The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: JC5123 on February 26, 2015, 01:12:44 PM
-
Where will we draw the line?
In what one Republican called a “monumental shift toward government control of the Internet,” the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved a proposal granting the federal government the authority to regulate Internet broadband providers under the same law as public utilities.
The five commissioners voted 3-2 along party lines in favor of the proposal known as net neutrality. The 332-page plan, which has not yet been publicly released, bans broadband providers from blocking, throttling or prioritizing certain Internet pages over others. The FCC has said the proposal will not seek to impose any new taxes or fees.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/fcc-formally-approves-net-neutrality-proposal-in-straight-party-line-vote/
-
Censorship, are you ready to start using the rope YET ?
It cost George Soros almost $200 million.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/?ns_mail_uid=9210582&ns_mail_job=1610304_02262015&s=al&dkt_nbr=e1dftioz
-
Censorship, are you ready to start using the rope YET ?
I was ready 6 years ago!!!!!! I was just talking this morning about how we will never get an elected official into office that will stand for the Constitution. This is because the 2 parties will never allow us to vote on such a candidate. For example, they are hell bent on giving us the choice of Jeb, or the Hillabeast. Just like the last 2 elections. McCain!?!? Romney!?!?! Screw the RNC!
-
Between the politicians and the parasite ignorant voters I don't think the public deserves any say in Govt.
We need a dictatorship that can restructure the Constitution on the lines I've described else where and repair the damage public opinion be damned.
I've even got a pretty good idea how to manage it. ;D
Good govt is something that needs to rammed down the public's throat whether they want it or not (they won't )
All America's problems are based on 4 major flaws in the Constitution.
#1 The assumption that offices would be sought by "honorable men of good character" concerned with the best interests of the country.
#2 The assumption that voters would inform themselves and vote for what was best for the country.
#3 Not making the "Property requirement" a specific qualification for voting therefore depriving the producers of their control over the use of their tax dollars and placing control of the nations wealth in the hands of those who do not generate any of it.
#4 Structuring the amendments as a "bill of rights" when it would have been more effective as a bill of obligations.
(EXAMPLES, The people have the "right" of a Free Press, should be an obligation to be truthful Brian Williams and any anti gunner comes to mind, 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It SHOULD read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the obligation of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced". )
"These United States", were never intended to be a "democracy". Democracy is nothing more than a fancy name for mob rule. Among the first steps of the new Republic, were those suppressing the rabble, reimplementing the property requirement and suppressing movements such as Shay's rebellion in Mass, and the Whiskey rebellion in Va.
Democracy in action has never worked , which is why the ancient Greeks abandoned it in favor of "tyranny".
The Founders knew democracy was a failure which is why they tried to structure a Constitutional Republic where the State had specified Powers and obligations and the people had specific unalienable rights. They knew it would not be perfect, they just tried to screw as few people as possible while benefiting the majority.
-
Ok, here is my proposal:
A convention of the states.
4 new amendments to the Constitution:
1: A balanced budget Amendment.
2: Congressional reform Amendment to include:
a. Congress may not exempt themselves from the laws they pass.
b. Congressional Pay to be tied to National Median Income.
c. Term Limits
3: Abolish the Federal Reserve, and the IRS. Go to a consumption tax. There is nothing unfair, and the government has no reason to know anything about your income.
4. Make ANY form of government welfare illegal.
-
......... The 332-page plan, which has not yet been publicly released, bans broadband providers from blocking, throttling or prioritizing certain Internet pages over others. The FCC has said the proposal will not seek to impose any new taxes or fees.
It astounds me that people can be so in favor of this, because we don't even know what's in the regulations.
And they lie right off the bat. With the plan running 332 pages, how many additional hours of legal time will this add to the expense of the "plan"? That's a cost if not a "fee". And how much time and expense will be spent by ISPs to prove their innocence? How many unfounded lawsuits will be filed? Since the internet, extends all the way down to each individual user device, how far a reach will the FCC claim? Will a using company, say Glock, also have to prove that internally they are "net neutral"? Will schools have to prove their firewalls don't discriminate?
-
It astounds me that people can be so in favor of this, because we don't even know what's in the regulations.
You have to pass it to see what's in it. That's how all great legislation is handled.
By "great" I mean horse$h!t and by "handled" I mean rammed down our throats.
-
Ok, here is my proposal:
A convention of the states.
4 new amendments to the Constitution:
1: A balanced budget Amendment.
2: Congressional reform Amendment to include:
a. Congress may not exempt themselves from the laws they pass.
b. Congressional Pay to be tied to National Median Income.
c. Term Limits
3: Abolish the Federal Reserve, and the IRS. Go to a consumption tax. There is nothing unfair, and the government has no reason to know anything about your income.
4. Make ANY form of government welfare illegal.
Add an Ethics Amendment. As TomB mentioned in a couple of posts, the Constitution was written expecting Honorable Citizens would hold office and have the best interests of the country in mind. To insure this have heavy penalties for any ethics violation or violation of the oath of office. Equivalent to Treason should work.
-
Add an Ethics Amendment. As TomB mentioned in a couple of posts, the Constitution was written expecting Honorable Citizens would hold office and have the best interests of the country in mind. To insure this have heavy penalties for any ethics violation or violation of the oath of office. Equivalent to Treason should work.
Absolutely bar them from ever holding ANY position of public trust .
Not even Dog catcher. Should find some way to bar them from any kind of private sector position of trust as well. No fleeing to a position at Harvard like the Soviet spy Alger Hiss did.
-
Absolutely bar them from ever holding ANY position of public trust .
Not even Dog catcher. Should find some way to bar them from any kind of private sector position of trust as well. No fleeing to a position at Harvard like the Soviet spy Alger Hiss did.
IF they aren't swinging from a length of the rope you got for your birthday and have finished the 25 years hard time.
No public office. No voting. Life time probation. They can get speeding tickets and jay walking tickets even disorderly conduct and other civil offenses...but any criminal charges and they finish the rest of their life sentence.
Make the penalty so over the top NO ONE will take office with intent to personally profit from it other than the good feeling they get from honest service to the country.
Also, I think Tom's 2 point....knowledgeable electorate will tend to take care of itself when welfare is eliminated. If your survival depends upon earning enough to feed yourself likely you will be anxious to learn as much as you can about everything that affects job availability and quality and where any money you earn that does not show up in your wallet is going and why the hell it is going there.
At one time I was toying with the idea of politicians wearing a remote controlled exploding collar and each day, their constitutes vote thumbs up or thumbs down and a long streak of too many thumbs down would explode the collar. But the system would to too susceptible to fraudulent votes and those collars are too expensive to waste. ;D
-
connect that collar to a belt mounted lie detector, require all staff members to wear eyes and ears. ;D
-
connect that collar to a belt mounted lie detector, require all staff members to wear eyes and ears. ;D
Until lie detector technology improves reliability a bit, we still risk losing to many of those collars ;D
-
Until lie detector technology improves reliability a bit, we still risk losing to many of those collars ;D
It would be the other way around, as the tech improved MORE of them would be popping their tops because it would get harder to deceive the detector. >:(
On the original topic, I'm wondering how long before my laptop explodes, or the NSA come and get me. ;D
Bring it on you SOB's, I know how to deal with them ;D :-X ;)
-
There was no way net neutrality was going to lose. The other side was way out gunned. Here's just a few links to back this up.
http://gizmodo.com/heres-everything-this-dumb-porn-parody-on-net-neutralit-1684195117 (http://gizmodo.com/heres-everything-this-dumb-porn-parody-on-net-neutralit-1684195117)
http://gizmodo.com/the-lamest-official-reactions-against-net-neutrality-1688286927 (http://gizmodo.com/the-lamest-official-reactions-against-net-neutrality-1688286927)
http://gizmodo.com/net-neutrality-wins-what-now-1688183094 (http://gizmodo.com/net-neutrality-wins-what-now-1688183094)
http://justice.gawker.com/thanks-for-the-net-neutrality-oligarchs-1688571806 (http://justice.gawker.com/thanks-for-the-net-neutrality-oligarchs-1688571806)
All those links are from site viewed mainly by millennials who don't want their gaming, movies, and porn limited by internet speed limits created by companies to syphon more money out of their pockets.
Plus they read this:
The FCC proposal says so, very explicitly: "The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees." (Emphasis theirs.)
Add in who was backing Net Neutrality and you'll see there was no other outcome.
- Microsoft
eBay
Google
Facebook
Amazon
So it wasn't the Gov taking over the net as it was Big Business.
-
I swear there are only two industries to get away with this type of thing.
electronics and telecom. if it was any other industry they would be out of business.
-
Vint Cerf, co-creator of the Internet, (for real not like Al Gore or Brian Williams) is now a VP at Google. Even though Google backs this, Vint had reservations and expressed them in a letter to the FCC.
That said, the companies backing this aren't doing it to protect the consumer, what they're doing is protecting their own content from the ISPs (ATT & Verizon). Facebook, Yahoo, Google, et.al, are trying to protect their own bottom line from the ISPs charging THEM more.
Putting a neat name on this "net neutrality" gets all the "lets-play-fair" people all warm and fuzzy, but it's not unlike rent control, or any other meddling by bureaucrats in business's business. It will backfire with unintended consequences.
-
And here's an excellent article on the problem.
http://personalliberty.com/truth-net-neutrality-obamas-internet-takeover/ (http://personalliberty.com/truth-net-neutrality-obamas-internet-takeover/)
Cutting to the conclusion:
Net neutrality as imagined by Obama and Wheeler will not result in faster Internet speeds, an expansion of Internet service provider choices available to home consumers, a lowering of fees or even a reduction of lag times for those of you playing “Call of Duty” online. It will add government oversight where it is neither needed nor wanted. In actuality, by reclassifying the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, net neutrality will add little more to your online experience beyond added fees (federal “common carrier” status always includes federal taxes). Down the road, those taxes fees will indubitably increase, as will government involvement with content. Ultimately, we’ll end up with the Ministry of Information issuing “blogging licenses.” But hey, at least you won’t have to deal with buffering the next time you watch “House of Cards” on Netflix.
–Ben Crystal
-
I find it interesting that they used the regulation of utilities as a comparison, and people fell for it. In the case of utilities I don't know of any locale where you have more than one choice of electric, gas, water or sewer to choose from. The lines are drawn, and the providers have a monopoly in their product area. This is not the case with internet!
As I sit here this morning I have the choice of four providers that I can utilize at any time - two require a phone call to start service, and two are already on line. How does this compare to my choice of electricity?
We have always had power grabs and greedy elected and appointed officials benefiting from the system. However, each year the American populace gets dumber and dumber, and they even demand to be taken advantage of. Watch, next "the people" will be demanding restrictions of forums (direct violation of free speech and free assembly) in the name of safety.
-
Watch, next "the people" will be demanding restrictions of forums (direct violation of free speech and free assembly) in the name of safety.
Just because we are all a bunch of bullies that police our own..... ;)