Sigh.. just because you cannot live without facebook does not mean the internet or even access faster than dial up is a vital or essential part of anything.

And if you think the poor and minority class is under served, it can be remedied by mandating access without putting the government into direct competition with the private sector.

Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Even Wikipedia gets it right. Sigh..
Perhaps you should explore the articles of confederation and why it was replaced by the US constitution before trying to give a history lesson.

As for expansion of federal power, its been ongoing ever since 1776 with notable events being the US Constitution,

I think I know where you are going wrong here. Either you have no reading comprehension, English is not your first language, or you are intentionally ignoring what was said in order to inject some comment as if you had meaning and insight. What part of "FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes" is so difficult to understand? I guess it would be the words modern and day when put together.

Just because Jackson ignored the Supreme court doesn't really have much to do with the modern day unless you somehow construe it to be the reasoning for FDR's actions involving the SCOTUS.

Nope, I'm thinking the US constitution that replaced the articles of confederacy. Like I said, this is fifth grade history.

What do you think this is for?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...

Ok, I will try to explain this a simple as I can in order to keep it short.

The cable and telcos have to offer service to unprofitable areas as well as the profitable areas and charge the same rates for both. This is part of their ability to have a monopoly in the area. Now, in some areas, there is competition but not because the infrastructure was duplicated but because they had to lease it to the competition at costs of operating it and also serve those not profitable areas.

So a municipality steps up and uses tax dollars to build out new infrastructure that competes with these other setups. They then go into direct competition with them and suck up the profitable areas leaving the cable and telcos with only the unprofitable areas and a few stragglers in the profitable areas.

The end result is, or could very well be, that not enough profit is left available for the telcos and cable companies to do upgrades in those areas. And before you think they are rich companies over flowing with cash, first, they typically segregate their areas of operations where time warner of Atlanta might be a different company from time warner of Columbus Ohio but owned by a parent company. Each area would be separate as far as financials go. Second, if their cash cows disappear, they will likely no longer be overflowing with cash.

Also the municipal only doing the infrastructure is not really what is being considered here. What is being considered is the municipality selling off their excess bandwidth and purchasing more in order to go into direct competition with the cable and telcos. Some of the plans I have seen deliver the product free of monthly charge and is based on taxes paid. This is like the cable and telcos being able to charge each and every citizen of an area whether they have the service or not.

But I like your idea of the municipality owning and providing infrastructure that others lease until another recession hits and they neglect it because revenue is down or some loon gets elected mayor and decides to divert the funding for it to something else he things is more important like flags and colored lights lining the main street going through town or a brick crosswalk on one of the busiest intersections that has regular truck traffic (Yes, both have happened in my town- had to put a levee on the ballot in order to fix potholes because they spent that money on other shit) in order to enhance curb appeal.

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support because the other side will try to repeal it. How would anything get done? At that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. Did he even listen to what he said?

Well, no. The FCC does not make laws, it makes regulation with the force of laws without congress voting on all the regulations. What he is saying is that whatever they do, a republican chairperson can undo. Don't bother with extreme partisan hacks because it will not last when another party is in charge of the FCC. That is sort of the challenge of having regulatory bodies appointed with the power of law, they need to have sound enough reasoning for all their actions in order to prevent the next appointment from undoing them. That is all he is saying.

I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.

I do not think I can disagree with that.

You mean the one thing the federal government does that it is constitutionally empowered to do is the one thing you are wanting to single out as your example?

Wow..

That's exactly right. The federal government is not sovereign over everything in the US. The entire concept was that it was supposed to be spelled out in the constitution and the states which were separate countries only gave up or surrendered the amount of sovereignty to the federal government that was in the US constitution. This is fifth grade history BTW. Over the years, the federal government has been granted more powers by the expansion of several elements within the US constitution by the courts. This expansion is in ways not originally foreseen by the founders or the interpretations of the constitution until it happened. FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes came at a constitutional impasse in which his new deal legislation was deemed unconstitutional and he basically said "so what, I'm the executive and I can enforce it" while the democrat congress threatened to expand the supreme court seats until they could pack enough party supporters in that they had a majority. The end result, before everything blew apart, the Supreme Court ended up allowing the New Deal provisions as a means of the interstate commerce clause. This is why things like the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with less than a certain amount of revenue or some other substantial impact on interstate commerce and will default to whatever the state minimum wage is.

  Bravo indeed. That was what made America the finest in the world at one time. We have lost that position and lost the constitutional separations.

Do you just not understand what you are saying or are you somehow brainwashed?

You just said that republican politicians are open about lining their pockets while democrats hide it because it's what their voters want. This is the same as saying the republican voters know what they are voting for and democrat voters keep getting the misled in order to vote democrat and you think the republican voters are the idiots?

It seems like you should have another word in there or direct your comment towards another group of people.

Since you found it funny, why don't you explain the joke to me.

I could see some humor maybe of they were somewhat related but pulling shit out of nowhere just doesn't give the giggles you seem to think it does.

Maybe it is because you are flat out wrong. Big government is evil, but not all government is evil. Most people who are not pushing agendas understand that there are middle grounds in which government serves the public interest in ways it was constituted to do. But more importantly, people who are flat out against a large and powerful federal government can be completely for the same at a state and local level where the public has more power to control it.

The universe is big- something on a quantum level could possible make this happen. A proton is not the smallest part of an element. If this was to happen, it is possible it could be introduced via comet and we would have a way to encounter, experience, and measure- although it msy take time to understand.

Like i said, we thought we knew everything about physics once then it was turned upside down by Einstein. I do see how we would classify it differrently but i doubt anything would be renamed.

I don't know what the parent was thinking but what if there ended up being two elements with the same number if protons but different phisical properties due to some yet to be discovered reason.

How would something like that be treated? I mean for instance, a noble gas which is solid at room temperature and becomed a superconductor at the same time. Lets run with the fucking magnets and say something with the neutron bond causes the different behavior.

So you do not think there could ever be anything discovered that has the same amount of protons but completely different properties due to some yet unknown reason? Is it that everything in this area of science has already been discovered, the concenssus is in and we should ignore it all except for how we use what we already know?

I think this was the case once before when some idiot tried to claim there was some special theory of reletivity or something nuty like that. Its a good thing nobody took him seriously.

The end user does not have to accept the GPL or any of its variants unless they distribute the covered code. The user of the GPL cam only be the person distributing it.