True, but I'd still like to contribute. And to tell the truth, I'd also be serving my incredibly popular homemade pornography. Mostly just me taking naps, but it's HOT!

HAH!

How does letting more workers enter the country lead to jobs moving overseas? Isn't it the exact opposite?

HAH!

Your bias is clearly preventing you from making a critical appraisal of political behavior, so instead of treating you like an intelligent human being, I'll just call you a psychotically biased moron. Why? Because your response deserves no better.

Idiot.

So did I, but then Comcast put a cap on it.

Well, according to them, they raised the cap from 250Gb to 300, but that was a complete and utter lie. I made damn sure there was no cap when I signed up, so you can imagine my distress when I got an email with that "good news". So far I've been able to keep them from enforcing it by threatening to take them to court over breach of contract.

Did you know that Netflix uses less bandwidth than NBC?

If I didn't have a cap, I'd seed linux distros like crazy.

1. There are already companies with similar franchise agreements - Utilities. Why not just tell cable companies that if they want utility-style local monopolies, they must also be regulated as such.

2. Absolutely not! Do you know what government owns the telephone poles in your town? None. They belong to the phone or power company that put them in the ground. Putting them under common carrier gives basically the same outcome you're looking for.

3. That would be a blatant violation of the Constitution, which specifically prevents the government from interfering with contracts.

Well, the Constitution specifically grants the Federal government the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. The FCC derives it's power from that clause. The internet, like TV, radio, telephones, telegraphs, etc., is prima facie a medium for interstate commerce, therefore the federal government is the only body with the right and authority to regulate it.

It's 100% Constitutional.

Couldn't one argue that the State laws interfere with methods of interstate commerce, thereby violating Federal authority over such commerce?

You are presenting a false narrative. Conservatives see government as a necessary evil, Liberals see it as a force for good.

Neither are wrong. The tension between the two views keeps things from going off the rails. Without Conservatives restraining the growth of government, corruption will flourish, and private enterprise will be crowded out and the economy will collapse. Without Liberals promoting regulations and social supports, corruption will flourish and people who need a little help will be left out in the cold - leading to social collapse.

Moreover, the two party system establishes checks on each. Democrats keep Republicans honest and vice versa. After decades of Democrats dominating the House, they became incredibly corrupt; leading to a series of scandals that ended with the GOP taking control in '94.

So people expect a return on investment, regardless of whether they run a government or a business? Oh no! Whatever will we do?

You don't actually understand politics, do you.

Though, I suppose it could be that you lack enough data to make substantive claims about it. Either way, you're displaying a lot of ignorance.

Just because he's a deficit hawk doesn't mean he's anti-NASA. In fact, and as the article points out, he's just the opposite.

There's a HUGE difference between anti-deficit and anti-science.

That's a flu I can use!

then there is clearly something horribly wrong with our education system. And not just what we already knew was horribly wrong - a brand new horrible wrong to worry about.