Why We Should All Fear Government

mac · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:23 pm Post subject:

Very thoughtful rebuttal.

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

A whole lot of what we say is based on how we say and present it. All the negativity about our country and government is getting old, and when it's so clear where this kind of information is coming from, you lose credibility. Dragging BS from biased cable media, talk radio and internet sources and dumping it here with some disdainful comments is saying what? I'm looking for something more constructive and insightful.

isobars specializes in hateful views of arguably the majority of folks around. I think that he fails to realize that Democrats and liberal minded folks represent better than half the people of this nation. He takes special relish in insulting names and capital letters screaming his constant disdain. Am I lying about him? All you have to do is review a couple pages back on any political thread to find what I'm talking about.

What I say, and how I communicate it is in a totally different world. I'm far more thoughtful and civil in my comments, and I'm not always spreading and promoting the hate from gutter media and questionable internet sources. But that doesn't mean that I don't have any teeth. isobars hates me so much because I don't buy his BS and call him on it. As a result, I've been on his killfile list for years now. What kind of guy develops a long list of folks he personally censors and bans from his computer, and then pretends they aren't there? Now, that's just crazy.

nw30 · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:32 pm Post subject:

Gotta love the names they come up with for bills that are little more than power grabs, the latest, "Net Neutrality", just about as crazy as "Affordable Care Act" or "The American Clean Energy & Security Act" aka "Cap and Trade" all of which do nothing as their titles would imply. And lets not forget the "Fairness Doctrine" which would put limits on free speech.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCC chief pressed to release net neutrality rules

Mike Snider, USA TODAY 4:08 p.m. EST February 23, 2015

A key Republican lawmaker in Congress called for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler to make proposed net neutrality regulations public before a planned Thursday vote on the measure.

In the latest wrinkle in the Republicans' battle to quash Wheeler's proposals, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who's also the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter today to Wheeler, questioning whether the FCC has been "independent, fair and transparent" in crafting the rules to protect content on the Internet.

"Although arguably one of the most sweeping new rules in the commission's history, the process was conducted without using many of the tools at the chairman's disposal to ensure transparency and public review," he said.

Chaffetz urged Wheeler to publicly release the 332-page draft order that was given to the other four commissioners nearly three weeks ago and appear at a House Oversight hearing Wednesday before a vote at the FCC's monthly meeting Thursday.

Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment.

He also asked Wheeler to reconsider testifying at a House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform hearing Wednesday and allow for a period of public review before the FCC votes on the regulations.

The FCC has been recasting net neutrality rules because the agency's 2010 rules were tossed out by a federal court last year. Rules for net neutrality, or open Internet, would ensure that Internet service providers (ISPs) give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring or blocking some sources. The rules would also prohibit ISPs from allowing content providers to pay to get speedier delivery of their content, a practice known as "paid prioritization."

Sides have been drawn over how Wheeler has crafted the new rules. He based the legal authority of his proposal on parts of both the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Consumer advocates supported the use of Title II of The Communications Act to regulate ISPs as if the Net were a utility, as is traditional telephone service. But critics say that could give the FCC too much regulatory power.

Originally, Wheeler had planned a different approach, but changed his strategy. His announcement of that shift came after President Obama in November called for tough net neutrality rules based on Title II.

Since then, two congressional committee chairmen have asked Wheeler and the FCC whether Obama exerted undue influence on the process. And draft congressional legislation proposes a measure that supporters say would be less intrusive because it doesn't rely on Title II, but would still ban ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing content, as well as prohibiting paid prioritization for fast lanes.

Earlier this month, FCC commissioner Pai called for Wheeler to make the net neutrality proposal public. "With the future of the entire Internet at stake, it is imperative that the FCC get this right," he and O'Rielly said in their statement today. "And to do that, we must live up to the highest standards of transparency."

In his response to an earlier congressional request to make the proposals public, Wheeler said the FCC had received more than 4 million comments and held six public roundtables. Releasing the rules before the commission votes runs contrary to how federal agencies work, he said. "If decades of precedent are to be changed, then there must be an opportunity for thoughtful review in the lead up to any change," Wheeler wrote.

Kim Hart, press secretary to the FCC chairman, said that "the chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues."

There is precedence for the FCC chairman to make rules public, the commissioners and Rep. Chaffetz said. In 2007, then-chairman Kevin Martin released to the public new media ownership rules and the entire FCC testified in a House hearing prior to the final vote in December.

A senator who supported the FCC's postponement back then, Chaffetz notes, was then-senator Barack Obama. "He specifically noted while a certain proposal 'may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,'" Chaffetz said citing the original letter sent by Sen. Obama to Martin.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/

It's nothing more than the government controlling the internet, if BHO says it's broke, then he must fix it. Hey, IT'S NOT BROKEN!!!!!
And neither were our boarders, until BHO broke them.
These power grabs for nothing but power, gets really old.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More~
http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-from-internet-to-obamanet-1424644324

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567

MalibuGuru · Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300

Hmm, They really want as much control over money and information that they can take.....Thanks to the useful idiots.

mac · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:22 am Post subject:

I scare myself....

When Republicans were sane these kinds of issues were worked out. Now they are all as batshit and paranoid as our Socal boys.

nw30 · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:24 pm Post subject:

You should be scared, you have no idea what the details are, none of us end users know. Which begs the question, Why all the secrecy?

I'm pretty sure that it's nothing more than an online version of the "Fairness Doctrine", an attempt at curtailing free speech. There's just too many voices out there, can't have that.

But then again, if you totally trust our current government, then go ahead and curtail the freedoms that we citizens are too untrustworthy and unintelligent to control.

mac · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:31 pm Post subject:

I don't trust either government or businesses on their face. But you in particular are incapable of coming up with a coherent message other than anti-government and anti-Obama, and ignore the facts.

There are cogent and specific criticisms of this administration, particularly on privacy issues, that the right wing can't manage to come up with--largely because their record on these issues is even worse.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

NW...please. There are many very articulate arguments, both left and right on the merits and pitfalls of net neutrality. Here's your homework: go read up on the issue, and return to the playpen when you actually know what is involved here. You often argue for the little guy....well, in this case , without net neutrality the small website operator will get crushed.
BTW- if you dont think its broke, then you ARE for net neutrality!!! Its the carriers who want to charge more for heavy use websites. geezz.

nw30 · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:23 pm Post subject:

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

Since I live in the Bay Area and I have a vested interest in the companies that will be affected, I am keenly aware of net neutrality and the proposed rule changes...this is not new news.