Slashdot Mirror
Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have joined six other Senators in pushing the new Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would dismantle the rules, walk-back the FCC's Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers, and prevent the FCC from trying to pass net neutrality rules in the future. In a statement posted to the Rubio website, the presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment. "Through burdensome regulations and tight control like the net neutrality rule, the government only hinders accessibility and the diversity of content," said Rubio. "Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."
Yes.
"Hillary Backs Strongest Net Neutrality Rules"
http://time.com/3721452/hillar...
Bernie. He's the only one who has a sane plan and who seemingly gives a shit about liberty. The rest of them outright want to strip you of privacy and rewrite the constitution.
Global megacorps aren't those people. You're thinking of local businesses that employ the majority of people, pay taxes and generally provide a useful service to the community. Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.
Good point - absolutely true. However this article is about Cruz and Rubio. Two people whose personal philosophies seem to hinge on be on the wrong side of every issue.
Not sure where this comes from. All evidence from people who have worked with her points to her being an incredibly caring and selfless person.
Yes, for her family and inner circle - she "selflessly" lets them in on the Clinton machine's heaps of money, power, and access (as long as they stay loyal, or don't have a fling with her husband, in which case they are publicly ruined or end up killing themselves or going to jail).
She has a long list of accomplishments that meaningfully have helped people.
Yes, she has a long list of events at which she used her position of power as Secretary of State in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for her family business from foreign governments that are notoriously abusive when it comes to "the people."
Seriously, on the level of politicians, who almost universally have suspect motivations, she's got to be one of the better ones.
No, not really. She's a corrupt serial liar, a poll-driven drive-by policy position holder with completely contradictory underlying philosophical premises, and would appear to be incredibly negligent if not outright criminally abusive in her handling of more-than-top-secret information while working her personal money making operation at the State Department. She looks you in the eye at public events, picks a phony accent out of her hat depending on what color your skin is, and then lies to you completely obvious ways that don't even pass the smell test. And that's who you are defending.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.
Citation:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.
Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Bernie's policies don't just require "higher taxes" or "more government spending", they would require a PROFOUND increase in both. There's simply no free lunch, even in societies that believe in that sort of thing. The piper is paid.
Americans have this strange idea that they can have things both ways, spend like drunken sailors, and never have to pick up the tab.
The idea that you can "cut waste" or "cut fraud" just leads to the degredation of whatever program you're trying to gut.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
There seem to be some problems.
Net Neutrality - Issues
Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.
Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.
Net neutrality for dummies
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.
Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.
This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.
At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.
Net Neutrality waivers
As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.
The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.
Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Carson won't because of what the Cruz camp did to him. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on - in Iowa, before the polls closed, the Cruz camp told people Carson had dropped out, and many of Carson's supporters therefore voted for Cruz. Making those comments before the polls closed is against the rules, and Trump was not happy.
Neither was Carson, who vowed to stay in it as long as Cruz was in it, to take as many votes away from Cruz as he could.
Kinda feels like 3rd grade recess out there...
My Daily photo website.
Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer.
Which is why his campaign is failing. The Right loves Trump because he eschews the dog whistle Republicans have using to lure the racist, the lunatic, and the paranoid into their party, the party of the rich. Instead, he's saying it out loud. The Republicans have long been throwing sops to these people, as they worked on their true agenda, but these people are not sitting quietly anymore. We, on the left, ought to take a cue from them.
Incidentally, I love how all these bills are given doublespeak titles: "Restoring Internet Freedom Act", "Right to Work", "Defense of Marriage", etc. It would be hilarious in a novel.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped