Slashdot Mirror
Entire Broadband Industry Sues California To Stop Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com)
Four lobby groups representing the broadband industry today sued California to stop the state's new net neutrality law. From a report: The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California by mobile industry lobby CTIA; cable industry lobby NCTA; telco lobby USTelecom; and the American Cable Association, which represents small and mid-size cable companies. Together, these four lobby groups represent all the biggest mobile and home Internet providers in the US and hundreds of smaller ISPs
. Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile US, Sprint, Cox, Frontier, and CenturyLink are among the groups' members. "This case presents a classic example of unconstitutional state regulation," the complaint said. The California net neutrality law "was purposefully intended to countermand and undermine federal law by imposing on [broadband] the very same regulations that the Federal Communications Commission expressly repealed in its 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order." ISPs say the California law impermissibly regulates interstate commerce. "[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders," the lobby groups' complaint said.
"hmm, it seems that california won't just take what was tell them to. maybe we didn't think this coup thru well enough. shit, what do we do now? this is getting more attention and we want to BURY this, not call MORE attention to it"
yeah, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle. you angered some people and miscalculated how much you can get away with.
now, if there is a most hated industry, the telecom is surely one of them.
the fact that they are all 'angry' is a GOOD THING. when we piss off bad guys, they throw hissy fits, but its good to keep them in check. they need to be bitchslapped every now and then.
ajit can EABOD. most punchable person in recent history (so they say).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
in the field of consumer protection if they have succeeded in all those who provide a service to act against them. It is quite simple: they think that they will be able to make more money but cutting deals all over the place; but the legislators understand that this would favour the powerful/rich over the smaller operators (web sites/services) and make innovation (startups) harder.
Huh. Normally the right finds value in the several states experimenting with solutions, and the left high value in the interstate commerce clause to give supremacy to federal regulation, up to and including the "dormant commerce clause" rule, where if Congress considers then declines to regulate something, that implies said nothingness is the federal regulation to be imposed on the states, foreclosing any state level regulation contravening that which Congress chose not to regulate.
It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case, but the opposite in most other cases, and they are all power hungry hacks.
Nah.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Not as if the Comast Verizon duopoly is going anywhere soon.
When multinational communications industries with vested monopolies in local state and federal government come together to craft a shit sandwich at the highest levels of regulatory government using a smear campaign of disinformation and botnets posting false public opinion, you'd better take a bite when the order is served.
the federal government, and every single telecom company in the US, is fighting like hell to make sure this dies. Not because it really hurts them on a national level, but because it lays the groundwork to circumvent and resist their monopoly control without crossing the interstate commerce clause at the federal level.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I think that there's a few more contestants this year in the "Most Punchable Face" category, particularly Kavanaugh, but Pie is certainly a strong contender. Now if you were talking about the 2017 Most Punchable Face awards then yeah, Pie may have had that one in the bag.
I actually hope California holds it grown and wins, then other states will all start their own Net-neutrality laws, each one slightly different. Enough for them to say. You know it would be much easier if we had a single rule to follow across all the state lines. Aka Net-neutrality.
Currently I really don't know if I am getting for what I paid for from my ISP. Sure running speed tests says I am good. But are they just keeping the pipe open on the speed tests, but slowing other sites which I may need to do real work with?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now all the rest of the states need to follow suit, but with different net neutrality laws for each state.
not going to law school and passing the bar in California, because regardless of how long and hard fought this will be, the lawyers will make obscene amounts of money from both sides.
Even a shadow of doubt makes the job applicant invalid, and the interview will move on to a better candidate.
All your stupid consumer habit trackers successfully do it and know what size underwear I buy and where I buy it.
Table-ized A.I.
In the age of righteous indignation, you don't actually hear any people clamoring for the the removal of net neutrality. In fact, plenty of people want it back but the government doesn't listen (shocker).
The fact that no *actual human beings* (which excludes politicians ofc) are opposed to the law in cali should tell you something. Add in how much corporations hate it and you have a winner here. Keep in mind these are the same corporations that did things like charge for SMS messages which used to be a free and rarely-used messaging subsystem built into cell phones. It literally cost them nothing and one day they decided to charge people enormous amounts of money (measured in $/MB) for basic data that didn't even take up bandwidth streams in their service.
Or companies trying to impose data caps on broadband because they'd rather 'invest' their profits in dividends than upgrading their network to support their customers.
Or...the list goes on.
If telecom hates it and people like it, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a good law.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
One of the highest offices in the country deserves the highest scrutiny. Especially one where the office holder is appointed for life.
Someone in such a position deserves to be held to a higher standard. That standard should be immutable, regardless of party of the President who nominated them.
It isn't that hard for isp's to distinguish the last mile, or they couldn't throttle your service when they want more money.
The whole problem with net neutrality and in many ways the entire problem with any form of internet commerce is who has jurisdiction. States have the right to regulate commerce within their borders, and the US government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and negotiate treaties for foreign trade. It's easy to see the breakdown of how this works when you're talking about the trade of physical goods, between two people who exist in a specific geographic location, as states inherently govern a specific geography.
The internet breaks this down. Is it interstate commerce if you buy a product on Amazon (based in Seattle) when you live in California, the trade happens on a server located in Virginia, and the product is shipped from a distribution center in California to your door? The internet by it's very nature does not fit well within the confines of commerce law, and so commerce law needs challenges, healthy debate, and updating.
So everyone on Slashdot being anti-business of course is going to claim this is some big deal, but it is actually right to file a lawsuit and have it arbitrated, debated, and defined. Case law can set guidelines on what the law views the internet as, and thus provides clearer guidelines on how to enable proper regulation and governance. Ultimately this whole debate exists because no one knows how to work with the internet, so hopefully it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and gets some clarity.
Also, this doesn't mention that the DOJ is also filing a suit against California for the same reason, Federal vs States' rights: https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/30/technology/california-net-neutrality-law/index.html
..."Will someone please think of state's rights!!!"
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
A job interview isn't a trial. And a trial is preceded by a limitless thorough investigation, so when there is one it will have much more time than a week and a a greater scope than a narrow list of approved conversations for activity.
and we know how well that worked for them. besides, the FCC deregulated the Internet, so they don't have jurisdiction over it any more. this is now the silo of the Federal Trade Commission if they care to blow their budget chasing the rabbit.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So what if California seizes Network infrastructure through eminent domain, makes a Statewide Intranet. Returning legal domain and regulation to the state instead of the federal government. Then they can simply refused to do business with any of the isps until the isps cater to them. There's too much business done over the internet in California. And those who hold stock in is peace also tend to hold stock in business is supported by the internet. The companies will cave because profit drives you just need to starve them for profits it's long enough to make it in their financial interest to behave ethically. Please us or lose billions. Give the customers what they want or go out of business .that's fair
Nothing about innocence or guilt here, this is not a criminal matter, but a question of character.
Kavanaugh's character was amply demonstrated, arrogant, belligerent, and simply put, whiny.
It's not really about what he did 36 years ago, however horrid that might be, it's about how he acted and how he lied during his under oath testimony. He has neither the temperament nor the honesty for the position. He can deny the direct allegations, but he flat out lied about his typical behavior of the time, as well as on many other already verified points, and this isn't the first time he's lied under oath either.
This seems at odds with the idea of states rights to make laws MORE restrictive that those of the Federal Government. That's always been the way of things in the past.
We're currently at odds with things like marijuana laws, the states making them LESS restrictive and the Federal Government going crazy over that idea, but we've never had them lose their minds over making MORE restrictive laws by state. So, why is this different?
If we figure out why this is different, the same can be applied to California's reasoning for making MORE restrictive MPG requirements on cars there.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
After all the telecoms success of today was made possible by grants from the from the public, by all honest accounting the public own these isps that claimed to be private because it's our money that built them.
Sorry capitalists, Californiastan are now ruled by democrat party union fatcats and high payed burocrats who want to destroy the free market and shove so called "net nutrality" down everyones throats even though voters clearly made there voices heard at the last election.
I'm German CDU you ignorant piece of shit,. Fuck off you god damn paid Russian troll!
Alas, the Federal Preemption Clause of the Constitution tends toward CA being in the wrong.
That said, arguably the Feds don't actually have a law regulating the industry, so CA doing so in CA is perfectly legal.
Which means, it all depends on who has the best lawyers, and what the various Judges (presumably including Appellate and Supreme Court (eventually)) think of their arguments.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That sounds all high-and-mighty until we examine what standards are. when examined standards are nothing more than he said she said built up and piled over each other over time. He said this is wrong she said this is right. and because nobody came along and set them straight saying hey dude that's just your opinion that doesn't apply to other people then it's stuck around and got mistaken as fact. Standards aren'tmore than opinions mislabeled. It deceptive concept , the falsely pushes The View that there is a right way to do things rather than simply different ways to do things.and need to get the hell out of our laws
So every time a new candidate appears we just have to find someone willing to say that this particular candidate ALSO did something in the 80s that no one can verify, and eventually we end up with no Supreme Court in the US.
That system is totally not open to abuse because everyone is honest and kind.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Couldn't they just reconfigure the routers to isolate segments from state to state? That way you know when traffic is coming into or going out of your state. Perhaps that's the "impracticable" part.
In the age of righteous indignation, you don't actually hear any people clamoring for the the removal of net neutrality. In fact, plenty of people want it back but the government doesn't listen (shocker).
No, you don't hear any of the distrust of "Net Neutrality" because you instinctively assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a paid corporate shill.
The concept is vague, the implementation was nothing like the advertisement, and the reasons supporters gave to care were almost but not quite entirely fictional. Some of the rabid supporters admitted that everything they wrote on the subject was a lie, but that "people can't understand the real reason it's important."
Go yell at Congress to take one of the attempted Net Neutrality bills and bring it to the floor for a vote, neither party has made any significant effort to pass a law on the subject although bills have been proposed by both.
One rule though means that you only have one rule that challenge in order to resume abuse of the network. Every state having their own provides additional redundancy and safety to prevent loss of net neutrality.
That you Verizon? Knock it off now. You're just pissed that you're losing.
You mean these accusations without proof didn't stick and he didn't get "me-too'd" so now we say it's about his conduct during the testimony in which he was put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. That testimony shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Though I'm not a republican and wouldn't want someone with Kavanaugh's views (don't care about his conduct) on the supreme court, the attention given to the accusations leveled at him was nothing short of remarkable, and the way the press (and shows like the Daily Show) pumped and milked the issue was pretty disgusting. Then again I'm not an American either, so whatever... Except that the same sort of new puritanism is creeping into our politics as well.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Yes, and Ford, and seemingly anyone with an (R) or (D) next to their name and title.
I still think internet regulation is a federal issue and the courts are likely to think so to. The courts are pretty stacked with pro-corporation judges anyway. Guys like Gorsuch & Kavanaugh are going to side with the ISPs. Meanwhile our Senate and Electoral college means that California's voting power is heavily diluted (somebody in Montana has 46 times more voting power than a California voter). This is by design.
Baring a sea change in American politics I think NN is dead. It's not an issue that people vote on. As always it's Jobs, jobs, jobs, low taxes, hating on Bureaucracy and the classic wedge issues (guns & abortion) that drive people to the polls. And the anti-NN party does a better job of getting their folks to the polls.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
California doesn't have the authority to do this.
The authority to license businesses in California?
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Be thankful of your tiny penis. It'll stay up even with a weak heart. On the subject,
[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders," the lobby groups' complaint said
Sound like they have already found the solution to the problem.
This is not the *entire* industry.
Who represents Google Fiber?
Try saying that to my FACE, you jizz-licking faggot, and see what that gets you.
..oh that's right, you're only brave on the Internet! In real life you're a fucking COWARD and hide behind your wife's skirts like the yellow-bellied pussy you are.
Say shit like that in front of real men in real life. We'll DESTROY you. You'll be on a permanent liquid diet.
"[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders,"
The path of network traffic ought to be irrelevent. If you setup as a broadband provider Inside the state of California, then
the transaction involving the purchase of Broadband service is between You and your customer who lives inside the state of California. The
purchase of broadband services is an intrastate transaction, because you have to substantially exist within California to own or lease all the
outside plant in California required to connect your customers.
Because this is an intrastate transaction: the state of California has the right to regulate the quality of the goods you are selling;
regardless of any 3rd party interstate transactions required for you to supply the goods.
For example: The state can prohibit selling a product containing common additive X.
This applies to all sellers with a presence in California selling goods to customers in California.
As a Retailer or Service Provider it doesn't matter whether you buy the good from a local source or a wholesaler in-state
--- you may be able to obtain the good through interstate commerce but be Disallowed from reselling the product in your local store:
the interstate commerce transaction was separate, And the intrastate transaction must comply with the law.
The Intrastate transaction is a company owning or leasing the right to physical In-the-Ground Telecoms cabling or Wireless towers
mounted on the ground in the state of California connecting to a local customer to Offer broadband service (A service that in order
to deliver may require the provider have purchased a number of Wholesale products for re-sale from different providers In and Out-of-state,
BUT the Advertising and Sale of Broadband service is still between a company operating in California and a Customer operating in California).
In the same way that California can charge a tax to UPS for originating the shipment of a package or prohibit UPS from discriminatorily refusing service to
certain neighborhoods, despite the fact that UPS ships some packages out of state: If the Buyer of the service and UPS both have presence in the state, then there is an intrastate transaction subject to state authority involved.
It is true that network traffic may leave the state, and California's regulations are likely unable to make "End to End" guarantee across remote out-of-state
suppliers of no throttling ---
However, that was never what "Broadband Network Neutrality" promises. Broadband Network Neutrality is about regulation of that last mile:
that connection between the Consumer and Internet peering: No unequal prioritization based on application or competing business interests to obstruct usage of the last mile network to which the provider has a monopoly, for example: by prioritizing a partner, blocking or throttling access to a competitor, competing service, or unliked application or website, for censorship, to solicit a payment, or artificially make one service have poorer quality from the network.
California can require that a company in their state build in-state broadband networks that do not throttle traffic while it is in that state and make all reasonable accommodation to ensure they deliver an ultimate product to the local consumer that has a certain quality (fairness)
One of the highest offices in the country deserves the highest scrutiny. Especially one where the office holder is appointed for life.
Someone in such a position deserves to be held to a higher standard. That standard should be immutable, regardless of party of the President who nominated them.
So does this standard you suggest include ANY protection for the falsely accused nominee? Or are we just going to flush any nominee that has any kind of charge, real or imagined, made about them?
I suggest that we at least require *some* kind of evidence beyond the accuser's story. Some kind of independently verifiable evidence simply MUST be required, say a contemporary police report, eyewitnesses that establish the basic accuser's story, something.
We can argue what level of evidence is required, but in the current case we obviously have nothing beyond the accuser's story. Nobody is remembering this but the accuser, the other guy in the room doesn't remember the incident or the party, her best friend doesn't remember the party, and the nominee denies he ever did anything like this to anybody, including her. I don't think this is enough evidence to support canning the accused... That just wouldn't be fair.
1 federal regulation vs 1000 local laws. The Telecom industry made their choice. It will definitely be easier to manager lawyers for 1000+ jurisdictions instead of 1 small lobby for a regulating body... not really. Good luck, telecoms!
They want Carte Blanche to fuck everyone in the ass due to a totally unregulated industry.
It's just like any company any one of you was working for that got bought out by some other company; first they say "We like the way everything is working, so rest assured we won't be changing anything". Then 3 months later the pull at least half the employees into a meeting room and fire them while their IT goons lock down their computers. So it'll be with the gods-be-damned broadband industry: "Oh well Net Neutrality is in our best interests, no worries!", then some months in the future they'll screw everyone over, set up their Walled Gardens, paid access levels, and so on.
THANKS, TRUMP! Dx
His reaction to the accusation, however, is not the way you expect a Supreme Court bound Justice to behave. I get being angry at false accusation, if it is false, but throwing that little hissy fit he threw is something that should get you kicked off the local bus, let alone the fast track to the Supreme Court.
We'll find out if her allegation IS supported based on Mark Judge's interview with the FBI.
Allegations aside, Kavanaugh has lied under oath and does not have the temperament of a Justice. I'm basing a no vote purely on his own spoken word. He failed the interview.
You son of a bitch, why won't you just fucking die?
For the record, the nature of the evidence does matter to me, and it is worthy of additional investigation. I do not have a strong conclusion about Kavanagh at this point.
But in the bigger picture, what we have on hand is the inevitable consequence of Make America Great Again. Democratic senators could literally dance in the aisle screaming "Lock him up!" and there is no point in complaining -- the moral counterargument was thrown in the trash by the American rightwing.
I haven't read the documents yet but from the looks of it the case is pressed purely on legalities of the act they don't like.
What I really would like to see is if the state can force them to explain what is different about their business under the Act versus prior. In other words, once you clear all the "constitutional" arguments what the plaintiffs clearly want is to make more money and they think that the new law will stop them from doing that.
From that you can see where they think that money will come from and how it will get to them. The plaintiffs clearly don't want to talk about this but I would be amazed if the state attorneys don't force them. (Objection! Relevance. Overruled.)
Ford lied under oath, claiming she never prepared anyone for a polygraph test. She helped a Mclean, one of her friends. I thought it was odd questioning of her under oath, but I guess they knew she was lying and asked enough questions that she couldn't wiggle out of it. Kavanaugh has not been shown to be lying under oath, some Fake News outlet said he did but didn't show evidence.
As for temperament, I suppose you support tossing Ginsberg out of her seat for her comments about Trump?
No? So you are a partisan hack that doesn't care about the truth or care if you get called out for being shit? Ok.
Well that disproves your comment.
Why does the left always advocate violence to solve their problems. Seems the left hasn't not outgrown it's Slave owning past.
Bro, it's super clear.
Were going to pass a law that we have no law about this and use that law to get rid of laws that regulate what we didn't make laws about.
According to other news articles, there are 22 US states with some laws protecting Net Neutrality.
California is just one.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... as being against the better interests of its customers. Sounds like an industry that is just crying out for some significant competition, and not the token competition that is touted nowadays.
False dichotomy. Plenty of people have handled similar accusations with calm and dignity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As long as that candidate doesnâ(TM)t evasively dodge simple questions and completely blow it in their hearing, they should be okay.
Kavanaughâ(TM)s performance was baffling. The senators on the judiciary committee were ready to be incensed for him. He just needed to be measured, above the fray... judicious, even.
We are not where I expected to be. Partisan conspiracy theories? Leave that to Graham and Grassley.
Assassinate Vladimir Putin!
The only "partisan hackery" going on is coming from the left, people like Feinstein sitting on the letter detailing the allegations for months and a liberal push to abandon the most basic precept of our justice system in the desperate hope that they can recapture enough seats in November to continue their aimless "resistance". This is a bogus claim and Ford's own witnesses have rebuked her version of events all along the line, she's a liar pure and simple and in any objective review there isn't sufficient evidence to proceed with any investigation. At this point's it's nothing but a media based character assault driven by nothing but the leftist political agenda. The only reasonable response to such a situation is outrage. Outrage at the propagandist manipulation of victimhood for political gain and outrage at the abandonment of due process for the sake of political opposition. If you're not outraged at this witch hunt, you're either not paying attention or you're an idiot... either way, I'm sure the democrats will welcome you with open arms.
Simply put, yes, I would expect a Judicial demeanor and not partisan hackery. The judge displayed none of the former and all of the latter
He displayed a Herculean amount of self-control in the face of the immense amount of crap being thrown at him hoping anything would stick. I want judges that are human, not robots. Humans get pissed when they are accused of things they didn't do by people who can't remember just what did happen or when, all based on partisan politics and intended to keep them from getting an appointment that they are more than qualified for.
If the Democrats get away with this reprehensible behaviour then there will be no more new SCOTUS members. In the future, every nominee will be accused of something, and the accusers will all chant in unison "the accusation is sufficient to stop the nomination." The accusations will all be from 36 years ago, none of them will be provable (or disprovable).
Before you denounce the partisan part to this, remember carefully HRC and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Similarly, it does not surprise me in the least to see partisan hacks rise up to defend his behavior in front of the Senate.
Given that it is partisan hacks that are trying to slime his reputation and name, I am not surprised you'd call the people defending him partisan hacks.
Does anyone remember the hysteria we lovingly call "The McMartin Pre-School Case"? Or even just "Duke Lacrosse?" We already have a verbification -- to "bork" someone. Will we now add "to kavenaugh", meaning "bork on steroids"?
California absolutely has the the right to do this within their own borders. The federal government foreclosed their ability to regulate this when they took away the title II regulation.
Remember when the Obama FCC tried to implement net neutrality rules while keeping data services outside title II designation? Well the court ruling that struck down those rules found the FCC has no authority to regulate unless they declare the service a Title II service. So when the new Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation they removed all regulatory authority from themselves, so the little statement the FCC put in the rule that foreclosed all state action is actually as unenforceable as the the original net neutrality rules because the FCC doesn't have authority to regulate without a Title II deceleration.
This is what that original court ruling laid out in minute detail. Congress granted the FCC authority to regulate, but ONLY when it's a title II service. Everyone warned the new FCC that when they removed the title II designation that they were in fact opening up to state level regulation. I have no doubt in my mind that California is going to win this and it's all cause the Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation.
But he is conservative. That is the only criteria that counts in the GOP.
He will end abortion and protect Trump.
He will declare unconstitutional any thing that restrains any big corporation or church.
No defect of character and no crime will stand in the way of his confirmation.
He is a conservative and that is the only criteria that matters.
Though I'm not a republican and wouldn't want someone with Kavanaugh's views (don't care about his conduct) on the supreme court, the attention given to the accusations leveled at him was nothing short of remarkable, and the way the press (and shows like the Daily Show) pumped and milked the issue was pretty disgusting.
Only because he was a shitty candidate with a shitty attitude and a shitty background from the start.
This wouldn't have happened with a halfway decent candidate. Take Gorsuch, for example. What came up during his confirmation? Some of the passages in a book he wrote seemed to mirror work by someone else. That's the dirt they came up with on him. That's also why there was none of this sort of giant shitshow during his confirmation. Democrats obstructed, Republicans used the nuclear option, he got confirmed. (And like you, not a republican, and I don't agree with his views. But he wasn't a terrible candidate.)
Kavanaugh is a stinker through and through. A former political operative specializing in smearing opponents, with apparently a very heavy drinking, giant asshole period of his life that he routinely bragged about at that point.
There are plenty of decent candidates that wouldn't have anywhere near this level of scandalous shit-show happening if they were tapped for the position. But who does the tapping? Only the most ignorant and unqualified individual we've ever had on the job. It's a wonder that one of his two choices was actually pretty clean and decent.
he was put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Well, yeah. He knew his own damn past, and should have known full well what could possibly turn up. (Unless he was as blackout drunk as his drinking buddies have talked about, I guess. Would explain something.) Would I volunteer for that? Fuck no. Given what we know about him now, I'm amazed that he figured it would be fine. If you've got a hard partying, "we're prolific pukers", "100 keg challenge" background, I'd expect you to think twice before stepping into the brightest political spotlight you can find. And if you decide to do it, I'd expect that you'd have a very well practiced response to any questions, and not just scream and throw temper-tantrums, and make obvious lies about what happened.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Except that the same sort of new puritanism is creeping into our politics as well.
This had nothing to do with puritanism. It has everything to do with the hot-button issue of the day being older white men abusing young women (that movie producer whats-his-name, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, Al Franken, the list is endless), the success of knocking down anyone with a simple accusation, and what could easily be called political correctness, because it is political. Today it's riding on #meToo. A year ago this would have been coat-tailed onto #BLM.
Lets look at this from a logical perspective, and not the fu Pia and over regulation that.
A large number of Telecom companies have file a lawsuit to stop what California is calling Net Neutrality. This will go to court, and if it's in the state of California, it will most likely lose. Home court advantage, and a lot of political sway.
Appeal!! This will surely rise to the state supreme court, which again I believe this will be shot down. Same reasons as before.
The real question is whether or not the US supreme court will take up the case. This is where this could turn.
Ok, hope this seems reasonable. Of course we will have all of the press and social media outrage for months, most likely a year or 2. Personally, I love living in facts. A lot less stress.
All telecoms companies are hereby banned from operating in the state of California.
How'd that sound to you corrupt corporate fucks?
No it doesn't. During the Obama admin CA applied for tougher emissions standards for the car and was granted permission. (Was revoked this year.) The outsize influence of CA means they can't do whatever they want if they want to be a state in the union. Hawaii on the other hand could easily impose its own NN rules and no one would stop them. Likewise if CA wanted to impose its own rules on say textbook production that wouldn't bother anyone either.
The Federal preemption clause applies only to LAWS and the FCC regulations are not laws. So preemption works only in limited cases like public safety or national security. Both are hard to argue.
Don't believe me? Well, ask the Sixth Circuit: https://www.bna.com/sixth-circ...
That is so sad! You can't use BIAS on interstate traffic with California mucking things up? Sounds like California should start their own ISP that follows their state regulations. Other states should follow suite. Those lines are ultimately the state's property if push comes to shove. Would love to see a hostile take over forcing all telecom infrastructure under utility regulation. Federal laws only work when states comply. It's a two way street.
The interesting question is: "Since the FCC said it doesn't have the authority to regulate broadband (Pai's rejection of Title II) can it prevent other government entities from doing so?"
I would bet that they can't prevent states from making laws because they have essentially abandoned all authority over ISPs.
God is imaginary
Lies about him?
Uh - you got that backasswards.
Him lies about her.
He's a fucking liar, opportunist, probably rapes puppies at home.
You're making a fool out of yourself.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
no, you're the dumbest poster of the day, and I say that speaking as a hiring manager - if there's any doubt as to your quality or competence, I'm moving on to the next fucking interview candidate.
You aren't a thinking American, you're a REACTING one, the kind we don't fucking need in the first place.
...is the a bedrock principle of Western Civilization.
It''s why people aren't burned to death by a mob when an accusation is made.
It's why someone doesn't beat your ass when their wife says you touched her.
This principle applies in ALL situations and all venues.
That you so readily abandon it when it is politically advantageous, tells us a lot about your suitability for living in an enlightened society. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in Afghanistan.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If you don't want robots, then you don't want Kavenshit.
He'll do anything his masters tell him to do.
Like ban network neutrality because it "violates" the ISP's first ammendment rights, which they do not have.
Corporations are NOT people. They cannot be forced to serve in the military, they don't go to jail when they murder someone (defective product causing death is murder), they don't worry about breaking any laws because they know they can buy their way out of it.
Without the responsibilities of being a person/citizen, they cannot have ANY of the rights or privileges.
And yet, even more people would've handled them with precisely the same degree or outrage which he did. His response is not sufficient to disqualify him on any level. I want a SCOTUS justice to be outrage by the perversion of justice for political gain.
He displayed a Herculean amount of self-control in the face of the immense amount of crap being thrown at him hoping anything would stick.
Ironically, Hercules was infamous for his lack of self-control, so your description is more apt than you think.
Kavanaugh lied, consistently trying to make himself out as the victim, and railed at the supposed partisan assault on himself, while completely ignoring his own obnoxious behavior, showing no self-awareness of his ill-spent youth, and never seeming aware that he would not be considered for the post if not for mindless partisan devotion.
He showed nothing so clearly as his own rancor and vileness, which if you wish to argue is human nature, is one thing, but still discredits him when seeking a judicial position.
Seriously though, great irony on your part bringing up Hercules.
Put Kavanaugh through 12 Labors and we'll talk.
False... the only questionable portions of his testimony are those which relate to him understating his high school and college drinking, which is hardly surprising from any dignified adult. On her side though, virtually every witness she put forth to support her claims has refuted her version of events... the woman she claims drove her home following the assault, her supposed lifelong friend, has gone on record as saying she was never at the party and never drove her home and never heard any claims of her having been assaulted at any party.
Let's start with undoing every law written for corporate benefit.
Undo corporate citizenship.
Disallow corporate interference with Congress.
Disallow any kind of corporate donations to political campaigns.
Any government entity found accepting corporate or corporate leadership money immediately sent to prison for life, in Gitmo.
Make net neutrality an amendment.
End the treasonous un-Patriot act.
End FISA and arrest all participants to send to Gitmo for life.
Arrest and send to Gitmo every government entity that made use of the FISA courts and warrants, did nothing to end them, voted for them, etc..
Throw out every current government entity and start fresh.
It's the only way to be sure.
LOL. Fucking hypocrite.
The only "partisan hackery" going on is coming from the left,
Please, Lindsey Graham's abject apology was partisan hackery from the right at its finest, and so has been the rest of the stunts from the GOP's blubbering brigade.
But go ahead, pretend that somehow that the right isn't guilty as it can be throughout this whole process.
Good to know for future jobs.
> Hack HR DB
> Discover the names of my rivals
> Post accusations online
> Profit
This is the world I want for my children.
LOLOLOLOL. Your list is so wrong it's not even funny. You guys don't even fact check.
Getting accused of rape is not the same as grabbing a FRIEND of yours boob.
Also, if Clinton is a serial RAPIST, where are the women? Let me guess, hilllary had em killed right?
You repubtards are so fucking stupid.
You provide NO citations.
You are the partisan hack. The pot calling the kettle black. You two are the same person.
Actually, that woman, Leland Keyser, said she doesn't know Kavanaugh and doesn't remember any particular incident at any given party, which is completely different from denying anything. Given that there was no reason for her to remember one of many parties and she wasn't told anything, she's just saying she knew nothing.
The harder you try to stretch people's statements to suit your partisan agenda, the more your dishonesty shows.
Yea because owning slaves and violence are totally the same thing.
Repubtard detected. Will ignore.
What?
Ironically, Hercules was infamous for his lack of self-control,
I'm sorry you are not familiar with the colloquial use of the term "Herculean", as in "Herculean effort". It means "a huge amount". He displayed an amazingly large amount of self-control, not a lack of it, in his testimony.
Kavanaugh lied, ... ignoring his own obnoxious behavior, showing no self-awareness of his ill-spent youth,
All of this is based on one person's story that doesn't seem to be supported by her friends of the time. Guilty until proven innocent, yes? Whose youth was better spent: his, resulting in a position on the federal bench and consideration for SCOTUS, or yours, here spending your days posting to /. as an anonymous coward?
Don't you know, a woman's accusation *is* evidence.
This is arrant nonsense. When the first automobile emissions standards laws were passed, California was explicitly granted the right to set its own, stricter standards as a response to the terrible pollution in the Los Angeles area. Other states have the right to adopt either the national standards or the California standards.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Transfer the US Internet back to the NSF. All of it. All fibre, all routers, all switches.
The vendors don't give a shit about their customers, the laws or their employees. So a sensible, mature, rational society should do without the vendors.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ironically, Hercules was infamous for his lack of self-control,
I'm sorry you are not familiar with the colloquial use of the term "Herculean", as in "Herculean effort". It means "a huge amount".
It appears you aren't familiar with the concept of irony, which by your use of the term "Herculean" you were actually closer to referencing the genuine character of Kavanaugh's behavior at the Senate hearings, where like Hercules, he came across as bitter, petty, irresponsible and just plain childish.
His lack of self-control was apparent in his demeanor, he was resentful and irate, exactly like Hercules.
Maybe as vain as Achilles too.
All of this is based on one person's story that doesn't seem to be supported by her friends of the time.
Nope and nope. Good on you for not going for the word choice of "refuted" that your fellow travelers prefer. But it is based entirely on his own recorded and televised behavior at the hearing. That shows Kavanaugh's true character.
Guilty until proven innocent, yes?
Actually, unqualifed until demonstrated qualified is the standard.
Whose youth was better spent: his, resulting in a position on the federal bench and consideration for SCOTUS, or yours, here spending your days posting to /. as an anonymous coward?
I have the sense to know not to judge my life as if I should worry about failing to achieve something I never would want anyway. And I didn't even have to read one of those adolescent coming-of-age books to realize it.
Perhaps you might want to read some. Or watch one of those Lifetime/Hallmark movies.
Depending on your service level, attempt the following: ( this generally only works, if you have a DL speed less than 30-40Mbps )
- If you have netflix, play an HD movie, or non-HD, while viewing other video media on other devices... Odds are, you'll see Netflix overall quality will degrade
- Now replicate the same scenario, except use a .. 'free' online video stream of an HD movie... and again, viewing other video media, on other devices.
My own tests for this scenario, lead me to believe my ISP, is specifically shrinking the available bandwidth, for Netflix specific content.
Then do this just with Netflix content only. I've come to find my ISP seems to be playing interesting games, with their feed.
End result: when non-legal video streams, come through better than paid for content streams, that don't happen to belong to your ISP, yea... something isn't right.
Ford lied under oath, claiming she never prepared anyone for a polygraph test. She helped a Mclean, one of her friends.
This is the woman who denied any such thing happened?
You do know that your own defense gets harmed by these spurious accusations, right?
NCTA: “An open internet means that we do not block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity. We firmly stand by that commitment because it is good for our customers and good for our business.”
https://www.consumerreports.or...
he was put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
I think it was a "damned if you lose your temper and start spouting partisan rhetoric" situation.
So there were nice slave owners?
Don't worry, Trump's SC picks will come to the rescue including Kavanaugh. The FCC and the telcos will prevail.
We'll find out if her allegation IS supported based on Mark Judge's interview with the FBI.
Allegations aside, Kavanaugh has lied under oath and does not have the temperament of a Justice. I'm basing a no vote purely on his own spoken word. He failed the interview.
LOL.. Keep hoping there buddy.. Unless Mark Judge wishes to commit a felony, his swarm statement *clearly* says he doesn't remember any of this. I seriously doubt the FBI will somehow get a different story from him during a personal interview.
About Kavanagh lying, I think you are making a huge deal out of a couple of sound bites, taken out of context and ignoring the whole of his testimony under oath. He admitted to drinking beer, sometimes having drank too much beer, during his high school and college days when being questioned by the committed under oath. So he didn't lie about this. What else is there out there?
Maybe you have something else he lied about? Citation please?
The temperament thing is nothing more than opinion. I think he's immensely qualified and has demonstrated an excellent judicial temperament in his 12+ years on the court. Nobody complained about his temperament before, why are they now bringing this up?
Unless the other end of my dsl modem is in Nevada rather than at the end of the block, the entirety of the service I am paying for occurs within the state of California.
Not punchable certainly, but his response certainly showed a terrible demeanor not suitable for the office (which is probably why Trump loves him so). Innocent of the original charges or not, blaming the Clintons for this means he's got a gear loose.
The federal government prohibited states from taxing the Internet for decades. If they can prohibit taxing, they can prohibit any of that other gibber jabber you wrote.
Demonstrated qualifications, as evidenced by 30+ years of excellence and continuing advancement in his profession... not to mention several previous FBI background checks as he advanced without any mention of questionable conduct until the left started their "resistance". Kinda makes you wonder... Just kidding, no wonder at all; just an incredibly transparent attempt at prosecution through propaganda for political gains. Speaking of demonstrating qualifications, what about Ford's story, which has been refuted by her "close friends" that she named as witnesses, provides a basis for qualifying her as providing honest testimony? In any actual judgement, when the people you name as supporting witnesses say you're full of shit, that's the end of the case...
This is NOT the correct response to false allegations when you are in the middle of a job interview for a position that requires a high standard of thoughtfulness and impartiality. If there were two candidates, one of which handled false allegations by shouting back and accusing the interviewers of being biased versus one who took a more restrained tone, would you hire the angry guy or the guy who remained more calm when under fire? There are so many other possible ways that Kavanaugh could have handled this.
And had he just sat there and not reacted in any way, he'd be maligned for not caring enough to defend himself.
Clearly this guy was in a catch 22, a no win situation on national TV. I think he did amazingly well given how deeply hurt and unfairly he's been treated if he really is innocent of the charges and powerless to defend himself. Put yourself in his shoes, what would you have done?
If it would have been me, they would have had to put the broadcast on tape delay and keep their finger on the dump button every time I opened my mouth. I would have been seriously pissed. I would have told you to shove where the sun don't shine every chance I got. But I wouldn't want to go though the anal exam of the nomination process to start with. Certainly NOT now that it's clear how stupidly partisan and unfairly political this process has morphed into.
We've taken "advise and consent" and made it into a blood sport jousting contest to the death using the weapons of political partisanship, dirty tricks, unsubstantiated accusations of the innocent and personal destruction. It's sick.
Like devils triangle is a drinking game:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils+Triangle&=true
No... you're right... there's absolutely no reason for her to remember the party where she supposedly rescued her friend from a sexual assault, that's not remotely memorable. Ditto for the name of the accused, easily forgettable. Sure... For all of us with an education, a brain, a shred of decency, and any regard for actual justice... it's pretty clear that her good friend simply isn't willing to commit perjury for Ford. But sure, you go on believing that she just forget the emotionally charged escape from assault in which she played a key role... I bet you're still waiting on Santa to drop down your chimney this December too huh?
You could say the same about the character of Feinstein, Booker and Ford as well.
If all you care about is the last few days of mud-slinging while ignoring what happened during the 'regular' process. I wouldn't vote for Kavanaugh but I do like his consistency in upholding the constitution and the fact that he quite clearly indicated that "Roe vs Wade is confirmation upon confirmation of prior cases, SCOTUS should not be interested in changing that"
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
shithole.
Or regulate ISPs not screwing with the last mile traffic that is clearly only within the state of CA?
And whatever happened to states rights? Oh right that is only for laws you don't agree with
Don't forget, only two years ago the party in power held up a supreme court nominee for ten months because they wanted to delay the vote until after the elections. Now the very same party that did this, the same senate majority leader, and with mostly the very same judicial committee members, are trying to push this through before elections.
I don't care what side of the political device people fall on, that should be recognized as pure hypocrisy. These politicians are not acting in an impartial manner, they are not doing what is best for their country, and instead are doing what is best for their party and for their election chances. And by that I mean that both parties are guilty - they cry foul when they're not in power but they'll do the same thing again when they get power back.
The only way we're going to get out of this mess is if people start voting for moderates and centrists again instead of partisan ass kissers.
Actually, that woman, Leland Keyser, said she doesn't know Kavanaugh and doesn't remember any particular incident at any given party, which is completely different from denying anything. Given that there was no reason for her to remember one of many parties and she wasn't told anything, she's just saying she knew nothing.
The harder you try to stretch people's statements to suit your partisan agenda, the more your dishonesty shows.
Well, her testimony and reelections do speak to the probability of the accusations being true. CLEARLY the accuser places this woman at the party. Keesler doesn't remember the party, doesn't remember Kavanagh or any of this, which may not be proof it didn't happen, CERTINALLY isn't proof that it did and diminishes the probability of the story being true. Further, Judge's testimony that HE doesn't remember any of this either, even though he was supposed to have been in the room further diminishes the probability.
I'm not saying any of this is proof, because NONE of it is, including the Ford story. There is zero additional evidence what Ford claims actually happened. So there is no proof either way. But the fact that Ford is apparently the ONLY person remembering this series of events does make the preponderance of the evidence slant away from her version of events.
And if this goes to the supreme court it WILL side with the Broadband Industry, just wait and see. Personally, I had a good run in America, but it has become unrecognizable to me at the micro and macro levels and certainly isn't living up to any aspect of the American Dream anymore, unless that dream involves grabbing it with both fists and ramming it on your dick.
You have to have seen a totally different hearing than me.
The Kavanaugh I saw handled himself extremely poorly. He showed a lack of self control.
He was offensive against the senators asking questions - in an way he was attacking the people he was applying for a job before.
He apparently lied several times according to several of his classmates, one off them his roommate.
He showed poor judgment by touting a right-wing conspiracy theory that is laughable regarding Hillary Clinton.
I wouldn't hire this guy for even a junior position after this display.
Speaking of demonstrating qualifications, what about Ford's story, which has been refuted by her "close friends" that she named as witnesses, provides a basis for qualifying her as providing honest testimony? In any actual judgement, when the people you name as supporting witnesses say you're full of shit, that's the end of the case...
I see you keep using that "refuted" claim, except not one of Ford's friends has made any such disputation and in fact, it is Kavanaugh's claims of not being a drunken party boy that are rejected by his own friends.
Oops. Guess you got things backwards.
No... you're right... there's absolutely no reason for her to remember the party where she supposedly rescued her friend from a sexual assault, that's not remotely memorable. Ditto for the name of the accused, easily forgettable.
Those of us with a brain remember that there was no claim of a rescue, or any contact, let alone an introduction to the person of Brett Kavanaugh, by the person of Leland B, who in this thread, you falsely claimed she refuted the account.
But none of your portrayal is accurate, instead it is as a false story you concocted yourself.
Odd that you go to such lengths. Why make such blatantly false misrepresentations?
How muck he drank or partied isn't remotely relevant to anything... that her own witnesses say they're unable to support her claims is critically important and precludes her allegations from being even remotely worthy of investigation. The only thing backwards here is your understanding of the way the justice system works.
The claim made above, in case you didn't read it carefully, was that Leland Keyser refuted Ford's account.
That said claim is false is what matters here, in this secondary discussion where the credibility of Kavanaugh's apologists is arising.
They are the ones making a misrepresentation now, and that sort of falsehood serves to discredit them.
According to Cliven Bundy and Phil Robertson, yes.
Hi fellow slashdoters. I feel we should individually contact these providers and politely indicate your displeasure. Perhaps their message boards or tie up their customer support lines and express our concerns may be effective.
If we continue to put a good full court press on government and business we could preserve what we got now.
What's odd is that you seem to know nothing which didn't come from HuffPo... Yes, Ford claims that Leland was the person who got her out of the party, otherwise known to folks with a vocabulary as a rescue; "save someone from a distressing or dangerous situation". Rescue. And yes, she refuted, "to deny or contradict"... refuted her close friends account of the night, clearly stating she had no memory of the party, Kavanaugh, an assault, or rescuing her from such a situation at any time... Odd how you go to such lengths to try and justify false allegations.
When did Bill Cosby become an "older white man"?
In the age of righteous indignation, you don't actually hear any people clamoring for the the removal of net neutrality. In fact, plenty of people want it back but the government doesn't listen (shocker).
No, you don't hear any of the distrust of "Net Neutrality" because you instinctively assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a paid corporate shill.
The concept is vague, the implementation was nothing like the advertisement, and the reasons supporters gave to care were almost but not quite entirely fictional. Some of the rabid supporters admitted that everything they wrote on the subject was a lie, but that "people can't understand the real reason it's important."
Go yell at Congress to take one of the attempted Net Neutrality bills and bring it to the floor for a vote, neither party has made any significant effort to pass a law on the subject although bills have been proposed by both.
None of what you said is true. Literally none of it. Sadly we've entered a time when morons believe the lies they tell themselves. Just look at anything any Trump supporter says for proof. Keep in mind it's only the right that doesn't want it and only then because they were told it's bad for them and are too stupid to know otherwise. The harsh reality is most people should not be listened too because they simply have no idea what they're talking about and lack the mental capacities or interest to learn. Only an absolute idiot or someone hoping to gain financially from ISPs would not want Net Neutrality if they understand what it means. Seriously, it takes a truly deeply stupid person to WANT to let ISPs charge on both ends and have even more control over how content they have nothing to do with is delivered to their customers. Even more so to think ISPs are governed by a free market and not see the obvious analogs to the past. The very fact you even TRY to argue against it tells me you should never be listened to for anything. Ever. I really mean that and I'm not alone.
It is 100% certain Net Neutrality will come back. Maybe under a new name and certainly with more restrictions and safe guards in place but there is no question. The last few years have taught a valuable lesson. There is a group of people that must be silenced. Like a 5 year old who wants to eat nothing but candy they are incapable of understanding, well, anything. They're fools, pure and simple, who will be take advantage of and subjugated by someone. There's a VERY harsh reckoning on the way. Maybe not for several more years but eventually and these people who believe they were persecuted before are in for a huge surprise. Most of us just ignored the ignorant rabble and went along with out live but that is no longer an option because they're actively trying to destroy themselves and take everyone with them. People this stupid can't stand up for themselves. They can't fend for themselves. They're in deadend, worthless jobs and blame everyone else for being abject failures. Listening to them is physically painful and reminds you that some people are beyond hope. Beyond redemption. They're basically a waste of life that was tolerated because they didn't cause major problems but that's changed. Hope you enjoy your new reality.
I'd like my SCOTUS nominee to be a fucking adult and not a manchild frat-bro. Shut the fuck up, faggot.
(note: I am not a SCOTUS nominee. Gladly.)
And yet, even more people would've handled them with precisely the same degree or outrage which he did.
And those people are not suitable supreme court justices.
How muck he drank or partied isn't remotely relevant to anything...
Except his character, both at the time, and thanks to his angry resentful bickering, now. So we know he was a drunken party boy then, and now he can't even own up to it. Neither are points in his favor.
that her own witnesses say they're unable to support her claims is critically important and
She has no called witnesses, in fact, the FBI hasn't even talked to them, and the few people who have spoken? Not one of them, contrary to your false assertions has refuted her claims, and so far the best you have is the standard "I don't recall" which is not at all refuting anything.
precludes her allegations from being even remotely worthy of investigation.
Yes, yes, we know you don't want this investigated or even discussed.
The only thing backwards here is your understanding of the way the justice system works.
What's backwards is your idea that this is a judicial matter. This is before the Senate, not a criminal hearing.
They have a different obligation, one to the American people, for which even how a judge reacts to an accusation matters.
Or his supporters who want no investigation at all.
Eat a bag of dicks, slack-jawed commie.
Yes, yes, keep insisting that Leland Keyser somehow refuted the idea of a sexual assault by claiming not to know Brett Kavanaugh or remember a particular party decades ago where contrary to your continued false assertions, no claim of any rescue occurred.
Sorry, but Ford actually said that she managed to get to a bathroom and lock the door, then waited for them to go away before leaving the party.
Nope, no claims that any rescue occurred. Sorry. That's why you're losing credibility. You just feel compelled to exaggerate.
Have any of you actually been to the empire of California? they completed their transition of a nation of laws to a nation of men long ago. The republic is now the empire. They operate outside the government and law that supports them. You will pay your tribute to Rome, and Rome will protect you.
He lied about knowing about the allegations, there is evidence on the record clearly stating such. That much alone should bring him into serious question.
Now it falls on the states as conservatives have always wanted.
California is a state and it will regulate as it sees fit within its borders.
The IP's of California will be the ones subject to the California state regulations... No other state will be affected except through decisions of the ISP's themselves.
Yeah, fuck Booker and Feinstein. Are you happy now that you can't use the least useful Dems in your argument?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The EPA and FCC have different rules. Stay on topic, Mr Whuddabout.
As for temperament, I suppose you support tossing Ginsberg out of her seat for her comments about Trump?
The GOP has tried to get her removed for years. Sorry, but their political bias discredits them, not Ginsburg.
This is arrant nonsense. When the first automobile emissions standards laws were passed, California was explicitly granted the right to set its own, stricter standards as a response to the terrible pollution in the Los Angeles area. Other states have the right to adopt either the national standards or the California standards.
This is correct.
How would you feel if it was a Democrat nomination from Obama?
Your children have much bigger problems.
"In 2009, the federal government authorized California to set emission standards for cars and trucks that are more stringent than those set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency." https://www.forbes.com/sites/g...
Don't forget, only two years ago the party in power held up a supreme court nominee for ten months because they wanted to delay the vote until after the elections.
Yea, but we didn't launch a full scale politically driven personal attack of unprovable claims designed to waste time, destroy the nominee's reputation and get them to withdraw. They just *refused* to allow the nomination to proceed and democrats didn't have the votes to force it.
It may upset you that the republicans used their power to stop your nominee, but it was within their power to do this within the rules of the Senate and we didn't destroy the nominee's life and reputation or question his temperament and call him a liar in the process. We just let the nomination die a quiet death, not mount a mob lynching of him. What we did to Obama's nominee doesn't justify what happened to Kavanaugh in the least. And the politics of personal destruction is a knife that cuts both ways and hurts the people who try and use it more than those they use it on.
They tried this in WA state and LOST, WA states net neutrality rule was ruled fully legal.. so that sets a precedent that can be used against Comcast, etc.
I hope they use it to beat comcast into a pulp.
No, no, no, "States Rights" only exist in the South, it has something to do with a starry flag that never was displayed in a battle.
Have Calfornia take ownership of the wires and cellphone towers. The people would pay a flat fee for monthly access, and a bandwidth charge for usage. Think state water system as your business model.
"... California is going to win this and it's all cause the Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation."
So what you're saying is that Trump actually did a good thing.
Nice, my gun loving, racist friend in Texas insisted he wasn't all bad.
California can do what ever the fuck it wants and if the feds don't like it, CA can secede from the rest of that clusterfuck in Washington D.C..
Yea, but we didn't launch a full scale politically driven personal attack of unprovable claims designed to waste time, destroy the nominee's reputation and get them to withdraw.
You haven't proved that happened on the part of Senate Democrats.
Just accusations. Shouldn't you prove your own allegations first? Or are you just making a partisan attack?
They just *refused* to allow the nomination to proceed and democrats didn't have the votes to force it.
Which is a terrible action on the part of Senate Republicans and unlike your above partisan attack, a proven matter of record.
I'd feel every R in Congress should be fired and lose pension for gross dereliction of duty when they refuse the obligation to advise and consent, or even put on the partisan theater. Because Obama.
This nomination isn't Trump's to put forth. After Merrick Garland gets his confirmation hearing, then we can talk about the lyin' frat boy drunkard who never learned how to respect women.
The only "partisan hackery" going on is coming from the left
Bleugh. Bullshit.
people like Feinstein sitting on the letter detailing the allegations for months
She could not reveal the letter until she could convince Ford to come forward to testify. She, like everyone else, knew that anonymous accusations would have no weight at all in the process. Ford was not convinced that she wanted her life dragged through the muck either; after what happened in the Anita Hill hearings, who could blame her? Oh, that's right, partisan hacks could.
Ford's own witnesses have rebuked her version of events all along the line, she's a liar
Oh, this should be rich. Sure, let's hear some actual details here.
And by any standard of justice, there isn't sufficient evidence for a trial.
He's interviewing for a job.
If all these ISP's just closed up all their offices in California and moved them all inland or to the east coast with a big middle finger to Jerry Brown? They could just say "we don't operate in California, screw your laws"
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Then he would have stepped down weeks ago.
Seriously, this shouldn't be in doubt. Whether or not Kavanaugh is a rapist, he's most definitely an unabashedly partisan hack, and proven serial liar, with anger issues. On temperament alone, he shouldn't be allowed within a hundred miles of the Supreme Court.
And yet, even more people would've handled them with precisely the same degree or outrage which he did
So? So what? I want my Supreme Court justices to be more competent than the average joe, not reflective of the yahoo drinking heavily at the bar. I want my presidents to as well. I already have a man-child in the White House, I don't need that BS in the Supreme Court also.
How would you feel if it was a Democrat nomination from Obama?
The same. Why should it be any different?
And had he just sat there and not reacted in any way, he'd be maligned for not caring enough to defend himself.
No, there have been plenty of people, left and right, who have defended themselves without sounding like someone screeching on Fox News or writing an angry Mother Jones opinion article. I was ok with Brett Kavanaugh. Our political ideals didn't overlap entirely, but I thought he was a decent candidate, like Neil Gorsuch was. The sexual assault allegations worried me. But I wanted to hear the evidence and see how that played out. Then he opened his big mouth and started ranting about liberals and conspiracies involving the Clintons. I expect that bullshit on the Drudge Report, but I have a much higher standard for one of our highest offices.
The difference: The GOP didn't try (multiple times) to slander that guy. He still has his reputation, even if he didn't make to the supreme court. This was just politics--and if the dems and GOP had switched places, I'll give you any odd you want that the dems would have done exactly the same thing....I take that back--based on what they've done to Kavanaugh, they would have crucified his reputation and then used that as a reason to not vote on the guy.
Since he told black fathers that they should take responsibility for their offspring, raise them right, and restore the once-strong black family.
Net Neutrality is a pile of crap, these companies know it. It will also needlessly cost them money. It's nothing more than a power grab.
Not only that but it won't make your Internet any better than it is now, despite what you think.
... and, of course, Republicans everywhere are siding with California in their principled stand for State's Rights.
Kavanaugh's still a liar, a perjurer, and aparently plans to hold a grudge up on the bench.
You had me at liar ...
y'all ain't got no water
Coincidentally right now the news on my TV is showing Trump going on and on about how it's so scary today because "now you're guilty until proven innocent."
Does anyone remember Trump and The Central Park Five?
Not only did Trump assume they were guilty before being tried, even after they were exonerated through DNA evidence he continued to proclaim their guilt even as recently as 2013, over a decade after their exoneration.
What a scary time for young men in our country indeed. Trump is just noticing this? He wanted them to be executed 30 years ago even before they were found guilty.
You could say the same about the character of Feinstein, Booker and Ford as well.
I strongly oppose any of them being confirmed to the Supreme Court as well.
Let's be honest here, what do you have in common with the rest of the US anymore? You're paying and paying and in return, all you get is more insanity than you have already in place (and that's gotta mean something considering the politicians you have and the policies that usually come out of them).
I'd say it's time to find out what's required to leave the Union.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, it will not make the internet any better. But it keeps it from getting worse.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Did you write that with a straight face? Sorry but the GOP made their bed during the Obama years with obstructionist strategies. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they are crying like the bitches they are. I can't wait until the boomer generation is gone.
No, that's just making excuses for not doing their job and saying our side isn't as bad as yours. They flat out said they won't vote for anyone nominated by Obama; and you want to talk about innocent until what? They are both pretty shitty and stink to high heaven. And now it's the repubs that have majority and holdup is not enough votes.
Don't forget the Bill Clinton times and Obamacare, Osama body, and birth cert whining. Now they are whining the white male is the victim angle. REALLY? The group that out numbers everyone 4-1 is whining that the 1 guy is beating them down?
The Republicans should be renamed the Whining party. This is a good for the goose is good for the gander situation.
Since Clinton times, when have they ever not cried? All they do whine every year. Look at the Obamacare "replacement" that is now 8 years in the working.
Careful about putting aside seriousness of charges:
Do you think Kavanaugh was telling the truth about the meaning of "Devil's triangle" or do you think he lied under oath about a trivial, irrelevant thing?
Go ahead and tell us your opinion. It's just an opinion, after all, right?
But I know for sure that you won't say "I think devil's triangle is a drinking game, not a sex act" and post with your non-AC identity. Because no person's ego is that small, that they're ok with everyone else pointing and laughing at them for how stupid they are. He definitely, absolutely lied and there isn't a single person in America, Republican or Democrat, who thinks otherwise. So: why did he lie under oath? And does perjury really matter, or is it a bullshit crime that should be made not-a-crime?
They need to drop the net neutrality, and instead, make it easy for local gov to install fiber and run a utility. In addition, CA should work with 2 of their local sat companies to get coverage for rural areas.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I found all the indignation from the right (about how unethical the left was being) rather funny. Weren't they the ones that refused to even have a hearing for President Obama's appointment to SCOTUS?
I want a SCOTUS justice that can own up to the fact that they may have had a misspent youth and are sorry for some of their previous behaviour. Kavanaugh wouldn't even say how much he drank in high school/ college (just kept repeating that he liked beer).
The real difference: the GOP failed in their sworn duty to even consider Merrick Garland wrongly refusing to fulfill their obligations as Senators while for all your accusations of slander, Democratic Senators are addressing a concern they can rightfully believe is legitimate.
Sorry, but "my reputation" is ruined is not a defense for Kavanaugh. It disqualifies him.
Why change Roe vs Wade when you can just use your power as a judge to delay an abortion to the point where the pregnancy is far enough along that an abortion isn't advisable?
http://time.com/5390960/brett-...
For fairness here is an explanation of Kavanaugh's decision in the case:
https://www.bustle.com/p/kavan...
You do realize that Keyser isn't the only witness she named who refuted her story right? Literally every single witness she named failed to corroborate any portion of her accusations. You keep trying to pin hope on this "not refuted" bullshit because Keyser didn't come out screaming "she's a liar"... but she did, in fact, fail to substantiate any portion of the claims made by Ford, ditto for EVERY witness Ford listed. There is no support, her entire claim is refuted and having credibility in the eyes of a brainless shitbird like you would be a negative in my book, so thanks for the compliment and sorry the truth hurts your feelings and your politics... but it's still the truth. Get ready for a Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, and enjoy him never siding with the left after y'all scumbags went to the earth's end to try and slander him. In the end, all you dipshits will have succeeded in doing is ensuring that he vehemently hates the left... so, thanks for that.
It's absolutely the correct response, unless you're a morally vacuous liberal who's willing to say or do anything for a job. Anyone with a shred of integrity cares about that integrity and responds to false allegations angrily and vigorously just as Kavanaugh did.
Luckily for America, SCOTUS nominations aren't contingent upon what a delicate lefty wants.. Funny how you lefties didn't give a shit about misspent youth when Obama was talking about doing cocaine and drinking a six pack before class... or when Clinton was raping chicks and sexually assaulting White House interns... or when you were running around screaming "I'm with her" hoping Hillary would win after she made an underage rape victim break down on the stand the get a rapist off, then laughed about it 15 years later. Sit back down, your hypocrisy is showing.
Your still going to spout the both sides are bad BS?
We've got kids locked in concentration camps, a best case bro-culture elitist or worst case rapist about to sit on the supreme court, and a serial liar trashing our countries good will and foreign markets.
Tell me again how both sides are bad.
Did you watch the proceedings? He was going to get that nomination easily if he could maintained his cool and denied the allegations with a level head and treated the senators with respect. He did not maintain his cool. He would have known what was going to happen, and he had time to prepare for it. However, he walked in their expecting to have a fight, and he actually argued with some senators who were on his side. Before even being asked the first question he started off angy. There are countless adults who are able to maintain their cool in the face of adversity. He has since apologized, and while this is good it would have been much better to have been able to keep his emotions in control in the first place.
Are you waying that anyone with a shred of integrity has to prove it by losing their temper?
He went and accused the Clintons of behind behind these allegations, which is a completely bizarre idea full of conspiracy theory. That alone should have been enough to disqualify him. As for the original allegations, there is no solid evidence either way, and I am not concerned about those allegations.
He has no innate right to have that job. Only 9 people in the entire country will have that job at a time, so no body with whatever qualification should ever feel entitled to it. It would not be a grave injustice to deny him this super special job and hand it to one from the long list of equally conservative judges standing in line behind him for the same job.
Sure, if it was slander I'll expect to see a lawsuit and it will quickly be put to rest by the investigation....
Well, it helps if literally everyone who knew the candidate during the time period specified didn't unanimously admit that the candidate was the polar opposite of the person he pretended to try to be. The fact that many of them admit to hearing him bragging about the rapes is enough for all but the most partisan of people to convict him after the fact.
One is a confirmed and (according to court of public opinion and actual logic) convicted rapist. The AC on /. is therefore much better.
And seriously, if you don't believe Kavanaugh raped all those women, you are the most gullible mark PT Barnum could have ever wished for.
There's photographic evidence of Ford with known Clinton associates and attorneys... it's a bit of a stretch but not remotely a "bizarre idea full of conspiracy theory", particularly given that Hillary has become a garden gopher, popping up every so often to rant about resistance and undermine the legitimately elected leadership of the nation. And yes, I watched the proceedings... he never lost his temper. He was visibly angry, which is entirely reasonable. Losing his temper would've been standing up, saying "you know what, fuck you and fuck you... fuck this lying cunt Ford, she's ugly as fuck and I've never been that goddamn drunk... you can take this job and shove up your biased asses" before throwing a roundhouse kick in the face of Feinstein. THAT would've been losing his temper... that would've been outrageous. Being visibly irate that you're being put through the ringer by a biased, propagandist political smear campaign AFTER enduring thousands of questions and multiple FBI background investigations over the completely unsubstantiated claims of a woman you had minimal contact with more than 30 years ago isn't even remotely in the vicinity of "losing their temper". If he wasn't pissed off... if he'd sauntered out there the way Bill Clinton did when he lied to us all about Monica Lewinsky, now THAT would've given me pause and made me wonder if he was in fact guilty.
There's no need for slander when facts can be used to ascertain truth. If Kavanaugh hadn't drugged and raped multiple women, there wouldn't be such a big fuss. Since it is glaringly obvious according to all the testimony and even his own nervous, knowing testimony, it is not slander. Kavanaugh's actions essentially admitted to the entire world that he drugged and raped multiple women in the 80's.
Did Obama deny he did cocaine and drank a 6 pack before class? I didn't it was wrong of Kavanaugh to have partied as a teenager/young adult I just want him to own up to it and say that was then but now he is more responsible..
It's hard for you to say I'm being hypocritical when you haven't actually heard me say any of the things you mentioned above.
So sick of companies screwing their customers for their own interests. Intuit (tax law), and the telecoms are the cespools of society.
We don't care about what you did on your misspent youth. But lying about it now is a currrent act of deception and shows bad character. Please grow up.
Except that he didn't lie... He just refused to discuss to what degree he drank. He never said he was sober through college. He said "I liked beer, I still like beer". He never claimed to have not drank, you're all just salty that he didn't describe in detail how he approached keg stands to give you more ammunition to bitch about him. Either way though, congrats to him on his successful appointment. Looking forward to seeing how people whomever gets nominated to replace RBG raped and how much they drank.