if you live in a society where rich men can have many wives so there's less women to go around, female infanticide is ripe, and your economy sucks so you can't get a job: no woman will look at you

you have no pornography, women are wrapped up and hidden from sight

your corrupt broken government censors the internet

so you have no outlet for your sexuality

none. zero

this is extremely unnatural

and this is what fuels all the suffering and hatred in conservative societies and with men from conservative backgrounds: a young man with no options to express his natural biological desires turns to the worst choices in life: murder and psychopathy

meanwhile, in "decadent", "immoral" societies, where expression of natural human sexuality is easy, young men and women are productive, happy and content

the greatest creator of evil in this world is traditional religion

You think that will stop him? You should have seen what he did to the mail box last Easter. The neighbors still cross the street to get past it.

yes

because conservative countries that disallow expression of sexuality, and also disallow censor pornography, create murderous assholes and bitter hatemongers

so allowing sexuality is best, but allowing pornography is second best

blocking both creates hellholes of human suffering. that's religious conservative "morals" at work

He's dead and gone. Really. What he helped create for us isn't, though, and that is certainly grounds for considerable cheer.

When *YOU* take an action *YOU* better be ready for the reaction. Anything less makes you a victim only to yourself.

It is very well documented that the reaction people were told they would have, which was a good one, by those who should have (and did) know otherwise, is not the reaction they actually got, which was deadly.

So while I agree absolutely that we are responsible for the outcomes of choices we make for which we understand the eventual and potential outcome(s), I deny just as absolutely that we are responsible for the outcomes of choices we make when we have been deceived.

I would have no problem whatsoever voting to convict a tobacco company executive of the previous century of premeditated manslaughter by poisoning. However, at this point, we know, or we should know, how utterly stupid smoking tobacco is in the context of our health, and yes, any individual capable of informed consent who is still (or begins) smoking today can't reasonably blame that on anyone other than themselves. And as long as they don't, and don't make non-consenting persons and animals inhale the carcinogenic pollution that results, I'm all for them smoking all they want.

the more conservative the area of the country (and the world) the more online pornography is consumed:

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

pointlessly uptight people still need their biological release, and since their bullshit "morals" don't allow them to express their natural proclivities in real life, they're all closet perverts

so southerners need that fiber, they won't oppose it

Nah, he's just not looking at the right set of rules. Those rules are the ones that allow exclusive access to a larger area in which a portion may be profitable on the condition of them serving the unprofitable areas equally as well. It also includes rules concerning municipal provided broadband competing with those monopolies in particular 2 states, Tennessee and North Carolina.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

in combination with page 4 of this

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

makes it clear that exclusive access is no longer allowed. This means that I can run in and saturate the profitable areas with my offerings making comcast or whoever else either lose money in general or raise their rates to avoid doing so

Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

HEH... I'm laughing with you on this.

I typed that from my phone. It was march of 1998 not 88. This is my fault as I used 98 in the first reference but later lapsed with the incorrect 1988.

  It's a PDF

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

Here are a few highlights

Senators Ashcroft, Ford, John F. Kerry, Abraham and Wyden emphasize that
"[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter
the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional
telephone regulation to new and advanced services."
75
Like
Senator McCain, they state:
"Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was
to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew

And I'm not sure if this is separating the two quotes because preview sucks it all into one.

We
find, however, that in defining
"telecommunications" and "information services," Congress built upon the MFJ and the
Commission's prior deregulatory actions in
Computer II
. After
careful consideration of the
statutory language and its legislative history, we affirm our prior findings that the categories
of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in the 1996 Act are mutually
exclusive.
77
Under
this interpretation, an entity offering a simple, transparent transmission
path, without the capability of providing enhanced functionality, offers
âoetelecommunications.â By
contrast, when an entity offers transmission incorporating the
âoecapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information,â it does not offer telecommunications.
Rather,
it offers an
"information service" even though it uses telecommunications to do so.
We
believe that
this reading of the statute is most consistent with the 1996 Act's text, its legislative history,
and its procompetitive, deregulatory goals

It's a sad day when big business is more corrupt than the government :(

Your wikipedia link reads like a description of the current situation.

"Hardly" is going too far. Why not just come out and say it - not a single word of truth is printed unless it benefits someone with power.

I would want a policy that only covers major issues with a high deductible.

I'm interested to learn that you think you can tell the future. However, since I know you can't, I will simply point out that you don't understand the actual reason for insurance, a not uncommon failing among the young who have little relevant experience with disaster. This isn't betting, where you "win" if you can guess your disease. It's not supposed to be like a slot machine. This is about risk amelioration.

...if all the young healthy families did that...

... then there would be a lot of really nasty surprises for those "young and healthy families."

See, insurance isn't about what your condition is now. Insurance is about what your condition may become. So, when kid #2 develops a lymphatic tumor under their arm, instead of "parents tried to cheap out because they had a young and healthy family and now kid #2 can't get medical care", it is "off to a cancer specialist you go, #2, because we cared enough to see to it your risks were addressed."

The law needs changed if you think the internet has now grown to the point of needing regulated. FFS, Can the cop make the ticket for the red cars twice as expensive simply because things change? Until the law changes, the law remains the same. The only way to change a law is for congress to act or the courts to strike down as unconstitutional.

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.

And this is almost laughably wrong:

I call BS. They don't "fear" it will do anything of the kind. What they fear is that it will put a stop to their monopolistic control, and monopolistic prices, and end their ability to pocket tax money given them for infrastructure.

I mean this literally: you can hardly believe a word they say anymore.