| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2227 http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Robert_McChesney board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103 which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary. McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: "You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step. Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC. These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet. According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years. It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago- style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control. But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways. Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno 1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules. The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate. 2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.) 3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation. In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. ALL 95 LOST. Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George Soros http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7625 With influencers like John Podesta, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626 who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration. (Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this. Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.) Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass. Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet. Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...t-regulations/ http://StopNetRegulation.org |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
"Chas. Chan" wrote in message ... Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project... No it ****ing isn't. Jim |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 6:35Â*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
Dear Sir, You don't know what you're talking about. Â*The government has no place 
in preventing ISPs from raping us up the ass in the same way the cable 
companies do. Â*ISPs should be able to limit the number of web sights 
we can access to less than 100, 50, or 5 depending on the package we 
choose. Â*Anybody who thinks there should be a law to prevent this is a 
Communist. Â*Corporations are our friends and the government is always 
always evil. Sincerely, 
I.M. Klueless |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...bert_McChesney board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103 which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary. McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: "You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step. Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC. These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet. According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years. It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago- style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control. But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways. Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno 1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate. 2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.) 3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation. *In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST. Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625 With influencers like John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626 who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.) Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass. Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet. Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i... http://StopNetRegulation.org k000k a d000dle do |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/27/2010 7:21 PM, dave wrote:
... Don't let Glenn Beck hear you say that. He says "human rights" is a commie plot. Funny, he must have read the part, in the Constitution where the forefathers mention them ... Regards, JS |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/27/2010 4:35 PM, Chas. Chan wrote:
... government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...t-regulations/ http://StopNetRegulation.org Seems most don't realize they will soon be licensing you to be able to have a spot on the internet, perhaps even contract with an ISP. Seems most don't realize they will soon need a permit/license to travel .... this is what the TSA is doing in your airports, and soon will be in you train depots, buses, even Walmarts ... Seems most don't realize, under the new food and safety bill, you will soon need to be licensed to grow and sell vegetables from a garden ... The attack is on many fronts ... and the ignorant masses are asleep. If they knew what this translates into, they would all be joining state militias and purchasing weapons ... Regards, JS |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote: Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht.... board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103 which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary. McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: "You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step. Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC. These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet. According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years. It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago- style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control. But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways. Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno 1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate. 2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.) 3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation. *In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST. Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625 With influencers like John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626 who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.) Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass. Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet. Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i... http://StopNetRegulation.org k000k a d000dle do Timmy has again reached his limits. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 9:58*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/27/2010 4:35 PM, Chas. Chan wrote: ... government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i... http://StopNetRegulation.org Seems most don't realize they will soon be licensing you to be able to have a spot on the internet, perhaps even contract with an ISP. Seems most don't realize they will soon need a permit/license to travel ... this is what the TSA is doing in your airports, and soon will be in you train depots, buses, even Walmarts ... Seems most don't realize, under the new food and safety bill, you will soon need to be licensed to grow and sell vegetables from a garden ... The attack is on many fronts ... and the ignorant masses are asleep. *If they knew what this translates into, they would all be joining state militias and purchasing weapons ... Regards, JS Resistance to obedience does seem to be on the rise. Civil disobedience is a better option. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote: Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht.... board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103 which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary. McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: "You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step. Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC. These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet. According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years. It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago- style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control. But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways. Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno 1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate. 2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.) 3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation. *In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST. Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625 With influencers like John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626 who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.) Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass. Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet. Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i... http://StopNetRegulation.org k000k a d000dle do Timmy has again reached his limits. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 7:13*pm, Werner wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote: On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote: Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht... board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103 which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary. McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: "You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step. Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC. These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet. According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years. It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago- style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control. But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways. Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno 1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate. 2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.) 3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation. *In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST. Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625 With influencers like John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626 who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.) Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass. Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet. Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i.... http://StopNetRegulation.org k000k a d000dle do Timmy has again reached his limits. hint: you're nothing but scum. deal. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
19% of eligible voters is never a tidal wave, 'cept maybe in your
bathtub. The only lesson from November is that the Supreme Court needs some impeaching. Corporations are not people and money only equals speech at a whore house. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 7:12*pm, Werner wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:58*pm, John Smith wrote: On 12/27/2010 4:35 PM, Chas. Chan wrote: ... government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i.... http://StopNetRegulation.org Seems most don't realize they will soon be licensing you to be able to have a spot on the internet, perhaps even contract with an ISP. Seems most don't realize they will soon need a permit/license to travel ... this is what the TSA is doing in your airports, and soon will be in you train depots, buses, even Walmarts ... Seems most don't realize, under the new food and safety bill, you will soon need to be licensed to grow and sell vegetables from a garden ... The attack is on many fronts ... and the ignorant masses are asleep. *If they knew what this translates into, they would all be joining state militias and purchasing weapons ... Regards, JS Resistance to obedience does seem to be on the rise. Civil disobedience is a better option. Buahahahahahahahahahah. hint: you'll do nothing but spam hate - anonymously of course. When it comes time to stand up. you'll run like the cowardly kkkunt you are. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/27/2010 7:05 PM, Werner wrote:
... Why the exception? If it offends you simply don't click on it. Because, it harbors great dangers, most child molesters, rapists, sex murders, etc. have lots of such materials around. Reading back though any number of articles on such criminals being apprehended, you will notice they all revolve around this one trait ... even the recent molester for TSA, frisking women and children at airports, had loads on his computer. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/26165594/detail.html The Constitution guarantees you no right to be a danger to others ... simply put, your rights end trump when they bump into anothers'. Until then, you should be granted freedom ... with speech, it can be summed up simply, "I may differ with what you say, never your right to say it." However, if you yell FIRE! in a theater, you endanger others and their right to safety ... the supreme court used to be able to make such judgments, rationally, they no longer seem capable. Regards, JS |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 5:23*pm, "Clave" wrote:
"Chas. Chan" wrote in message ... Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so- called media reform project... - No it ****ing isn't. - - Jim OMG ! - God Has Spoken . . . An We Must Heed His Every Word -not- ~ RHF |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 7:15*pm, dave wrote:
- 19% of eligible voters is never a tidal wave, - 'cept maybe in your bathtub. So 'Special-Dave' if your Darling Liberals Win by a percent or two -it's- THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE ! -but- 'Special-Dave' if your HATED Conservatives should Win by Double-Digits -it's- FRAUD [.] Just so much more "Facts Have A Liberal Bias" from 'Special-Dave'. ~ RHF |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/27/2010 06:53 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 12/27/2010 7:21 PM, dave wrote: ... Don't let Glenn Beck hear you say that. He says "human rights" is a commie plot. Funny, he must have read the part, in the Constitution where the forefathers mention them ... Regards, JS How many occurrences of the word human in the Constitution? |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
I haven't seen any mobile guard towers around here,,, yet, or drones
buzzing around either.Sometimes WLBT 3's Skycopter 3 (keeping track on road traffic/auto accidents/whatever) Helicopter with Mary Wieden in there giving us videos on tv news.Sometimes a police Helicopter looking for somebody. cuhulin |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/27/2010 10:18 PM, RHF wrote:
. - The only lesson from November is that the - Supreme Court needs some impeaching. 'Special-Dave' you are such an 'imp' and a real 'peach' too . . . Tells Us 'Special-Dave' How Did The US Supreme Court Factor into the November 2010 Elections... By: David Brooks La Jornada Four years ago, Warren Buffett, the third richest man on the planet, said, "Of course there is a class war, but it's my class, the rich class, that is waging the war, and we're winning." This mid-term election in the United States is a front of the class war. Business interests and the wealthy have declared war against anything that dares to impose controls on them, limit their activities or touch their fortunes, and they say so, explicitly and openly. The vast majority of funds that are invested in what is already the most expensive mid-term election in history (it is expected to exceed, perhaps by far, 3.5 billion dollars) comes from billionaire donors, companies and groups representing the wealthy class. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has invested some $75 million in this election, almost all to support Republican candidates. In January, Chamber president Thomas Donohue said his association intended "to carry out the biggest and strongest voter-education effort and promotion of issues in our nearly one-century-old history." He is keeping his promise. The organization American Crossroads, a project of Karl Rove, former campaign and political strategist for George W. Bush, receives donations of up to one million dollars from wealthy donors to support conservative candidates across the country. Multinational companies channel funds through these organizations (using laws that allow them to conceal the identity of some donors) to promote their corporate agendas to weaken government control over their operations, the impact of health reform, efforts to curb the change in climate and other things considered "anti-business" that inhibit business. They also promote policies that favor "free enterprise" and "free trade." Many companies take advantage of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (known as the Citizens United case) that gave companies the same rights of "freedom of expression" enjoyed by individuals. Through this decision, they can fund propaganda for or against candidates to promote their agenda. That ruling maintained that "independent expenditures" made by companies in the electoral debate "do not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption" and though they "can generate influence on, or access to, elected officials, that does not imply that these officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause voters to lose faith in this democracy." This was denounced as a serious abuse of the democratic process by champions of electoral reforms who seek to reduce the influence of money in elections. |
'Special-Dave's "US Constitution" -minus- 'Human's ;;-}}
On Dec 28, 6:09*am, dave wrote:
On 12/27/2010 06:53 PM, John Smith wrote: On 12/27/2010 7:21 PM, dave wrote: ... - - - Don't let Glenn Beck hear you say that. - - - He says "human rights" is a commie plot. Second Request -to- 'Special-Dave' : Please "cite" your Source for this statement . . . "He says "human rights" is a commie plot." -or- Is this just more 'Special-Dave' making-up "Facts Have {Having/With} A Liberal BIAS" ??? ~t~w~i~s~t~i~n~g~ what people say {lies} to suit his distorted liberal political agenda |
Ban All Guns ? -or- Execute A Few Killers !
On Dec 28, 1:25*pm, Dacato wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:18*pm, John Smith wrote: On 12/27/2010 7:05 PM, Werner wrote: ... Why the exception? If it offends you simply don't click on it. Because, it harbors great dangers, most child molesters, rapists, sex murders, etc. have lots of such materials around. *Reading back though any number of articles on such criminals being apprehended, you will notice they all revolve around this one trait ... even the recent molester for TSA, frisking women and children at airports, had loads on his computer. - Guns harbor great dangers too. - Many thieves, rapists and murderers - have many guns available. - A lot of them have one trait too. - The love of guns. - I think we should just ban guns too! -or- We Could Ban Thieves, Rapists and Murderers To Prisons -or- 'Just' Removal For Cause {Death Sentence}. Ban All Guns ? -or- Execute A Few Killers ! ~ RHF |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/28/2010 5:36 PM, m II wrote:
On 10-12-27 08:18 PM, John Smith wrote: The Constitution guarantees you no right to be a danger to others ... simply put, your rights end trump when they bump into anothers'. Actually it does, and then if you hurt someone the constitution provides for "Justice". You have a right to carry a gun, just no right to shoot people without just cause. |
Ban All Guns ? -or- Execute A Few Killers !
You done any Snowbirdin lately? Belmar,New Jersey got thirty two inches
of SNOW in forty minutes.Guess where the High Mayor of Belmar is? Disneyworld,Florida.Currently, it is about fiftyish degrees in Orlando.46 degrees inside my flower box on doggy's porch.Going to get up to about 70 degrees on Thursday, or Friday. I don'ts need to do any Snowbirdin. Know whatcha call it when those Ducks and Geese are Flying South for the Winter? Snowbirdin! cuhulin |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 27, 6:58*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/27/2010 4:35 PM, Chas. Chan wrote: ... government agenda. http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i... http://StopNetRegulation.org Seems most don't realize they will soon be licensing you to be able to have a spot on the internet, perhaps even contract with an ISP. There is no such plan. Lie #1 Seems most don't realize they will soon need a permit/license to travel ... this is what the TSA is doing in your airports, and soon will be in you train depots, buses, even Walmarts ... There is no such plan. Lie #2 Seems most don't realize, under the new food and safety bill, you will soon need to be licensed to grow and sell vegetables from a garden ... Lie #3 The attack is on many fronts ... and the ignorant masses are asleep. *If they knew what this translates into, they would all be joining state militias and purchasing weapons ... Well, you've proven yourself to be a lying weasal. Good job. Mom must be so proud. Regards, JS Regards my ass- you're a useless liar. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/28/2010 7:34 PM, Tim Crowley wrote:
... Then prove your case. Stop with the silly insults and provide proof. waiting waiting waiting waiting hint: you lied, bitch. The only thing you have proven, is fools like yourself will shout for others to prove themselves, when you, yourself are unproven, groundless, moronic, imbecilic, idiotic, etc. You are PLONKED ... an amazing idiot, I will grant you that, but few wish to be known as you, an idiot ... sad, so very, very sad ... :-( Regards, JS |
Ban All Guns ? -or- Execute A Few Killers !
On 12/28/2010 04:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
. . . . Regulate guns EFFECTIVELY. Mandatory 10 years hard time for any crime involving a gun. |
Ban All Guns ? -or- Execute A Few Killers !
On 12/28/2010 05:51 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 12/28/2010 4:49 PM, Sid9 wrote: ... Regulate guns EFFECTIVELY. That would be illegal and unconstitutional, the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns ... Regulate criminals instead ... Regards, JS No right is absolute |
Murdoch Media Marxist Internet
On 12/28/2010 05:57 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, Bert Hyman wrote: ... The US Constitution doesn't pretend to contain an exhaustive list of all our rights, but still, I have the right to do actual harm to someone or even kill them in certain cases. ... Indeed! The Constitution grants no rights, the Constitution STATES THAT, the rights it mentions are God given ... and, any not specifically mentioned, are, without question, yours ... Not "God given". The Founders had many doubts about God; unlike the morons running things now, the Founders were healthy skeptics. |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/28/2010 05:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 12/28/2010 6:09 AM, dave wrote: ... How many occurrences of the word human in the Constitution? It makes me feel bad, that I must speak to you like a child ... American citizens = human ... Sad, so very, very sad ... JS You don't know very much. The Constitution applies to all persons*, not just "American citizens" *in jurisdiction of the USA |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On Dec 29, 10:39*am, dave wrote:
On 12/29/2010 06:33 AM, Ered China Luin wrote: In om, * *wrote: You don't know very much. The Constitution applies to all persons*, not just "American citizens" Except in those few places it explicitly says citizens. Certain citizens. Some citizens are more 'equal' than others ! |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject To Interpretation ? :After-All... It's Been To Court Many Times !
On Dec 29, 6:39*am, dave wrote:
On 12/28/2010 05:59 PM, John Smith wrote: On 12/28/2010 6:09 AM, dave wrote: ... How many occurrences of the word human in the Constitution? It makes me feel bad, that I must speak to you like a child ... American citizens = human ... Sad, so very, very sad ... JS - You don't know very much. 'Special-Dave' that is True : Since not everyone is 'special' like 'you'. - The Constitution applies to all persons*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution The Is Debatable and Subject To Interpretation; -and- It's Been To Court Many Times. 'Special-Dave' : ! "persons" ! What is a : "Per-Sons" {Sons of Man} : Man {All Men} : Human : Mankind : People {We The People} -wrt- "We the People of the United States" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preambl...s_Constitution |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject To Interpretation
On 12/30/2010 4:32 AM, RHF wrote:
- The Constitution applies to all persons*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution It's not clear why you are using up electrons debating the Constitution. Heck, everyone knows that the beloved George W. Bush went on public record saying that the Constitution "is just a piece of paper". |
Is The US Constitution Deliberately Vague and Pliable?
On 12/30/2010 01:32 AM, RHF wrote:
. - not just "American citizens" Who And What Are "American [US] Citizens" ? -again- Subject To Interpretation -and- It Too Has Been To Court Many Times. . - *in jurisdiction of the USA What Is "In the 'Jurisdiction'* of the USA" ? -again- Subject To Interpretation -and- It Too Has Been To Court Many Times. * There are many Exceptions to the general rule. . |
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
On 12/29/2010 6:39 AM, dave wrote:
... *in jurisdiction of the USA Exactly. Our public servants are NOT being paid our tax dollars to enforce laws in other lands, secure freedoms for other peoples in other nations, etc., etc. They will need to overthrow oppressive governments and secure their own rights ... Regards, JS |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject To Interpretation
On 12/30/2010 08:36 AM, D&L wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:34:03 -0500, Joe from wrote: On 12/30/2010 4:32 AM, RHF wrote: - The Constitution applies to all persons*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution It's not clear why you are using up electrons debating the Constitution. Heck, everyone knows that the beloved George W. Bush went on public record saying that the Constitution "is just a piece of paper". And his daddy is responsible for the NEW WORLD ORDER! You know(give all our jobs and money and power) to the rest of the world. They ain't named "George" by accident. The Bush crime family has always been on the side of the King. |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject ToInterpretatio...
In all of his speeches, how many times did G.H.W.Bush say new world
order? Was ''Poppy'' Bush really born in Germany? Some people say he was.If Nikola Tesla was still alive, he could/would say something about that. cuhulin |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject To Interpretation
On Dec 30, 1:31*pm, dave wrote:
On 12/30/2010 08:36 AM, D&L wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:34:03 -0500, Joe from wrote: On 12/30/2010 4:32 AM, RHF wrote: - The Constitution applies to all persons*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution It's not clear why you are using up electrons debating the Constitution. |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject To Interpretation
On Dec 30, 7:07*pm, dave wrote:
On 12/30/2010 02:46 PM, RHF wrote: On Dec 30, 1:31 pm, *wrote: On 12/30/2010 08:36 AM, D&L wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:34:03 -0500, Joe from wrote: On 12/30/2010 4:32 AM, RHF wrote: - The Constitution applies to all persons*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution It's not clear why you are using up electrons debating the Constitution. Heck, everyone knows that the beloved George W. Bush went on public record saying that the Constitution "is just a piece of paper". And his daddy is responsible for the NEW WORLD ORDER! You know(give all our jobs and money and power) to the rest of the world. - - - They ain't named "George" by accident. - - - The Bush crime family has always - - - been on the side of the King. - - So then 'Special-Dave' George Washington was . . . - born 6 years BEFORE King George III? But Still a "George" Who Would Not Be King ! and setting a presidency for all . . . ;;-}} ~ RHF |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject To Interpretation
On 12/30/2010 02:46 PM, RHF wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:31 pm, wrote: On 12/30/2010 08:36 AM, D&L wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:34:03 -0500, Joe from wrote: On 12/30/2010 4:32 AM, RHF wrote: - The Constitution applies to all persons*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution It's not clear why you are using up electrons debating the Constitution. Heck, everyone knows that the beloved George W. Bush went on public record saying that the Constitution "is just a piece of paper". And his daddy is responsible for the NEW WORLD ORDER! You know(give all our jobs and money and power) to the rest of the world. - They ain't named "George" by accident. - The Bush crime family has always - been on the side of the King. So then 'Special-Dave' George Washington was . . . born 6 years BEFORE King George III? |
Is The US Constitution ? Debatable and Subject ToInterpretatio...
I know a guy who was born in Croatia, he is German by Ancestry.Hitler
murdered some of his family people.He is my age.He was in U.S.Air Force.His name is Adolph. He is a Good, Adolph though. cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com