Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet. Yes, I know. But being against regulating the internet != being against net neutrality;
Being against net neutrality implies a position which is not the one that Ron Paul has displayed with his voting record, even though that record shows a vote against net neutrality which is consistent with his position of not imposing unnecessary regulations.
Have you ever been in agony? Okay, now imagine that feeling connected to an on/off switch that someone else's hand is on. The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is...not fair.
Yeah, but Virgin's website makes stupid noises Really? I haven't noticed. Have you heard of http://noscript.net/ ? It's a great way of not noticing these things that annoy you.
if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom...
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Does anyone else find this a little contradictory? Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would allow the four regional Bell telephone companies to enter the high-speed Internet access market via their long-distance connections whether or not they have allowed competitors into their local markets as required under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The bill would allow the Bells to increase the fees they charge competitors for lines upgraded for broadband services from "wholesale rates" to "just and reasonable rates." It also would also allow the Bells to charge for giving competitors access to certain rights-of-way for broadband access. Certain FCC regulatory oversight would be maintained although the phone companies' high speed services would be exempted from regulation by the states.
Ron Paul is [...] unconstitutional, unlegitimate, immoral, unethical, etc) This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections."
1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA. 2. Suck up to the large tech firms. 3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues". 4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further. 3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present. Maybe it would be a good idea to join grassroots effort to support a minor candidate, then. Then you can get two people to join you, and they can get two people each, and so on, and get candidates that appeal to the people, rather than to the oligopolies that own the media.
No... not maybe. Definitely! Find a candidate that makes sense to you, and do something to spread the word, vote, get others to vote!
Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along. There's one company that doesn't have additional fees, and it's part of their sales pitch. I don't like to do free publicity, so I'll just say that company hasn't been deflowerednudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more.
...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media. Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in. Ron Paul on Technology
Because it was. Could anyone else effectively use said mic for the time he was present in the room? NO! He waited for Kerry to finish answering another question. Then Kerry turned to him and said "sir?", and then he proceeds with his own question, but is not allowed to finish because of a third party's interruption.
And to you, this is him preventing everyone else from asking questions? How did Kerry know what question to answer if everyone was prevented from asking anything while he was in the room? Magic?
As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post Right back at you.
Anyone with the ability to actually read a situation would see the same. You're deliberately pretending that this was a simply conversation between a concern citizen and John Kerry completely outside of the context of what the forum was for to shore up a weak argument that has no basis in the actual reality of the situation. He was abusing the mike during a Q&A to put forth an agenda, and he behaved poorly when he was asked to do what he was given the mike for and when he was cut off by the moderators. End of story. [...] The law usually weighs on the balance of allowing an activity that benefits the community to continue. This is a fine example of it doing so. Kerry's opening statement: "To make sure that is really is a dialogue, I'm gonna try to shorten my comments up front and see if we can't lengthen the amount of time that you all get to ask some questions."
The official position of the host of the event is that the microphone was cut due to use of profanity, but you can listen carefully to the video I already provided to see and hear that no profanity was used. Also, the host and the police are both saying that they're "not it" when it comes to initiating the removal of the student.
The university does not think that this is a fine example of allowing an activity to continue, their official position is that civil discourse and dialog did not occur, and that this is regretfull for them. They will review their protocols, which they wouldn't do if they were confident that they were clear of any wrongdoing.
B) He wasn't really interested in Kerry's answer. "He's been talking for two hours. I think I can have two minutes." C) He wasn't yielding the mike when asked to and was belligerent with the person asking him. (See B) D) He was asking more questions than he was allotted and blocking the ability of others to speak. He has two minutes for his question, they interrupt him before he has used it, then forcibly remove him before Kerry can answer it, and you say HE wasn't interested in the answer? Seriously, get your head out of your ass and consider for a second that your prejudice in favor of the police is making you ignore reality.
His body language and facial expressions more clearly show that he was not prepared to yield the floor, [...] It shows more clearly how he intended to continue to be disruptive by better showing his body language and his immediate reaction to the mike being cut, and it gives a far better view of how he was struggling against being cuffed. Continue to be disruptive??????
How was he disruptive to begin with? By asking a question to a person who was asking for questions and who plainly states that it is an important question and that he wants to answer it? In what insane bizarro world is that being disruptive?
What he did do was monopolize the mic He had the mic for exactly 1 minute and 30 seconds total, including the times when he was interrupted by the police just after he mentioned disenfranchised black voters. After this exact 1.5 minute, he was physically removed by the police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s Kerry gives him the go ahead after finishing another question, he starts talking at 0:10, and the microphone is cut at 1:40.
How can you say that is monopolizing the mic? Stop trying to turn this into something it's not.
it's apparent many were applauding the police, which implied they perceived the student to be a disruption. They applaud HIM when he resists the arrest. They asks the cops "what are you doing!?" when they drag they off, and they applauded him while he was making his opening statement, all of which is very clear in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
Just to review, here's what happened in our conversation: 1. you made a statement that was patently false. You claimed that the police didn't like the content of the kid's questions. In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s at 0:42 the officer interrupts him to tell him they do not approve of what he is saying: He says "there were multiple reports of disenfranchised black voters" and the Florida cop interrupts him and repeatedly says "ask the question, just ask the question".
So when I say that they arrested him because they didn't like the content of his question, I say something true that I can back with proof.
Your interpretation - from my view, he was just trying to get his arms out of the way so that they couldn't be used as handholds to escort him out, since he was taller and larger than at least one of the involved security staff. Disclaimer: no sound on this computer, so I was watching it silent. He looks to me like a person trying to escalate a situation. Yeah, you're judging with incomplete information.
He waits his turn, he speaks only when spoken to. He starts with an explanation of facts, is then interrupted by the cops off camera, he tells them "I'll ask my question", he asks his question, his microphone is cut off mid sentece. He says an ironic "thank you for cutting my mic" and is immediately physically forced away from the microphone.
Read that again.
He was asking a question at an open forum and the police proceeded to physically remove him from the premise rather than let him hear the answer to his question.
Kerry asks the officer to let him be so he can answer his question. The officers escalate the conflict, the guy attempts to break free, asks what he has done to warrant this treatment, he is simply told to not resist. Kerry keeps saying he wants to answer the question.
When the kid tries to break free, the crowd applauds.
When he's manhandled down the corridor, people in the audience ask "what are you doing!?"
Kerry keeps saying he wants to answer the question, the kid keeps asking why he's being treated like this, he is only told not to resist, and the escalation of violence is entirely the police's doing.
He wanted to be tasered, or in some way publicly treated like a criminal - that was obviously his intent, and then when it happened, he whined like a little wussy.
Actions, meet consequences. He'll get his 15 minutes, and maybe a leg up on some political conspiracy commentary that he obviously wants to make.
What a fucking idiot.
Sure, mod me Troll, but this guy - he's a meatspace Troll. Geesh, what a fob. Why is that not at -1:troll where it ought to be? It's a long tirade of lies and insults! Damn! There's no insight in there, nothing informative. Just lies and judgments.
"was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building."
Kerry must have left the building as he was talking, because I could hear Kerry talking as the kid said "Don't tazer me, bro." and also during HIS SCREAMS OF PAIN FROM BEING TORTURED. He was all the way on the other side of an auditorium and there was a crowd between him and the incident. And the kid started screaming as soon as the cops grabbed him, so it's not like he knows the difference from "help help I'm being oppressed" and "help help I'm being electrocuted" just by ear.
That's where civil rights organizations step in, and that's why they try to provide "legal observers" with video cameras at political events and protests. Unfortunately for this guy, I think the video evidence strongly favors the police. Watch a better video than the ones posted in the blurb, and come back to me and that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
He was acting like a raving lunatic. [...] He proceeded to cause a disturbance by breaking the rules of the forum, so no one questioed him being escorterd out. No he was not! And Kerry himself objected to his removal!
Kerry finishes a question, points to him, and says "Sir?". During his question, the guy is interrupted, and at the end of his question, his mic is cut, and police immediately grab him and proceed to forcibly remove him from the premises. At that time, Kerry is asking the police to let the guy be while he answers his question. The police PREVENT KERRY FROM ANSWERING with their actions, and when the kid starts to fight them off THEN the crowd applauds him.
The Kid waited his turn, politely asked a question when he was invited to do so by Kerry, his question was interrupted as soon as he said something controversial, his microphone is then cut and he's immediately removed from the microphone area, and Kerry cannot answer the question because the officer's action are causing a disturbance in the proceeding.
THAT is what the videos show. That is what Kerry's official statement says happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Being against net neutrality implies a position which is not the one that Ron Paul has displayed with his voting record, even though that record shows a vote against net neutrality which is consistent with his position of not imposing unnecessary regulations.
Have you ever been in agony? Okay, now imagine that feeling connected to an on/off switch that someone else's hand is on.
There... are... FOUR... lights! *FFFNNZZZZZOOWWNT*The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is...not fair.
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Does anyone else find this a little contradictory? Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would allow the four regional Bell telephone companies to enter the high-speed Internet access market via their long-distance connections whether or not they have allowed competitors into their local markets as required under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The bill would allow the Bells to increase the fees they charge competitors for lines upgraded for broadband services from "wholesale rates" to "just and reasonable rates." It also would also allow the Bells to charge for giving competitors access to certain rights-of-way for broadband access. Certain FCC regulatory oversight would be maintained although the phone companies' high speed services would be exempted from regulation by the states.
2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present. Maybe it would be a good idea to join grassroots effort to support a minor candidate, then.
Then you can get two people to join you, and they can get two people each, and so on, and get candidates that appeal to the people, rather than to the oligopolies that own the media.
No... not maybe. Definitely! Find a candidate that makes sense to you, and do something to spread the word, vote, get others to vote!
Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!
Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along. There's one company that doesn't have additional fees, and it's part of their sales pitch.
I don't like to do free publicity, so I'll just say that company hasn't been deflowered nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more.
...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media. Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in. Ron Paul on TechnologyBecause it's ever so on-topic : )
Oh, and there's this thing about him on Wired: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/09/ronpaul_supporters
And you still didn't answer my question. q.e.d.
Right back at you"
Then why did YOU just respond?
Because it was. Could anyone else effectively use said mic for the time he was present in the room? NO! He waited for Kerry to finish answering another question.
Then Kerry turned to him and said "sir?", and then he proceeds with his own question, but is not allowed to finish because of a third party's interruption.
And to you, this is him preventing everyone else from asking questions?
How did Kerry know what question to answer if everyone was prevented from asking anything while he was in the room? Magic? As an aside, I'd prefer if you didn't respond to anything I post Right back at you.
[...]
The law usually weighs on the balance of allowing an activity that benefits the community to continue. This is a fine example of it doing so. Kerry's opening statement: "To make sure that is really is a dialogue, I'm gonna try to shorten my comments up front and see if we can't lengthen the amount of time that you all get to ask some questions."
The official position of the host of the event is that the microphone was cut due to use of profanity, but you can listen carefully to the video I already provided to see and hear that no profanity was used.
Also, the host and the police are both saying that they're "not it" when it comes to initiating the removal of the student.
The university does not think that this is a fine example of allowing an activity to continue, their official position is that civil discourse and dialog did not occur, and that this is regretfull for them. They will review their protocols, which they wouldn't do if they were confident that they were clear of any wrongdoing.
C) He wasn't yielding the mike when asked to and was belligerent with the person asking him. (See B)
D) He was asking more questions than he was allotted and blocking the ability of others to speak. He has two minutes for his question, they interrupt him before he has used it, then forcibly remove him before Kerry can answer it, and you say HE wasn't interested in the answer? Seriously, get your head out of your ass and consider for a second that your prejudice in favor of the police is making you ignore reality.
How was he disruptive to begin with? By asking a question to a person who was asking for questions and who plainly states that it is an important question and that he wants to answer it?
In what insane bizarro world is that being disruptive?
Kerry gives him the go ahead after finishing another question, he starts talking at 0:10, and the microphone is cut at 1:40.
How can you say that is monopolizing the mic?
Stop trying to turn this into something it's not.
1. you made a statement that was patently false. You claimed that the police didn't like the content of the kid's questions. In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s at 0:42 the officer interrupts him to tell him they do not approve of what he is saying: He says "there were multiple reports of disenfranchised black voters" and the Florida cop interrupts him and repeatedly says "ask the question, just ask the question".
So when I say that they arrested him because they didn't like the content of his question, I say something true that I can back with proof.
He waits his turn, he speaks only when spoken to. He starts with an explanation of facts, is then interrupted by the cops off camera, he tells them "I'll ask my question", he asks his question, his microphone is cut off mid sentece. He says an ironic "thank you for cutting my mic" and is immediately physically forced away from the microphone.
Read that again.
He was asking a question at an open forum and the police proceeded to physically remove him from the premise rather than let him hear the answer to his question.
Kerry asks the officer to let him be so he can answer his question. The officers escalate the conflict, the guy attempts to break free, asks what he has done to warrant this treatment, he is simply told to not resist. Kerry keeps saying he wants to answer the question.
When the kid tries to break free, the crowd applauds.
When he's manhandled down the corridor, people in the audience ask "what are you doing!?"
Kerry keeps saying he wants to answer the question, the kid keeps asking why he's being treated like this, he is only told not to resist, and the escalation of violence is entirely the police's doing.
Actions, meet consequences.
He'll get his 15 minutes, and maybe a leg up on some political conspiracy commentary that he obviously wants to make.
What a fucking idiot.
Sure, mod me Troll, but this guy - he's a meatspace Troll. Geesh, what a fob. Why is that not at -1:troll where it ought to be?
It's a long tirade of lies and insults! Damn! There's no insight in there, nothing informative. Just lies and judgments.
Kerry must have left the building as he was talking, because I could hear Kerry talking as the kid said "Don't tazer me, bro." and also during HIS SCREAMS OF PAIN FROM BEING TORTURED. He was all the way on the other side of an auditorium and there was a crowd between him and the incident. And the kid started screaming as soon as the cops grabbed him, so it's not like he knows the difference from "help help I'm being oppressed" and "help help I'm being electrocuted" just by ear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
Kerry finishes a question, points to him, and says "Sir?".
During his question, the guy is interrupted, and at the end of his question, his mic is cut, and police immediately grab him and proceed to forcibly remove him from the premises. At that time, Kerry is asking the police to let the guy be while he answers his question. The police PREVENT KERRY FROM ANSWERING with their actions, and when the kid starts to fight them off THEN the crowd applauds him.
The Kid waited his turn, politely asked a question when he was invited to do so by Kerry, his question was interrupted as soon as he said something controversial, his microphone is then cut and he's immediately removed from the microphone area, and Kerry cannot answer the question because the officer's action are causing a disturbance in the proceeding.
THAT is what the videos show. That is what Kerry's official statement says happened.