I’m white,! but the problem is when others try to locate me, I’m totally
transparent to their vision..
To be honest, I saw your discussion and I feel I need to say,
it has less to do with republicans and democrats than say,
conservatives and liberals.
Because there have always been shifts in the parties,
Lincoln freed the slaves after all. and Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive
who fought
That's not what I said. It's just that "rights" is a fiction.
I'm not even sure how we got onto the topic of states rights. There are power
plays in action both at the state and federal level. I believe local control
over decisions that affect my life is better than federal control. If you
At least you admitted it. You don't care about states' rights.
"California is doing pretty well"
California has a massive budget deficit and one small turn in the economy
could put it into bankruptcy. California has a lot of problems beyond just
economic.
"Not even Californians want to go"
Most don't want to go, but the Calexit movement didn't pop up
"You're out of your mind."
Well, I'm only telling the truth.
"Right wingers want to let them go"
Not even Californians want to go, so that would not be "letting". You're out
of your mind.
"California is one of the sanest states in the Union"
You're out of your mind.
"or not give any grant money at all."
I support that 100%
"secession is illegal"
That means nothing. America seceded from the British. Furthermore, there's no
guarantee another war would be fought if California
"It is impressive how you are ready to find any excuse to dismiss facts and
save your ideology."
Relax, the country is not on the brink of a civil war.
If the federal government actually supports state rights, they should give
grant money to all of the states regardless of their internal policies, or
not give any grant money at all.
Of course Calexit is supported by right wingers, because that is who it would
benefit. California is one of
I completely agree. The states can tell their police not to help the feds.
And the feds can stop giving the states federal grant money for their police.
See how that works?
I'm in favor so much of states rights, that I support secession. It's
something the left wingers would *never* grant
It's well known that the US fudges its unemployment numbers big time. Our
unemployment is much worse than the Bureau of Labor will admit.
The point I'm trying to make is that the US is a crumbling empire with a ton
of problems. This country is on the brink of a civil war, for crying out
Actually, the Norwegian unemployment rate is similar to that of the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate. As for
low prison rates, that might have to do with the Norwegian prison system,
which attempts to rehabilitate rather than punish. Still, I don't see
Yes, since it is a federal issue, the states are allowed to tell their police
not to enforce it. It is not the states' responsibility to help enforce it.
And if you support states' rights, it doesn't make any sense to oppose
cities' rights within the states (just replace the state with
I stand corrected.
Still, comparing Norway to the United States is like comparing apples to
oranges. Governments don't scale very well. A very small, homogeneous society
with low unemployment rates, low prison rates, who gets their defense
subsidized by the United States is hardly an
As for Finland:
FICORA actively intervenes in competition problems detected on the broadband
and telephone markets, which enables new and innovative service providers to
enter the markets. For consumers, this means versatile, high-quality and
affordable telephone and broadband services.
It is impressive how you are ready to find any excuse to dismiss facts and
save your ideology.
"Faced with this ideological dilemma, free-market advocates resolve the
cognitive dissonance by rejecting the reality rather than acknowledging that
their axiom is fundamentally flawed."
Immigration is a federal issue. One of the few things FedGov was explicitly
tasked to do in the Constitution, unlike 99% of the other junk they do.
Also, the only repercussion from the Feds is ending of funding for
local/state police, which is fine by me as I'd like to see the Feds get out
That doesn't really mean much if the majority of the population is huddled in
a few cities and not spread out evenly throughout the country.
But Republicans are okay with states preventing municipalities from providing
municipal broadband. This is similar to when Texas banned cities from banning
fracking and Michigan banned plastic bag bans. Another example of this is
when Sean Spicer criticized Dan Malloy for not enforcing
Emphasis on colluding to remove competition.
You can bypass surveillance to an extent but you can't choose from
monopolies.
The real bogey men of internet spying are Google, Facebook and FedGov, not
the ISP's. The ISP's really couldn't care less about your traffic usage,
except when FedGov makes them go after DMCA violations, etc.
Furthermore, ISP's are easy to beat with VPN and Tor. It's the services that
you
I know it's huge. That's why I cut these companies some slack if or when they
agree "you go here and we'll go there and cover more people instead of
competing over the same small scraps."
A lot of people like to point to Europe or Japan or something, but an example
of how much easier it is
"...mega-corps are in bed with the government and spy on us and collude to
remove market competition."
It's exactly why they want net neutrality to be scrapped.
Then what's stopping a third company from coming in and competing? Or what's
to stop neighborhood or community co-ops from owning the last mile?
I understand the frustration here. I live in the middle of nowhere and I only
have one provider as an option. And it's slow-ass DSL. I would love
this is not a surprise to me.
Again, that's not the market. That's government-enforced monopolies. But I
agree it's a problem. Hopefully some day a completely distributed internet
will exist and pay-for ISP's as we now know them will become a thing of the
past.
If a municipality wants to provide "community broadband" I would not want
FedGov to prevent that, nor do I think any other non-RINO Republican would.
So, you're right. Republicans (non-RINO's) are for states' rights.
The repeal of this legislation does not do anything to prevent local
I agree with half of what you said, in as much as the mega-corps are in bed
with the government and spy on us and collude to remove market competition.
But having FedGov step in and tell ISP's what they can and cannot do with
their own hardware, equipment and capital is ridiculous.
Guess
I thought the right wing was all for local/state rights and should be fine
with local governments providing broadband. But guess what, it turns out that
Republicans are for states' rights only when the Democrats are in control. ;)
Good question.
Here is a very good article on net neutrality:
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam
tl;dr The internet is amazing and keeps getting better. But under the guise
of a bogey man that doesn't exist, the feds usurped power, and given enough
time, will micromanage it to
If I may ask, is there anything in particular you find undesirable about net
neutrality or communal broadband networks?
I side with EFF on a lot of things, but so-called "Net Neutrality" and
government run so-called "community broadband" I cannot get behind at all,
period.
Leftists may see that Vice article as a slam against Blackburn. It read like
a glowing endorsement to me.
I will trust the EFF over Breitbart any day. Marsha Blackburn is bought by
the telecom industry.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/meet-marsha-blackburn-big-telecoms-best-friend-in-congress
It may be a bit less straightforward than the EFF would lead us to believe.
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/28/rep-marsha-blackburn-fcc-rule-change-vote-eliminates-obama-admin-internet-tax-regulatory-power-grab/
That being said, relying on your ISP to protect your privacy isn't wise,
The house voted for the bill: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll200.xml. It
will soon become law after Trump signs it.
One of my senators in Florida a D voted no, the other senator from Florida an
R voted yes
All of the Democrats (and independents that caucus with them) voted against
it, and all but 2 Republicans voted for it (the other 2 did not vote). Also,
Rand Paul (the "libertarian") wants to have it both ways -- he cosponsored
the bill but then missed the vote so that he can say he didn't
I agree wholeheartedly. sandboxing tor browser though I think is the way to
go...
hint* firejail hint*
I never trusted my ISP. I always assumed they did this. I would.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN
https://www.torproject.org/
It is not legitimate that ISPs can sell the users' private info and details
to advertisers when we are already paying money for their service. This is
totally insane. Customers should understand the seriousness of this issue and
raise their voice to stop such misusing. Hope everyone will
According to EFF, "The Senate just voted to roll back your online privacy
protections":
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/senate-puts-isp-profits-over-your-privacy
Arstechnica also wrote about this: "The US Senate today voted to eliminate
broadband privacy rules that would have required
41 matches
Mail list logo
