I have been harrased in this rag. Seems like you all do a lot of name calling. Go ahead ban me but I still have a mouth and I will use it to tell people what I think. I think we should vote for the "Three"> If you want to talk to me in person you know where I am and you know I don't get a welfare check. I said before the welfare system can be abused and it can however it helps people get on their feet sometimes. It helped me when I was about 19 years old with two little kids and no means of support. It helped me get on my feet and I am grateful not ashamed of that. Look where it got me. I don't need welfare anymore and I have compassion for those that sdo really need it. To me this is no game. I don't like seeing lies posted about people I care about be they relatives or not. No relative is responsible for my actions.

Anonymous said...

I am so scared!!

Anonymous said...

Let me remind you that the law says that anonymous posting IS A GOOD THING when it is political. Don't forget that. The US Supreme Court ok'ed that in McIntyre v. Ohio. They said it was a noble thing to protest anonymously.

Norman Alderman said...

On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting at the Blendon Middle School in Westerville, Ohio. At this meeting, the superintendent of schools planned to discuss an imminent referendum on a proposed school tax levy. The leaflets expressed Mrs. McIntyre's opposition to the levy. [n.2] There is no suggestion that the text of her message was false, misleading, or libelous. She had composed and printed it on her home computer and had paid a professional printer to make additional copies. Some of the handbills identified her as the author; others merely purported to express the views of "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS." Except for the help provided by her son and a friend, who placed some of the leaflets on car windshields in the school parking lot, Mrs. McIntyre acted independently.

Stinkwell Tater said...

While Mrs. McIntyre distributed her handbills, an official of the school district, who supported the tax proposal, advised her that the unsigned leaflets did not conform to the Ohio election laws. Undeterred, Mrs. McIntyre appeared at another meeting on the next evening and handed out more of the handbills.

The proposed school levy was defeated at the next two elections, but it finally passed on its third try in November 1988. Five months later, the same school official filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging that Mrs. McIntyre's distribution of unsigned leaflets violated §3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code. [n.3] The Commission agreed and imposed a fine of $100.

The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas reversed. Finding that Mrs. McIntyre did not "mislead the public nor act in a surreptitious manner," the court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to her conduct. App. to Pet. for Cert. A--34 to A--35. The Ohio Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, reinstated the fine. Notwithstanding doubts about the continuing validity of a 1922 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court upholding the statutory predecessor of §3599.09(A), the majority considered itself bound by that precedent. Id., at A--20 to A--21, citing State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St.167, 135 N. E. 525 (1922). The dissenting judge thought that our intervening decision in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), in which we invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting, compelled the Ohio court to adopt a narrowing construction of the statute to save its constitutionality. App. to Pet. for Cert. A--30 to A--31.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed by a divided vote. The majority distinguished Mrs. McIntyre's case from Talley on the ground that §3599.09(A) "has as its purpose the identification of persons who distribute materials containing false statements." 67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 394, 618 N. E. 2d 152, 154 (1993). The Ohio court believed that such a law should be upheld if the burdens imposed on the First Amendment rights of voters are "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory." Id., at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155, quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Under that standard, the majority concluded that the statute was plainly valid:

Stinkwell Tater said...

"The minor requirement imposed by R.C. 3599.09 that those persons producing campaign literature identify themselves as the source thereof neither impacts the content of their message nor significantly burdens their ability to have it disseminated. This burden is more than counterbalanced by the state interest in providing the voters to whom the message is directed with a mechanism by which they may better evaluate its validity. Moreover, the law serves to identify those who engage in fraud, libel or false advertising. Not only are such interests sufficient to overcome the minor burden placed upon such persons, these interests were specifically acknowledged in [First National Bank of Boston v.] Bellotti[, 435 U.S. 765 (1978),] to be regulations of the sort which would survive constitutional scrutiny." 67 Ohio St. 3d, at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155-156.

In dissent, Justice Wright argued that the statute should be tested under a more severe standard because of its significant effect "on the ability of individual citizens to freely express their views in writing on political issues." Id., at 398, 618 N. E. 2d, at 156-157. He concluded that §3599.09(A) "is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and is, therefore, unconstitutional as applied to McIntyre." Id., at 401, 618 N. E. 2d, at 159.

Mrs. McIntyre passed away during the pendency of this litigation. Even though the amount in controversy is only $100, petitioner, as the executor of her estate, has pursued her claim in this Court. Our grant of certiorari, 510 U. S. ___ (1994), reflects our agreement with his appraisal of the importance of the question presented.

Ohio maintains that the statute under review is a reasonable regulation of the electoral process. The State does not suggest that all anonymous publications are pernicious or that a statute totally excluding them from the marketplace of ideas would be valid. This is a wise (albeit implicit) concession, for the anonymity of an author is not ordinarily a sufficient reason to exclude her work product from the protections of the First

Stinkwell Tater said...

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. [n.4] Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. [n.5] Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Stinkwell Tater said...

The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60. Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. [n.6] This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.

Stinkwell Tater said...

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. S. Mill, On Liberty, in On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed.

Stinkwell Tater said...

While Mrs. McIntyre distributed her handbills, an official of the school district, who supported the tax proposal, advised her that the unsigned leaflets did not conform to the Ohio election laws. Undeterred, Mrs. McIntyre appeared at another meeting on the next evening and handed out more of the handbills.

The proposed school levy was defeated at the next two elections, but it finally passed on its third try in November 1988. Five months later, the same school official filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging that Mrs. McIntyre's distribution of unsigned leaflets violated §3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code. [n.3] The Commission agreed and imposed a fine of $100.

The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas reversed. Finding that Mrs. McIntyre did not "mislead the public nor act in a surreptitious manner," the court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to her conduct. App. to Pet. for Cert. A--34 to A--35. The Ohio Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, reinstated the fine. Notwithstanding doubts about the continuing validity of a 1922 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court upholding the statutory predecessor of §3599.09(A), the majority considered itself bound by that precedent. Id., at A--20 to A--21, citing State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St.167, 135 N. E. 525 (1922). The dissenting judge thought that our intervening decision in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), in which we invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting, compelled the Ohio court to adopt a narrowing construction of the statute to save its constitutionality. App. to Pet. for Cert. A--30 to A--31.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed by a divided vote. The majority distinguished Mrs. McIntyre's case from Talley on the ground that §3599.09(A) "has as its purpose the identification of persons who distribute materials containing false statements." 67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 394, 618 N. E. 2d 152, 154 (1993). The Ohio court believed that such a law should be upheld if the burdens imposed on the First Amendment rights of voters are "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory." Id., at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155, quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Under that standard, the majority concluded that the statute was plainly valid:

Anonymous said...

If he means me I will gladly post my name. Della Fleury

Anonymous said...

Norman, at one time you were a good minister and my parents attended your church. At one time you did a lot of good for this county but something has happened and it is my belief that you are not being rational in some of your posts and you try to humilate the obese. That a shame. Use your brain for the good of the people and let God handle the rest. 'VENGANCE IS MINE SAITH THE LORD" Della Fleury

Anonymous said...

its always the people that throw "god" into the conversation are start quoting verses that are the most judgmental and hateful. ms. fleury is just another testament of that.

Stephen Akers said...

Della is a crazy old bat that does nothing but gossip. She's also related to two ton Kathy somehow so that's why she has it for Norman and his blog. She's better off being ignored, maybe she'll just wither up or crawl back under the rock she came out from.

Anonymous said...

Steven, I don't know you but I can assure you I won't be crawling under any rock. I am Kathy's aunt and proud of it. Glad to see you sign your name but of course norman won't come after you. You agree with him. I have a grudge because he attacks so many people. He could do so much good. Della

Stephen Akers said...

It's Stephen, not "Steven". Norman won't come after me not because I agree with him (I don't on about 80%) but because Norman hasn't came after anyone that isn't an agenda driven scumbag like you and your two ton niece and her cronies in the court house and sheriff's dept.

A few days ago, there was a post on here about how you had an agenda against Norman, now we know what that agenda was don't we? "Vengeance is mine saith the lord" is one of your quotes yet, you seek vengeance against Norman because he is lobbying against two ton Kathy winning another election.

You have followed him around for a solid month now, on every topic on here, calling him names and crying and pissing and moaning. So much so that people that even agreed with you initially, have started to become annoyed with you and no doubt, you have cost Kathy a few votes with your childish behavior.

So, please save your words of "wisdom" for someone that isn't a sheep. You are a hypocrite and frankly, I agree with many on here; you are a stalker. Also, just so you know; this site is NOT a "paper", it's a blog.

You never had the intention to come here and "just read", you came on here to post your lunacy and try to sway votes for your worthless rubber stamp and mentally disturbed niece.

Anonymous said...

Pretty much the same thing that Norman is doing, right? Sway votes and to downgrade other candidates - right? No wonder there aren't qualified folks looking to run for public office. Constant ridicule and name calling. Very unfortunate that it has come to this - a bully mentality that has caused many or your own neighbors to say "the heck with it." Hard to choose a candidate at the voting booth when the campaigning is so negative and hateful. God help all of us - because if the vote is not to the liking of the blog owner and his supporters, the bullying will continue. Such a sad witness to the children of our community who see the constant bickering and taunting. No wonder there is so much bullying in the schools, the media, including this blog promotes it.

Stephen Akers said...

Yes, so tell us again Della, how are you so different?

Stephen Akers said...

Two ton Kathy and her brood of misfits at the Sheriff's dept have run roughshod over EVERY ONE that stood in their way for the past four years! Kathy more so than any of them because she is a Sheriff's dept rubber stamp!

Look at what she did to Norman!! She violated HIS constitutional rights by issuing an illegal warrant for his arrest at 11 pm!! And then she recused herself from hearing the case like the coward she is!!

Does Norman have a right to be mad? Damn right he does! He was WRONGED by your fat, cowardly niece!!! YOUR NIECE Della, YOUR NIECE IS A HUGE PART OF THE BULLYING THAT YOU ARE WHINING ABOUT!!! Give us a break with your boring drivel about Norman being a bully. You and your fat ass niece and her cronies are the bullies! Well paid and well FED bullies!

Anonymous said...

Aaahhh, that last post was not by Della. Many folks have been wronged and many have bitter thoughts towards those that wronged them, but to resort to the name calling and ridicule makes one no better than the wrongdoer. So sad that your anger is so consuming. Norman has been so consumed and obsessed with his wish to destroy, that he has lost sight of what neighborliness and community spirit are all about. To put it in a more literature based sense, he promotes man's inhumanity to man.

Stephen Akers said...

Sure it wasn't! You were "leaving" and "signing off" this site so you could be a coward (not unlike your two ton niece)and post anonymously! Well, I am not a coward! My name is STEPHEN AKERS!!! I am PROUD of my opinions! Are you brave enough to post your name? Sure you're not! Because Norman and his bully moderators will "come after" you! Bullshit. Coward.

Anonymous said...

Nope, not related to anyone in Pocy County, but seriously questioning why I would stay here with all the horrific comments. Mr. Akers, while you are intitled to your opinion, your opinion has done nothing to make me vote for your candidates. So sorry for your bitterness...

Stephen Akers said...

And just how do you know who my candidates are out of curiosity? Oh yes, because you are Della. I could have the mods confirm that if you'd like! The mods could post the IP addresses for all the posts!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Akers, I definitely know which candidates, you don't support. And, are you now in conflict with the use of Anonymous posts? I'm a bit confused - Mr. Alderman insists that the use of Anonymous posts are protected by case law. In fact, he encourages it. So in all actuality, I am well within Mr. Alderman's guidelines for posting on this blog. In fact, he put a very detailed account of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission on this very blog earlier. I believe he even quoted the part of the Supreme Court decision, "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Comparing IP addresses may be your folly, but in reality, unless a post is harassing or threatening, to reveal the holder of IP address you would need a Doe subpoena. A better approach would to thoughtfully banter and discuss the issues in a civilized manner. Perhaps a comparison of the writing style of Ms. Della's and this poster maybe the better indicator that this is not Ms. Della.

Etater Moderator said...

Actually no, we need no "Doe Subpoena", there is an option in the administration panel to allow each post to be displayed with an IP (to thwart "trolling". I have no idea where you got that info but it is incorrect. Most websites actually have the capabilities (option) to display email addresses, IP addresses, et al if the administrator, in this case, I am one of four to display that info).

Stinkwell Tater said...

Being anonymous is a great way of getting at the truth of a matter. I like that.

Anonymous said...

Goodness, in my haste I neglected to proofread! "Proof" not "proff" and "Thanks to you." I graciously ask the readers to please excuse the blunders.

Anonymous said...

Well, my suspisions have been answered. It was deleted. So sorry you wish not to share opinions and discussions regarding these issues any longer. Very nice chatting with you and thank you to Etater Moderator and Mr. Alderman for their responses.

Etater Moderator said...

"And what would be the reason? Not sure why displaying the IP address would be a deterrent to posting, but since there is no threatening or harassing behavior on my part what would be the reason? The Doe subpoena is used to obtain the name of the IP address user. To obtain that you would have to present the supoena to the Internet Service Provider and would have to prove that the posts were of a threatening or harassing nature. Since that is obviously not the case, not sure how the displaying of IP adresses would thwart anyone from commenting. By displaying it without provocation would actually be in dispute of Mr. Alderman's wish for anonymity to be a part of this blog. Thank you Etater Moderator for your most informative response."

Interesting how this was deleted, so far as I know, there are but a few that have the ability to delete posts, me being one and that was not me... anywho........ I'll be happy to inform you of my point of my previous post. The "thwart" comment was based on my expertise (sounds arrogant I know) in many different formats of information sharing on the web. By choosing to enable the "show IP address" of websites is to twart or prevent "trolling" or the attempts of one poster to pose as many or "steal" another user's name. In this case, anyone can post as "anonymous". As to finding the identity of one specific user, I personally can do that via a few simple measures but really have no urge to do that unless someone would specifically threaten someone's well being and then, I'd just contact the WV state police with the proper information.

Anonymous said...

Trolling is most bothersome, I agree. I have been quite saddened by the most unkind words that have been offered to community members. I realize the issues have been most disturbing and some semblence of order must be obtained, but to continue to offend seems to be placing this community into a veritable "pissing match." To the outside observer it is a testament to our much hated "Hatfield and McCoys", hillbilly reputation. I would love to see more intellectual strategies rather than resorting to name calling. And, Etater Moderator, given your experience, this blog and the now defunct E-tater was viewed outside of this community. Perhaps a more genteel approach may win more supporters. But this is just my opinion. Thank you for a most courteous and cerebral discussion.

Anonymous said...

Hey Lil Stevey, why are you so angry man? Chill out and quit picking on (I am assuming) the old lady. You usually pick fights with old women? They the only kind you can win? I honestly don't know you or Della, but it seems like your just a hater.

Stephen Akers said...

A hater like Della? No! Surely you jest! Nice that you threw the (I'm assuming) bullshit in there! It's funny, Della had NO support until she "signed off" and then all of a sudden, someone else pops up that shares her views! I reiterate: A coward that posted her name, got OWNED and then decided to "sign off". What's wrong? Two Ton advise against posting under your real name? Costing her too many votes with your incoherent, cowardly blabber?

Anonymous said...

Man little guy, you just don't quit do you? I just think its funny seeing you get all riled up over nothing. I don't even live in PC, hence the 'you wouldn't even know my name if I told you' remark earlier.

And trust that I'm not a coward. If I did have ANY issue with you I would ask you to meet me in town to discuss, over coffee and what not. Then we would see who the coward is. Odds are you would be too busy picking on old ladies to show up. Ha!

As far as I am concerned, your a nobody. But have fun rambling and responding to this crazy little old Stevey Acres, I'm sure you got all the time in the world. And I know this has gotten under your skin you wannabe bully.

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't anyone pointed out the FACT that Norman Alderman is a registered REPUBLICAN and can't even vote in the primary for prosecuting attorney. Maybe that's why he wants to sway the vote, because his won't be counted.

Anonymous said...

How about we point out the FACT how many people in this county conveniently switch loyalties to vote. Pish. Parties are overrated.

Anonymous said...

Just setup a proxy server and nobody can trace your IP address. Search the web it is easy and does not cost anything.

You can make your IP address be what you want it to be....this takes a lil more work but it can be done.

Net post will look like it came from commentator website.

Anonymous said...

After all, any modern concept of sport if it is only in the rompetitive in the whirlpool can not extricate it, fans of the eye is likely to collective rovement e display lots of individuals men as well as exactly how reckless they're using the soccer There are times when you change the direction you can easily find the way out Every single Rugby buff within the NFL understands this particular Many football players have had to endure post-concussion syndrome
Whether you are looking for soccer tickets, tickets to a rock live performance, or seats for a musical, your entire assistance ticket broker is the a single to phone If a person could't afford a geniune NFL jersey you could potentially go one action down and obtain a premier NFL jersey From: Jersey For Sale Recently the most popular topic is the race is hot, the World Cup international party cause in the areas of major concern, the crowd also contributed to the popular fashion Football Team Jerseys trend rise again movementThe factor of Clay Matthews Jersey transfer Troy Polamalu Jersey of goods from one place to the other is really a remarkable factor for the multiplex companies Denim jackets are also available for toddlers It looks so outstanding

Cheap Nike NFL
Nike NFL Jerseys
Cheap Baseball Jerseys