In Ohio, you also have the right to self defense in the State Constitution. I believe sections 1 and 4 protect these rights. So it isn't directly limited to the home if you are not in the process of breaking any other laws.
Video from a helmet cam or something would be nice in situations like this.
Of course, details in the end could create problems because details aren't always obvious in a high risk scenario where life and limb may be in danger. But at least you will have a view from the police officer's perspective.
No, they don't. They have access you don't have. Because they pre-bribed the Congressman. It's not a bribe to pay someone money for "future consideration" (so long as that's not explicitly a vote). They have access *you* will never have. Thus, it's bribery.
No, most of the lobbyist have pre-existing relationships with Congressmen which gives them more access than you or I have. But tell me, would you be more inclined to visit with me who you do not know, or your cousin that you met 4 or 5 times at family functions? How about your neighbor or someone who worked with you or played golf with you?
Pre-bribing congress is illegal. In fact, there was a big deal in which a lot of congress critters went to jail and/or lost their seats over it. There is of course William Jefferson who's probably most notable for sharing a name with Bill Clinton. But there is also Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham who promised policy positions to people who gave him gifts. And of course there was the Abscam and Abramoff scandals relating directly to bribery and what you consider pre-bribery.
If that's what happens, I might change my mind, but the "one person" is representing one company, and lying about the people they represent (there are not 10,000 people who want it, and if there were, they certainly didn't send letters to a lobbyist to take the issue to the Congressman).
One person representing one company does not exist in a vacuum. That company has share holders and employees and support businesses who have the same. If you own a business with 100 employees, when you lobby for that business to be profitable, you are lobbying for those 100 employees to keep their jobs. If your business has 50 shareholders, you are lobbying for them also. This is true because of your fiduciary duty even if independently, those employees and share holders carry contrary opinions about whatever you are lobbying for. This could even be extended to the businesses that supply yours with parts, materials and so on.
It seems that if you offer a bribe, you can be fined 3 times the monetary equivalent amount of the bribe and be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as being disqualified to ever hold any pubic office or work for the government.
But Tom Steyer who recently announced he would give donations totaling 100 million dollars to candidates promising to support rejecting the keystone XL pipeline and support global warming efforts will likely never be prosecuted despite those acts specifically matching the first paragraph in the law
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intentâ" (A) to influence any official act; or
This is because for some reasons, campaign donations don't seem to count as bribery. Maybe they should when they have purposely stated attachments to them instead of simply amplifying already existing convictions or the politicians. Maybe we should just accept it and move on knowing that there are problems.
And if that call is just to say "keep up the good word", does it really matter?
The entire point of that was to show that some of these bribery charges are actually the results of cheer leading more or less. If you support green candidates, does it mean they are holding positions because you gave them lots of money or does it mean you gave them lots of money because of the positions they already hold?
I'm not a fan of the people here, I'm a fan of the conversations- that used to happen and sometimes still does happen here.
There are other forums like you pointed out. Most of them are crap if you want to read anything half way intelligent that isn't locked in to a specific genre or area of expertise. It's certainly the reason why I've been around here for a little longer than you (actually, this is my second log in ID because I lost the password to my first years ago and had it associated with an email address I got rid of long before that but I didn't post, mostly read with my old UID). But there are times after they started allowing politics as a topic that I have second guessed that.
It's not really about what I do that attracts me to this site, it's about the conversations that take place- sometimes I'm involved sometimes I am not. Some of them are outright comical, some very intelligent and insightful, some trollish, and some just entertaining. You read true things about what you like and don't like and it doesn't always match your own opinions.
There are some who do think pushing their opinions or points are worth it. I've seen more than one thread dominated with people calling out sock puppet accounts. But if this is a forum you like, there is no reason to go elsewhere. Especially when you will not find most of what you can here.
Suppose your neighbor is going to install a swimming pool and in order to do it, they will have to tear up your yard to install the plumbing. Now suppose your late wife, mother, sister or whatever planted some rose bushes at the fence line and you do not want them disturbed at all because of the sentimental value attached to them. The contractor says- don't worry about it, we will plant new ones. You say that is not good enough, the originals must not be disturbed and protected else you cannot enter my property. So your neighbor decides to file for a right of way onto your property.
Now you have a few choices. You can fight this on your own, possible winning or possible being out maneuvered by their legal team. Or you can obtain legal representation and leave it to them. If you get legal representation, they will be able to petition the judge directly and argue your case in a way that is likely more effective then you can. He goes in and tells the judge that these flowers were the last thing done between you and the lost loved one and losing the flowers would be like losing the loved one all over again. It would break your heart and crush your will to live. And this will happen year after year when they fail to come back up in the spring. The just decides that if your neighbor cannot guarantee the safety of the flowers, they need to move the pool so that it's installation will not encroach your property or endanger the flowers.
So in this scenario, did you just bribe the judge or legal system by using a lobbyist (lawyer) who went and made your case through channels not open to you on your behalf in ways you couldn't make on your own so convincingly that you prevailed?
That's one of the things lobbyist do. They make cases in ways that would influence the politicians though avenues not directly available to most people. 10,000 letters all saying do X would likely get somewhat ignored because it is so monotonous to read all of them. The thought of there being 10,000 of them probably doesn't register. But someone who can say I have 10,000 voters who want me to point this out is memorable in both what is pointed out and that 10,000 voters are behind it. And it is more likely that one person representing 10,000 voters can make this case in person than it is for 10,000 people individually.
So while I agree that yes, payment for consideration is bribery, I disagree that all lobbying is bad or should be illegal. Even when that lobbyist gets access that you or I cannot.
What happens when you, Joe Consumer, decides you had enough and run for congress yourself in order to fix the issues personally. You then go out and campaign and say what you want to do. I hear you talking, let me introduce myself, I'm big evil coal company executive and I like your ideas so I throw some big time support behind you. I don't ask you to do anything other than stand on what you are campaigning for. I believe it will make a more free society and I think more freedom is beneficial to all of us.
So I donate to you directly, I donate to a few of the support pacs around you. I even encourage my employees to support you. You only know me as someone who donated to your campaign. So, how much legitimacy can be attributed to your stated concerns for the public? How much bribery actually took place? How much has the lobbyist influenced you? What chance would you have if you are just a common Joe and your opponents are millionaires if people cannot give you large sums of money?
Most of these "they were paid off" claims stems from people with a position attracting support not pandering their policy positions for the highest bidder. If a congressman held a position that was favorable to my livelihood, I sure as hell would give them money and try to keep them around. It's not that they are selling out to me, it's that I'm trying to keep what's good around.
You cannot really be active in a forum and start over as too many people will find similarities in your posting styles and wording and connect the dots. You can usually find out who has sock puppet accounts in much the same way, people will make mistakes and allow the account's styles to bleed into each other giving someone notice if they interact a lot with them.
That being said, increasing the number of negative votes may increase the number of posts, but it sort of races to the bottom as posters will not openly share their ideas or thoughts. Nothing becomes truly insightful or interesting anymore if the topic have cultist like followers. With some categories or topics, some posters will completely ignore them because of it too. Take global warming for instance, there are about 2 dozen die hard fanatics who will post and argue with about everyone on it if your get anything outside of the script they believe to be the truth. If you reply and argue with them, then you end up with mass down modding of posts not even in that article that could have even received up modding previously. While the practice has gone down here, it still happens. People get mod points and pick someone's posting history and wastes most of them on down modding that person in an attempt to remove any karma benefit or discourage their posting. And yes, with bad karma, you are limited to how much you can post- even posting AC.
The two biggest topics I see this with is generally anything political and global warming which is mostly political.
Umm.. They would be getting more bandwidth if Netflix pays for it.
The only difference is if the customer pays or netflix. If netflix thinks it is worth while to reach the customer who doesn't pay a lot for internet or maybe doesn't have the option to purchase something faster, then that is their choice isn't it?
Maybe.... The cable companies may end up having to sink a lot of money into their networks in order to deliver on the faster content delivery contracts.
I don't think he said it in the movie. But he certainly has elsewhere. The same with Obama. Actually, there have been quite a few politicians from countries in Europe and the US who has said the science is settled or an equivalent mem. But I believe it was Robert Watson also said the science was settled and I don't think he is just yet another politician.
But here is my grief with your comment. People who quote deny global warming do so on political grounds mostly. Quite a few of them do so specifically on the supposed consequences of it and the got to do something right now verses letting it play out. You seem to be upset that political respondents are addressing comments largely made by politicians and people pushing political ideologies. Yet your demand they do not matter because they are not scientists. So why are you refusing to ignore the political opposition to the political supporters?
It doesn't make sense to me. It's like a religious argument trying to ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew.
I know it's easier said than done, but what I would like to see is Tesla develop some drop in replacement power trains for existing models as a dealer option or something.
I know weight is a big issue though so it likely wouldn't be anything happening unless the big manufacturers design it into the models they sell.
But I don't really see anything wrong with Tesla selling cars. They should probably move their location to a cheaper one though.
Nah.. We will need the Navy to ensure the US comes out on top after the coming apocalypse.
Besides, the navy has all the power. When have you ever seen anyone with power actually do what they expect others to do? It's like the Sierra Club trotting around in SUVs while claiming the gas guzzlers are evil. Of course they needed to get into the back country to check how bad your trip to the soccer field screwed the pooch on us.. But hey, do as I say not as I do right?
It's a think tank apposed to the political solutions for global warming including the over stating of causes and effects and likely the magical "just tax people and all will be solved" politics that seem to accompany it.
In some circles, even if you say "yes, global warming is real but given the time span before the real nasty problems arrive, don't we have generations to get used to the problems it will cause so modifying the economy and production over time as needed is better then forcing drastic measures all the sudden", you will be an anti global warming climate denier.
In fact, if you simply point out that the Kyoto treaty had 150 some signators with only 37 actually being held to a carbon level while two of them had yet to reach the carbon levels they were limited at, you are a denier and anti global warming. If you point out that you could by design move your production to one of those countries without penalties against your carbon limits, you could actually increase carbon production with the transportation of products without running into problems with the treaty, you will be evil itself. And if you point out the link between jubilie2000 and kyoto, well, you are a nut case who is an evil anti global warming flat earther and I think a couple other things but I forgot what they were.
I was wondering if you knew that you didn't even need to get the microwave popcorn. Just get regular popcorn and put some in a brown paper sack (the lunch sacks work well) and follow the pop until a few kernels per second rule.
You can even flavor it in the bag. I like adding a table spoon of diced green chilis from a can, a sprinkly of salt and cyanne pepper dust, and a little butter before poping.
Not in the context Powell was encouraging. It would have became illegal if as a result of a payment from one party, they throttled a competitors services below that 2 meg.
Well, I guess the lady astronaut wants to look good when sporting her new ipod mini on the bus before going to the launch pad to get her way to the ISS?
Do a video search for single stream recycling. That is for not separating your recyclables at the curb side.
It uses a process that sorts similar to how you described with glass. Except it has a few more interesting parts to it. Most major waste companies have them in the large cities in the US now.
Are you saying that as the little guy you cannot offer any innovations at all that would attract players to your game over the big boys who might pay for faster connections for their players so we have to stop anyone from giving the consumer more in order for it to be level and fair?
What will likely happen is that the little guy will stall some features that slow the game down requiring higher speeds until they start to make it and add it back or have a switch to turn some features on and off so those with more bandwidth can enjoy it while those without can still have an experience.
It sort of is. Micheal Powell who was the head of the FCC for a while under Bush said there was no problem with internet companies paying ISPs to deliver content faster than the consumer's connection would allow. When I saw him speak at an event, he said that it couldn't degrade competing services or cause any restrictions under what the consumer already pays for.
In essence, his concept was that you purchase a 2 meg plan, videos galore pays your ISP to make their streaming media is delivered at 4 megs. Your ISP gives you 2 extra megs of speed when using their service. They couldn't however, slow netflix or crackle or anything in the process. They couldn't use this as an excuse to slow anything down to below what you paid for. So if you purchase up to 3 megs, they couldn't use some company paying for faster connections as a reason to slow anything to below that 3 megs.
While common carrier status does insulate them from this, not having it doesn't mean they are not still insulated.
The piracy or copyright violation protections are included in the DMCA which was born out the the WIPO WPPT and WTC treaties.
As for criminal actions, a lot of that liability has been traded off with allowing law enforcement access. I don't remember the exact laws but I think CALEA or something like that did away with some. Another problem is that a lot of the crimes commited on the internet require a mens rea component. In short, this means that you have to know whatever is happening is illegal in order to be subject to consequences of it.
When republicans talk of limited government, they generally mean a constitutional one. A government that gets as close as possible to only doing what the constitution says it is supposed to do. Raising and spending on a military is one of those constitutional things. Do not mistake this for hypocrisy as you would be wrong.
Here are a few things the government is constitutionally empowered to do which republicans generally have no problem with spending money on. Roads, post offices and mail services, and military. In fact, article 1 section 8 of the constitution lists about 18 sections of things the federal government is allowed or supposed to do. Of those, starting with providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States in the first paragraph, roughly 8 (44%) have something to do with the military.
Slashdot Mirror
In Ohio, you also have the right to self defense in the State Constitution. I believe sections 1 and 4 protect these rights. So it isn't directly limited to the home if you are not in the process of breaking any other laws.
Video from a helmet cam or something would be nice in situations like this.
Of course, details in the end could create problems because details aren't always obvious in a high risk scenario where life and limb may be in danger. But at least you will have a view from the police officer's perspective.
No, most of the lobbyist have pre-existing relationships with Congressmen which gives them more access than you or I have. But tell me, would you be more inclined to visit with me who you do not know, or your cousin that you met 4 or 5 times at family functions? How about your neighbor or someone who worked with you or played golf with you?
Pre-bribing congress is illegal. In fact, there was a big deal in which a lot of congress critters went to jail and/or lost their seats over it. There is of course William Jefferson who's probably most notable for sharing a name with Bill Clinton. But there is also Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham who promised policy positions to people who gave him gifts. And of course there was the Abscam and Abramoff scandals relating directly to bribery and what you consider pre-bribery.
One person representing one company does not exist in a vacuum. That company has share holders and employees and support businesses who have the same. If you own a business with 100 employees, when you lobby for that business to be profitable, you are lobbying for those 100 employees to keep their jobs. If your business has 50 shareholders, you are lobbying for them also. This is true because of your fiduciary duty even if independently, those employees and share holders carry contrary opinions about whatever you are lobbying for. This could even be extended to the businesses that supply yours with parts, materials and so on.
Actually, although it is hardly ever prosecuted when it is openly and know, offering a bribe is against the law too.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
It seems that if you offer a bribe, you can be fined 3 times the monetary equivalent amount of the bribe and be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as being disqualified to ever hold any pubic office or work for the government.
But Tom Steyer who recently announced he would give donations totaling 100 million dollars to candidates promising to support rejecting the keystone XL pipeline and support global warming efforts will likely never be prosecuted despite those acts specifically matching the first paragraph in the law
This is because for some reasons, campaign donations don't seem to count as bribery. Maybe they should when they have purposely stated attachments to them instead of simply amplifying already existing convictions or the politicians. Maybe we should just accept it and move on knowing that there are problems.
And if that call is just to say "keep up the good word", does it really matter?
The entire point of that was to show that some of these bribery charges are actually the results of cheer leading more or less. If you support green candidates, does it mean they are holding positions because you gave them lots of money or does it mean you gave them lots of money because of the positions they already hold?
I'm not a fan of the people here, I'm a fan of the conversations- that used to happen and sometimes still does happen here.
There are other forums like you pointed out. Most of them are crap if you want to read anything half way intelligent that isn't locked in to a specific genre or area of expertise. It's certainly the reason why I've been around here for a little longer than you (actually, this is my second log in ID because I lost the password to my first years ago and had it associated with an email address I got rid of long before that but I didn't post, mostly read with my old UID). But there are times after they started allowing politics as a topic that I have second guessed that.
It's not really about what I do that attracts me to this site, it's about the conversations that take place- sometimes I'm involved sometimes I am not. Some of them are outright comical, some very intelligent and insightful, some trollish, and some just entertaining. You read true things about what you like and don't like and it doesn't always match your own opinions.
There are some who do think pushing their opinions or points are worth it. I've seen more than one thread dominated with people calling out sock puppet accounts. But if this is a forum you like, there is no reason to go elsewhere. Especially when you will not find most of what you can here.
There is a fine line on this.
Suppose your neighbor is going to install a swimming pool and in order to do it, they will have to tear up your yard to install the plumbing. Now suppose your late wife, mother, sister or whatever planted some rose bushes at the fence line and you do not want them disturbed at all because of the sentimental value attached to them. The contractor says- don't worry about it, we will plant new ones. You say that is not good enough, the originals must not be disturbed and protected else you cannot enter my property. So your neighbor decides to file for a right of way onto your property.
Now you have a few choices. You can fight this on your own, possible winning or possible being out maneuvered by their legal team. Or you can obtain legal representation and leave it to them. If you get legal representation, they will be able to petition the judge directly and argue your case in a way that is likely more effective then you can. He goes in and tells the judge that these flowers were the last thing done between you and the lost loved one and losing the flowers would be like losing the loved one all over again. It would break your heart and crush your will to live. And this will happen year after year when they fail to come back up in the spring. The just decides that if your neighbor cannot guarantee the safety of the flowers, they need to move the pool so that it's installation will not encroach your property or endanger the flowers.
So in this scenario, did you just bribe the judge or legal system by using a lobbyist (lawyer) who went and made your case through channels not open to you on your behalf in ways you couldn't make on your own so convincingly that you prevailed?
That's one of the things lobbyist do. They make cases in ways that would influence the politicians though avenues not directly available to most people. 10,000 letters all saying do X would likely get somewhat ignored because it is so monotonous to read all of them. The thought of there being 10,000 of them probably doesn't register. But someone who can say I have 10,000 voters who want me to point this out is memorable in both what is pointed out and that 10,000 voters are behind it. And it is more likely that one person representing 10,000 voters can make this case in person than it is for 10,000 people individually.
So while I agree that yes, payment for consideration is bribery, I disagree that all lobbying is bad or should be illegal. Even when that lobbyist gets access that you or I cannot.
Lets turn that around a bit.
What happens when you, Joe Consumer, decides you had enough and run for congress yourself in order to fix the issues personally. You then go out and campaign and say what you want to do. I hear you talking, let me introduce myself, I'm big evil coal company executive and I like your ideas so I throw some big time support behind you. I don't ask you to do anything other than stand on what you are campaigning for. I believe it will make a more free society and I think more freedom is beneficial to all of us.
So I donate to you directly, I donate to a few of the support pacs around you. I even encourage my employees to support you. You only know me as someone who donated to your campaign. So, how much legitimacy can be attributed to your stated concerns for the public? How much bribery actually took place? How much has the lobbyist influenced you? What chance would you have if you are just a common Joe and your opponents are millionaires if people cannot give you large sums of money?
Most of these "they were paid off" claims stems from people with a position attracting support not pandering their policy positions for the highest bidder. If a congressman held a position that was favorable to my livelihood, I sure as hell would give them money and try to keep them around. It's not that they are selling out to me, it's that I'm trying to keep what's good around.
You cannot really be active in a forum and start over as too many people will find similarities in your posting styles and wording and connect the dots. You can usually find out who has sock puppet accounts in much the same way, people will make mistakes and allow the account's styles to bleed into each other giving someone notice if they interact a lot with them.
That being said, increasing the number of negative votes may increase the number of posts, but it sort of races to the bottom as posters will not openly share their ideas or thoughts. Nothing becomes truly insightful or interesting anymore if the topic have cultist like followers. With some categories or topics, some posters will completely ignore them because of it too. Take global warming for instance, there are about 2 dozen die hard fanatics who will post and argue with about everyone on it if your get anything outside of the script they believe to be the truth. If you reply and argue with them, then you end up with mass down modding of posts not even in that article that could have even received up modding previously. While the practice has gone down here, it still happens. People get mod points and pick someone's posting history and wastes most of them on down modding that person in an attempt to remove any karma benefit or discourage their posting. And yes, with bad karma, you are limited to how much you can post- even posting AC.
The two biggest topics I see this with is generally anything political and global warming which is mostly political.
Umm.. They would be getting more bandwidth if Netflix pays for it.
The only difference is if the customer pays or netflix. If netflix thinks it is worth while to reach the customer who doesn't pay a lot for internet or maybe doesn't have the option to purchase something faster, then that is their choice isn't it?
We as in Americans.. If you are not in that group, there is still a we, it just doesn't involve you. I suggest you convert.
Maybe.... The cable companies may end up having to sink a lot of money into their networks in order to deliver on the faster content delivery contracts.
I don't think he said it in the movie. But he certainly has elsewhere. The same with Obama. Actually, there have been quite a few politicians from countries in Europe and the US who has said the science is settled or an equivalent mem. But I believe it was Robert Watson also said the science was settled and I don't think he is just yet another politician.
But here is my grief with your comment. People who quote deny global warming do so on political grounds mostly. Quite a few of them do so specifically on the supposed consequences of it and the got to do something right now verses letting it play out. You seem to be upset that political respondents are addressing comments largely made by politicians and people pushing political ideologies. Yet your demand they do not matter because they are not scientists. So why are you refusing to ignore the political opposition to the political supporters?
It doesn't make sense to me. It's like a religious argument trying to ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew.
I know it's easier said than done, but what I would like to see is Tesla develop some drop in replacement power trains for existing models as a dealer option or something.
I know weight is a big issue though so it likely wouldn't be anything happening unless the big manufacturers design it into the models they sell.
But I don't really see anything wrong with Tesla selling cars. They should probably move their location to a cheaper one though.
Wasn't there something just published about that claiming it had to do with underwater currents getting warmer and not the air temp or Co2?
Nah.. We will need the Navy to ensure the US comes out on top after the coming apocalypse.
Besides, the navy has all the power. When have you ever seen anyone with power actually do what they expect others to do? It's like the Sierra Club trotting around in SUVs while claiming the gas guzzlers are evil. Of course they needed to get into the back country to check how bad your trip to the soccer field screwed the pooch on us.. But hey, do as I say not as I do right?
It's a think tank apposed to the political solutions for global warming including the over stating of causes and effects and likely the magical "just tax people and all will be solved" politics that seem to accompany it.
In some circles, even if you say "yes, global warming is real but given the time span before the real nasty problems arrive, don't we have generations to get used to the problems it will cause so modifying the economy and production over time as needed is better then forcing drastic measures all the sudden", you will be an anti global warming climate denier.
In fact, if you simply point out that the Kyoto treaty had 150 some signators with only 37 actually being held to a carbon level while two of them had yet to reach the carbon levels they were limited at, you are a denier and anti global warming. If you point out that you could by design move your production to one of those countries without penalties against your carbon limits, you could actually increase carbon production with the transportation of products without running into problems with the treaty, you will be evil itself. And if you point out the link between jubilie2000 and kyoto, well, you are a nut case who is an evil anti global warming flat earther and I think a couple other things but I forgot what they were.
I was wondering if you knew that you didn't even need to get the microwave popcorn. Just get regular popcorn and put some in a brown paper sack (the lunch sacks work well) and follow the pop until a few kernels per second rule.
You can even flavor it in the bag. I like adding a table spoon of diced green chilis from a can, a sprinkly of salt and cyanne pepper dust, and a little butter before poping.
Not in the context Powell was encouraging. It would have became illegal if as a result of a payment from one party, they throttled a competitors services below that 2 meg.
Well, I guess the lady astronaut wants to look good when sporting her new ipod mini on the bus before going to the launch pad to get her way to the ISS?
Do a video search for single stream recycling. That is for not separating your recyclables at the curb side.
It uses a process that sorts similar to how you described with glass. Except it has a few more interesting parts to it. Most major waste companies have them in the large cities in the US now.
Are you saying that as the little guy you cannot offer any innovations at all that would attract players to your game over the big boys who might pay for faster connections for their players so we have to stop anyone from giving the consumer more in order for it to be level and fair?
What will likely happen is that the little guy will stall some features that slow the game down requiring higher speeds until they start to make it and add it back or have a switch to turn some features on and off so those with more bandwidth can enjoy it while those without can still have an experience.
It sort of is. Micheal Powell who was the head of the FCC for a while under Bush said there was no problem with internet companies paying ISPs to deliver content faster than the consumer's connection would allow. When I saw him speak at an event, he said that it couldn't degrade competing services or cause any restrictions under what the consumer already pays for.
In essence, his concept was that you purchase a 2 meg plan, videos galore pays your ISP to make their streaming media is delivered at 4 megs. Your ISP gives you 2 extra megs of speed when using their service. They couldn't however, slow netflix or crackle or anything in the process. They couldn't use this as an excuse to slow anything down to below what you paid for. So if you purchase up to 3 megs, they couldn't use some company paying for faster connections as a reason to slow anything to below that 3 megs.
While common carrier status does insulate them from this, not having it doesn't mean they are not still insulated.
The piracy or copyright violation protections are included in the DMCA which was born out the the WIPO WPPT and WTC treaties.
As for criminal actions, a lot of that liability has been traded off with allowing law enforcement access. I don't remember the exact laws but I think CALEA or something like that did away with some. Another problem is that a lot of the crimes commited on the internet require a mens rea component. In short, this means that you have to know whatever is happening is illegal in order to be subject to consequences of it.
When republicans talk of limited government, they generally mean a constitutional one. A government that gets as close as possible to only doing what the constitution says it is supposed to do. Raising and spending on a military is one of those constitutional things. Do not mistake this for hypocrisy as you would be wrong.
Here are a few things the government is constitutionally empowered to do which republicans generally have no problem with spending money on. Roads, post offices and mail services, and military. In fact, article 1 section 8 of the constitution lists about 18 sections of things the federal government is allowed or supposed to do. Of those, starting with providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States in the first paragraph, roughly 8 (44%) have something to do with the military.