Trust me it is. Have you tried arguing politics with a teabagger lately? They don't know history, the Constitution and its the Amendments, basic U.S. governmental function, basic economics, global politics, science, etc. They rant about their hatreds and fears but are unable to formulate a logical argument based on facts, instead blending in their religious beliefs and right wing sound bites as foundational arguments. It's all magical thinking and ignorance, and it makes being the intelligent one in the room a burden.
I just got done cleaning up a client's system because they downloaded what they thought were MP3s from a site call MP3Boo or something like that, but one of the files wasn't an MP3. It injected his system will all kinds of malware, and it took a while to get all the crap scraped out of his file system.
I'm certainly not saying it's a panacea, but had he been able to see that the "song" was actually an executable, he *might* not have proceeded.
One practical application of the sorter could be creating a bowl of M&Ms — with all the brown ones
So you just want to single out the brown ones, huh?
I'm brown, you insensitive clod!
If by "as it happens" you mean, "that fits, with the proper amount of spin and misreporting, the Fox 'News' propaganda outlet's worldview", then yes, I agree.
Personally I'm relieved that Fox "News" got slapped back a bit. It's not news -- it's entertainment for simple-minded, easily provoked bigots.
Ok, first... extremely liberal... hahah ha lol good one.
Second, if corporations have shown themselves incapable of doing their job then what is are his options?
Corporations have one job, to make money, and that's what the ISPs are attempting to do by extorting money from targeted consumers of their monopoly-protected services. Having said that, yes, the President should act within the purview of his powers.
B) Privacy and Net Neutrality are two different things.
And treating them as two different things, if you're trying to imply that both are important, I agree with you.
And that is a complete, bald-faced lie.
Wait, Sean Hannity? Is that you?
Your point is that generalizations can be made. "The GOP opposes regulation of *" would be another equally useless generalization. And yet another would be, "It doesn't matter what it is, the GOP wants it under corporation control."
Don't be a complete troll all your life, m-kay?
The Czech Republic
The top 10 nations for internet speed. Notice anyone missing from that list? Treating internet service as a utility and not allowing toll booth throttling apparently results in top notch service.
I give you both points. If he spares Net Neutrality, it will be a huge notch on his belt, but pardoning the telcos is going to be an equally large black mark on his legacy.
The number one concern for the American vote is NOT the economy. The economy is doing great. People's paychecks are what suck. The lack of decent paying jobs is what sucks. The wage gap is what sucks. But the economy? It's doing great, thanks.
If the GOP was concerned about the American voter, they'd up the minimum wage to $11/hr. Instead, they rely on the gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and hundreds of millions in Koch contributions and dark money to fund propaganda that will convince people to vote against their interests.
But people turn out for presidential elections, and I'm trusting that the GOP will be unable to fight the tidal wave of voter resentment.
That would be the GOP you're thinking of. That's why, if you crawled out from under your rock, you would have heard the President *support* Net Neutrality while the GOP is winding up to *oppose* it. And that is your morning dose of reality. You're welcome.
... If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.
Wow. You make it sound like Congress is focused solely on obstruction. Surely a congressional body elected to represent the United States citizenry would never harm the nation by outright obstructing positive legislative efforts?
Sorry, I've been in a coma for the last 6 years. Did I miss something?
I guarantee you the next president, if it's a Democrat (probably Hillary), will in fact care about Net Neutrality. You should try to avoid projecting your cynicism on others.
The GOP, and Mitch McConnell famously, stated that their purpose was to make Obama a one term president. Failing that, they have nearly frozen the legislative process and refused to participate in governing. So while your initial statement is subjectively accurate, the GOP left him little choice but to use the powers his office possesses to attempt to address the needs of the nation.