Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Last straw? (Score 1) 461

If Obama had not created instability in Syria and refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, Da'esh/ISIS would never have come into existence. The group which became Da'esh/ISIS may have existed before that, but that was what allowed it to become a "state".

Comment: Re:This should be upmodded (Score 2) 461

What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people.

So, it was OK for him to imperialistically intervene to bomb that dictator's security forces in order to allow a group inimical to U.S. interests to overthrow said dictator and suppress the wants and needs of the people. If we had stayed out of Libya, Gaddafi would still be in power there and ISIS would likely have never acquired the weapons it needed to rise to power.

Comment: Re:This should be upmodded (Score 3, Interesting) 461

Yes, he has a point, a point which is wrong, but a point.

While it is true that if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq ISIS would not have arisen, it is also true that Obama would probably have done the same thing to Saddam which he did to Gaddafi, Mubarak, and attempted to do to Assad. That is, he would have attempted to overthrow Saddam and replace him with instability.

His failure to create instability in Egypt is a reflection of the desires of the Egyptian people rather than any indication of positive action by the Obama Administration. BTW, I am not arguing that the Obama Administration INTENDED to destabilize the Middle East, just that their policies directly resulted in that happening. I do not know what the Obama Administration intended, but I cannot imagine what they would have done differently if they intended to disable the Middle East.

Comment: Re:Last straw? (Score 3, Insightful) 461

No, the reason we have ISIS is because Obama tried to defeat Assad without actually fighting him. Obama empowered anyone who wanted to overthrow Assad in Syria to do so and provided them with some logistical support without paying any attention to what they wanted to put in his place. Further he did so without providing them sufficient support to actually overthrow Assad. He did the same thing in Libya, although there he provided sufficient support to overthrow a stable government. For that matter he attempted to do the same thing in Egypt, but it turned out that Egypt had not only a stable government, but a legitimate one (as in the people actually supported the government they had despite not supporting its head--Mubarak).

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 4, Interesting) 461

I'm sorry but ISIS was not created by the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. ISIS was created by the "Arab Spring", when Obama supported the overthrow of stable governments in Libya and Egypt. He followed that up by encouraging the overthrow of Assad in Syria but not following through by actually bringing it about.
I will agree that Obama is doing the same thing to the Middle East that he did to the U.S. economy. And, if what Obama is doing is fixing these things I'll take broken.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 226

I have not studied this closely, but I believe that Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, defining certain aspects of their rules which would last until a future Congress passed a law overturning that law. The same is true of the laws delegating their authority.

That, at least is how I understand the legal theory. I do not think the Framers of the Constitution would agree. I am certain they would not approve of Congress delegating so much of their authority.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 226

It would be impractical for Congress to operate at the level of detail overseen by the various commissions and authorities.

Which indicates that it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution that the Federal government not attempt to do so. If you read the various writings of those people you will discover that they thought the federal government should not get into such detail. If anything required close detail, those who wrote the Constitution thought that the laws regulating it should be written by those close to that actual detail.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 226

Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy.

More importantly, has Congress delegated their authority over this specific issue to the FCC? Of course, as has been demonstrated on the issue of illegal immigration (and several other issues as well), we no longer have a government of laws. The law is now whatever the President (and, in more and more cases, the bureaucrats who theoretically answer to him) says it is. Which means that it can change from day to day and person to person.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

But that was your choice. You did not have to rent an apartment in that building. I actually lived in an apartment complex with a similar contract. Except that about 5 years before I moved out, the complex found that they needed to bring in a second ISP for competitive reasons (some people chose not to rent there because they preferred the other ISP).

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

The reason the problem is systemic throughout the nation is because the federal government encouraged this situation in the first place. The local/regional monopolies exist because of a federal law which allowed them to exist. So, the federal government abused its power by encouraging local/regional monopolies to come into existence. Now you want to reward the federal government by asking them to gather even more power to themselves?

Maybe instead we should ask the federal government to eliminate the law allowing local governments to enter into franchise agreements?

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

It is not "people" who are signing exclusive deals. It is government which is doing so. May I suggest that the answer is for people to demand that their local government allow such exclusive deals to expire and allow actual competition? Rather than reward the government for abusing its power by demanding that it gather even more power?

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

It has nothing to do with "unregulated corporate greed". It has a lot to do with corporate greed using regulations for their own benefit. The "problem" this new "net neutrality" regulation is supposed to fix was created by the government in the first place when it granted cable companies monopoly status in various areas. I never cease to be amazed at how often people respond to problems created by abusive use of government power by demanding that the government be given even more power.

Comment: Re:is it 4/1 already (Score 1) 630

by Attila Dimedici (#49142445) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. Nobody but the FCC commissioners have seen these 300 pages of regulations yet (well OK, people are getting a look at them now). This is another, "We have to pass it so that you can see what is in it" set of rules. I would be a lot more likely to believe it was a good thing if they had not kept the wording hidden up until they passed it. Of course, at over 300 pages I doubt I would have believed it was a good thing any way.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...