Slashdot Mirror
Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer As FCC Chief
Ripit writes "President Obama on Tuesday nominated Julius Genachowski as the nation's top telecommunications regulator, picking a campaign adviser who has divided his career between Washington, D.C., political jobs and working as an Internet executive.
Genachowski is likely to continue the Democratic push for more Net neutrality regulations, which are opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers. He was a top Obama technology adviser and aided in crafting a technology platform that supported Net neutrality rules."
Has Julius paid his taxes?
At the rate things are going, "The One" is going to have a historic presidency for, if nothing else, having the most tax cheats appointed of any presidency in history. I'd like AT LEAST ONE nominee to turn out to be an honest person.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
In the almighty words of Wikipedia: [Citation Needed]!!!
It would appear you are making up fantasies that fit your desire for socialism, mmmm?
better check his taxes.
plenty of democrats are opposed to net neutrality.
Hollywood is opposed to net neutrality.
It's not a liberal agenda persay, it's a really liberal agenda.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I'm quite possibly retarded this morning, isn't this an oxymoron (no, not me) : "Net neutrality regulations" And speaking of retarded, let's have the FNG @ the FCC have to turn around and battle fellow dem's on net neutrality. Can you say Diane Feinstein retardedness. Retarded I say. Retardingly retarded.
Yea, I'm so excited for this guy to implement the fairness doctrine so our free country can be censored. Police state censorship for the win! Can't wait...
eyes on the real BUWLA, or BSD Huubard and Mike
Free speech made it possible to mod you ass troll.
>>>If a bank had a dramatically high rejection of minority loans (compared to non-minority loans for the area) then the fed would look at the bank.
Which is, by itself, unfair. Minorities typically have less money (for various reasons). The high decline rate is not a race issue, but a financial issue - the loans are high risk.
>>>The bank could either justify their decisions by showing the reasoning...
Right, because attorney generals and/or mayors have never prosecuted for the sole reason as to win votes in the upcoming elections. /end sarcasm. Many banks & individuals were drug into court even though they had done nothing wrong, just to "set an example" and "vote for me because I'm standing up for you, the homeowners". This is called corruption, and it doesn't just infect the corporate world, but also the government. It creates a govt-applied pressure to approve loans that never should have been approved.
>>>DTV..... trying to cater to those (typically in lower economic households) who did not get a converter
Yu're wrong about being sold out. I just bought 5 of these boxes myself; there's tons of them in stores and online for anyone who desires them. The cheapest is only 40 dollars; who can't afford 40 dollars??? Just skip going to a restaurant this week and next week; done.
We held up the whole country because just 4% were not ready (source: FCC and Nielsen). That's nuts.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You can sue for anything. The hard part is finding a jury that can get past the initial "EEEEWWW!"
hey dumdum, er, "sumdumass:"
first off, it's = it is.
second, as you acknowledge in principle, "the constitution stops the freedoms of it's citizens from being trampled on by it's governments" but NOT IF BUSH IGNORES IT. That's the point you struggle to grasp as you rant on about how terrorists don't have any protections.
The problem is, unless you only ever take a break from Fox News to watch "24," the definition of who "the terrorists" are is not conveniently scripted. Your reasoning is specious and absurdly childish.
If we trusted the government to just "do whatever it takes" to provide security and freedom, we wouldn't need a Constitution. The reason we have a Constitution and a revered rule of law is to prevent crooks like Bush and his administration from overstepping their authority in violating the freedom of citizens and violate international law to do things our society has long determined to be inappropriate. That includes picking up citizens and holding them for years in torture concentration camps without even charging them with a crime.
The rest of your post is so wildly uninformed and rant-a-holic I didn't bother reading further.
Please do society a favor and kill yourself.