GOP Congressman Defending Privacy Vote: 'Nobody's Got To Use The Internet' (washingtonpost.com)

Wisconsin congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. defended his decision to help repeal broadband privacy rules by telling a constituent, "Nobody's got to use the Internet." An anonymous reader quotes the 73-year-old congressman: "And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet... Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now. The fact is is that, you know, I don't think it's my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make that choice... That's what the law has been, and I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives."
"The congressman then moved on to the next question," reports The Washington Post, but criticism of his remarks appeared on social media. One activist complained that the congressman's position was don't use the internet if you don't want your information sold to advertisers -- drawing a clarification from the congressman's office.

"Actually he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference."

Comments

At some point you've got to ask yourself

[rsilvergun]

why anyone still votes for the GOP? Religion? Are the Tax Cuts worth it? And no, the other side isn't as bad. This last disaster passed along party lines.

Re:He is an idiot...

[BlueStrat]

Why the hell was this guy the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology anyway?

The US version of "Game of Thrones", that's why and how.

Whenever there are "thrones" of power and wealth, there will be "Game of Thrones" Machiavellian politics and machinations robbing the people of their wealth and freedom. It's a part of human nature, and one that collectivist political ideologies always fail by ignoring when they place power in the hands of a few.

This is why the US Constitution was written so as to distribute power and discourage it's concentration in one area/branch/office-holder of government and why the Federal government was meant to be extremely weak domestically, and States and local governments were intended to do nearly all domestic governing.

What we see in the US today is largely the result of too much domestic power in the hands of the central government. Until the central government's powers and scope are reined-in, anything else is simply treating the symptoms at best.

Strat

Re:He is an idiot...

[mikeiver1]

This congressmen is more proof of the fact that our law makers are dumber that syphilitic retards. It is clear that the corporations look at us as nothing more than a feed stock of their cash flow and use our lawmakers to expand the tap at will.

Re:He is an idiot...

[dryeo]

And yet America has way more problems with politicians playing "game of throne" games then Canada even though our country was designed to have a strong central government after watching the train wreck that the American Civil War was. Here the internet is considered a vital service that should be available to everyone who is willing to pay the going rate, and we have net neutrality.
Just having ancient arseholes in charge of so much stuff seems to be a recipe for shit like this. Elders are important and should be listened to and their words carefully and respectfully considered, but to put them in charge? Same with the idea of putting billionaires in charge, as if they're going to look after the common person rather then other billionaires.

Modern voting procedures

[shanen]

Probably doesn't matter if they "don't have to vote for him" because his district is probably gerrymandered like so many of them are. Voters can't pick their so-called Representatives when the district boundaries have already picked the "right" voters.

Only solution I've been able to come up with would be "guest voting" for your representative. If you feel like your vote is pointless in your own district (as for example after it's been gerrymandered 150 miles like mine), then you can pick one of the neighboring districts and vote for a representative in that district. The more they gerrymander the districts, the more they are liable to get screwed up by guest voters. Another interesting wrinkle is that third-party voters could concentrate on one district and get some Congressional so-called representation. Of course, it would never happen. Pretty certain it would require a Constitutional amendment, and even if they got the amendment, the bastards would just come up with some new cheating game.