Actually, the courts told the FCC they couldn't reverse a previous hands-off policy in that manner. First they had to reset policy to allow the regulation, then they could make the regulation. And Congress? You mean those people who didn't know the difference between fairness doctrine and net neutrality?
The freedom from want, the freedom from ISPs, the freedom from rent payments. On and on and on.
True, but net neutrality has nothing to do with "freedom from ISPs." Maybe protection from being screwed by ISPs, but then that describes all anti-fraud and consumer protection law too. For Internet companies, it's also freedom from having someone interfere with your business.
Hey, did you know laws against murder are actually about "freedom from murder" and thus should not be supported? Just because you restate something that way doesn't make it bad.
Governments do have freedoms, ask the 65 million that Mao killed.
That's power, the power to kill. No, no freedoms, no rights. That's why I don't even like the term "states' rights." State governments don't have rights. They have powers, they have sovereignty, but they don't have rights.
Fine. All he’s doing is showing how big of a threat to our freedoms that he is.
So does Kucinich with most of what he says, but here he is, absolutely correct on the Obama/Libya issue. The fact that he's an loony leftist who makes JG look like Ronald Reagan doesn't change the fact that he's right on this one.
I’m not foolish enough to look at a totalitarian, and think he’s actually going to separate the two.
Who cares? We can separate the two, we can reject a net neutrality proposal if fairness doctrine provisions are included. However, the only one who seems to be combining them is you.
Do they play the role of a referee? Or a toll booth?
Show me where in the FCC rules that toll booths are implemented. I'm talking about the actual rules, not stuff you made up as to what the rules could be, not what is imprinted in tin on your forehead. Speaking of that, I'm still waiting for Clyburn's words about the FCC implementing toll booths as part of net neutrality.
—————And Congress? You mean those people who didn’t know the difference between fairness doctrine and net neutrality?-————
The congress that told them no was the congress we defeated in 2010. I’m pretty sure those guys knew the difference.
-————True, but net neutrality has nothing to do with “freedom from ISPs.”-—————
It does to the FCC. If they take control of the on/off ramps, then the ISPs are effectively nationalized. That’s the price they pay to get onto the FCC’s toll road.
—————That’s power, the power to kill.-——————
The power to control the on/off ramps of the internet is the power to decide what does and doesn’t go on said internet.
————So does Kucinich with most of what he says, but here he is, absolutely correct on the Obama/Libya issue.———
*sigh* Everything that leftists are doing is in order to create chaos. Kucinich included. Seen gold prices lately?
————Who cares?——————
Julius Genachowski and our other potential rulers care.
————We can separate the two, we can reject a net neutrality proposal if fairness doctrine provisions are included.-—————
Theoretically, right now, yes. But we don’t have much time left. They’re passing the bills before we can find out what’s in them. I’ve posted two separate threads related to the FCC withholding information regarding net neutrality. One of which I’m certain you saw because I pinged you to it.
————However, the only one who seems to be combining them is you.—————
I’m not willingly blind to tyranny.
—————Show me where in the FCC rules that toll booths are implemented.——————
By the time the rules get codifed, it’s too late. When someone says “this is what we want to do” and it’s clearly a bad thing, I sit up and take notice.
You obviously don’t.
—————not stuff you made up—————
Quit lying or ask admin moderator to delete the discussion. Your name is still in it.
I’m not making up that she said it, and I’m not making it up that you participated in the thread. Hence, you are a liar.
You participated in that discussion. Go ahead and argue otherwise.