Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
So far it works without the government. Being pragmatic therefore means keeping the government out of it.
Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
Perfect!
That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
Morans!
Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
Perfect!
That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
Morans!
Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
Perfect!
That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
Morans!
Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?
End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.
It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.
Perfect!
That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
Morans!
Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?
Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality
By: Declan McCullagh April 6, 2010 8:15 AM PDT
The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.
Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers.
...
End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.
It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.
Whoa there Big Fellow.
Net Neutrality is a set of laws that regulates the Net, is it not? Ending net Nuetrality means leaving it as it is.
Net Neutrality
A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:
The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
Eric Schmidt
this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
The market will decide who actually gets the business.
Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
PFFFFT!this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
The market will decide who actually gets the business.
Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government. A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make. The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C. This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government. If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.
Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation. We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes. If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.
PFFFFT!this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
Gubmint intervention ≠ "open access"....There's your first semantic miscalculation.PFFFFT!this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.
I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
so your problem with open access to the internet is... what exactly?
So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government. A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make. The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C. This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government. If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.
Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation. We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes. If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.
You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.
I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government. A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make. The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C. This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government. If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.
Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation. We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes. If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.
You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.
What is it that makes you think I do not understand? I do understand that putting the government in charge of something that the private market, engenuity, and American resolve should be taking care of is NOT a good thing.
Gubmint intervention ≠ "open access"....There's your first semantic miscalculation.PFFFFT!
I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
so your problem with open access to the internet is... what exactly?
Secondly, nearly the entire argument from the "open access" crowd is filled with the same corporate booger men and "yeahbut they could..." mythical straw dog arguments....IOW, it doesn't pass the smell test from square one.
After that, I'm currently posting from one of those "remote rural areas" that all the hand-wringers seem to be constantly harping about and have full-on broadband.
At the rate technology moves, so-called net neutrality is little more than a political lap dog yapping at a passing car.
