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.

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?

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.

Huh? Where have you been?

The state department was stonewalling congress when they requested emails from the secretary of state surrounding Benghazi and finally admitted they didn't have them for some reason. Mrs Clinton then disclosed she used a private email address on her home server to do all her state business because it was too cumbersome to have more than one device or email to check.

Here is something about how even Obama knew about it. This isn't disputed territory, it's just questioned to the legality and motives.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

Until free software gets outlawed for not having them or they make criminals out of people who disable the back doors.

I have no faith the something like that would be impossible to happen.

How is that a "but"? Did you possibly misread? I said 4th power, not 4x as much. At 4x the per-mile tax rate, a 18-wheeler is still only paying for 1/2400 of it's proportional share of road wear and tear costs. And yes, standing, starting and stopping does damage to the roads. And it does much more damage when you're talking about commercial vehicle. No, restricting roads to lightwieght personal vehicles wouldn't make them last forever, but they would last much longer.

No, I didn't misread, I dismissed your claim altogether as it is unnecessary. Did you misread that?

As for waste, I made no comment whatsoever in regards to it - and neither did you in the comment that I replied to.

I know you didn't mention it which is why I said you ignore it. But I'm pretty clear the comment I made which you replied does in fact mention it. In case reading comprehension is not a strong point or perhaps English is a second language "the money is diluted and used for none road uses like state pensions, mandatory union scale wages, bike paths and residential roads that trucks are never allowed to drive on any ways" is what was said regarding it.

Perhaps I'm the one with the comprehension problem and simply do not see your point the way you wish to express it.

Yes they do, if you're looking at dollars per mile, but if you look instead at dollars per amount of damage they do, as would reasonably be charged by private toll roads, they pay far, far less.

No.. Private toll roads operate in a similar structure to fuel taxes in that they charge more for lighter vehicles and less for larger vehicles than the amount of damage caused by each. I've driven on them before with 5 axle vehicles and while it's quite a bit more expensive than a car, it is still not proportionate as you describe. It's also not far less either.

You must have grown up a long time ago, in a school district far away. Today teachers have to buy their own supplies, out of their own personal funds.

I grew up in the 70's and early 80's.

Of course I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the rest of your post. Are you suggesting that every school district within the United States is government by the same loons as one or two school districts in a specific state? Do you realize that it is the state's job to fund schools and often the local political subdivisions do it through property taxes. Do you realize that school districts and even city wide schools are not the same even in the same states or county within that state?

Of course I'm left wondering if this has anything to do with your first linked story.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/exclusive-school-officials-lose-356m-special-education-funds-article-1.1912801

Your second link is even more interesting. There you present a teacher who is crying that because he wants to run outside the box and accepted lesson plans, he has to purchase supplies to do so on his own. Sure it would be nice if everything was free, but it's sort of his own doing there.

YOU can't be taken seriously because most of us out here know what $1TRILLION could have done for infrastructure and education.

Please stop showing the world how moronic you can be. $1trillion would not have been spent on any infrastructure or education because it was all borrowed money. This means that the government in all their wisdom decided it was wise to spend money we didn't have to the reasons associated with what it was spent on. It simply would not have been spent otherwise or we would have also already been spending 1 trillion on whatever you thought was necessary. It's not even the federal government's job to spend on education or infrastructure outside of post roads so it's like you are crying that the people who are not supposed to do something are not doing something you want them to do. but it makes you appear completely idiotic because you do not appear to understand they are not supposed to be doing it in the first place. Do they not teach government and civics in high school any more or have you just not yet reached the grades in which the classes are taught?

But no, we've got flag-waving racist imbeciles like you who want to piss it all away on odious shit, like killing brown people, and politicians who will pander to them and suck the cocks of the military industrial complex.

Again, you are trying too hard to look like a complete moron that no one should take seriously.

Do they pay proportionally to the damage they cause to the roads?

No, they don't. That's the point. The increase in fuel usage is not tracked with the increase in road damage due to more massive vehicles.

the point is stupid though. It's like saying we have $100 to purchase groceries this month but because Junior didn't contribute his 25% that he eats, we will be perfectly fine with spending it on beer and smokes instead. Trucks pay more, maybe not as much as you want, but there is more than enough money collected to cover the amounts of damage done to the roads each year. The problems arise when new roads are created which are not yet paid for by use taxes, when money is siphoned off to pay for pensions or bike paths or housing instead of the roads. It's like saying we will ignore the government buying booze and smokes with the road money because trucks don't pay as much as you want them to.

Nope. The total revenues from fuel taxes aren't even enough for all of the necessary road spending,

I never said they were. I said they were enough to cover damage to the roads.

and nope, most road construction is private contractors, state pensions don't factor in nearly as much as graft and corruption from that,

It doesn't matter if the road construction is private, pensions are still being paid on state and local employees from the road funds and all you manged to do is show where more waste is reinforcing my point.

bike paths are a trivial expense that benefits the public at large,

Um.. no they are not. A bike path in the town nearest to where I live ended up costing over 10 million dollars just in real estate acquisitions for the 15 mile path to nowhere important. Then they had to build basically a single lane road because they expected emergency vehicles to be able to drive on it when people have accidents or heart attacks and so on on the paths. Add on several bridges, modifications to existing bridges, and I'm not sure what is trivial about it. Hell, look into the bike path around Louisville Kentucky, it's 110 miles and even created several parks in the process.

residential roads are kinda essential to the whole system working, those commercial trucks wouldn't be worth anything if their customers couldn't buy the products.

I don't know what gave you the idea I thought otherwise. Those residential roads need repairs just as much as highways where trucks go will need. The problem is they do not collect taxes on those roads like for highways and they should be paid out of local taxes seeing how each local residential road increases property values for the local government. Why should a truck who doesn't even drive on them have to pay to maintain them when your primary complaint is that trucks need to pay the amount of damages they create? When states spend the highway trust fund on local residential roads so developers do not have to build them, it takes away from the funding to maintain roads already being used.

It doesn't have to be proportional but yes, it works out to about 4 times as much being paid per mile driven than regular cars. And no, the damage is not staved off if commercial vehicles were not allowed to drive on the roads. HOV lanes tend to only last a year or two longer than the other portions of the highways. This is because the roads are not designed to last 200 years and the asphalt breaks down due to standing, starting, and stopping. The biggest factor in road life is accidents by far.

I do not know why people like you ignore the bullshit wastes of money and cry about who pays their fair shares instead. The problem is that it simply would not matter who paid anything if they are spending it on stuff not directly the roads. It's like someone yelling the hotel is on fire everybody exit and you sit there crying that the party of ten didn't pay their bill yet.

There is more than enough money to pay for the roads under the existing tax structure if all the money went to the roads being driven on and not parks or bike paths, or pensions of employees not even involved in the road departments.

I believe the word that fits is a fiduciary duty. And I'm glad the op said value not profit because they are not always the same thing.