That's no moon. It's a space station!

Lol.. bad laws, abuses of authority but you see no problem because the outcome is something you want. Of course you feel the same way about the NSA spying because they are doing their jobs using the tools they were given. But wait - isn't there a constitutional thing in all this? That's right, in both situations. One giving congress the power to create law and the other restricting unreasonable searches.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, this review process is part of the tools congress gave the FCC. I don't see how you can object to that. In fact, the FCC was even warned about it before they acted.

The 1996 act defines the internet as an information service along the lines of the FCC computers II working paper. The second report to congress in 1998 on accessibility even says as much and points to how it is not an information service.

Because there is a principle involved where a government agency has reversed a position it has held since the 1970s and without any congressional interaction changed regulation and basically confiscated large portions of the economy for the political whims of some. Its not necessarily what happened but how it happened.

I'm not against net neutrality but I am against the way it happened and all the restrictions with it.

Here you have a government agency who completely reversed their position on the internet being an information services not subject to title II regulation that they have held since the 1970s and in effect creating regulation with the effect of legislation without any input or action from the only constitutionally approved processes or elected representatives. I don't care who you are, that should scare the hell out of anyone whether they support net neutrality or not. Well at least if democracy is in any way important.

Please read the entire link as that is not the only thing discussed.

I get it. You have some infinitely for her and don't want to think she did anything wrong. But what you want and reality can be different and this may be one of those times. You simply cannot say nothing was illegal until everything is known.

I think you answered your own question right there.

So:
Some Federal agency serves up some rules on whatever
Congress, who is actually in charge of passing laws, says, "Hey, wait a minute. Shouldn't we have looked at this first?"

This seems to be one of those "We have to pass it to see what's in it." type of deals.

I am NOT saying the Republicrats are all above board in what they're doing and why ($$$), but it does kind of seem to be in their bailiwick to investigate before things like this are approved or passed.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...

Its not as cut and dry as you present it. Note that I posted a link to a site that most would say is favorable to Mrs Clinton.

Well it was a long time ago. But no, i was just letting auto complete do it's thing.

Tell me though, did it really confuse you that much? Or did you actually understand but decided to pretend to be a smartass?

- so then what is the point if the entire forum is a troll?

My C64 had a cassette recorder (DataSette I think it was called). It wasn't being Soviet, it was being cheap when the floppy disk drive more expensive than the computer.

You seem to be disconnected from reality a bit. Not all states are cutting taxes and the federal government is deficit spending. This means that A) most states can spend more but decided the amount was adequate, and B) the federal government doesn't see any need to change this unless they want something specific to be done and then they will only fund part of it while forcing the state to pick up the rest.

Education funding is where society decided it needs to be. Even most school levees that fail is because people either think it is unnecessary or know that despite the claimed need, the extra funds will end up being used for increasing administration salaries. The latter happened in a town near me and they haven't passed a levee in the 10 years since.

I guess when Kerry and Jeb or even Powell tries to hide information sought by congress or even gives the hint of it, we can call it a moral equivalent. Btw, i guess that the law people are thinking might have been violated wasn't passed when powell was in and doesn't apply to Jeb. Its not as clear cut as you pretend although you may ultimately be correct.

That fireproof, waterproof ubersafe does not help when the hurricane or tornado throws it a few miles away, and it ends up at the bottom of the river.