President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

"Declare War", a Constitutional Term and Specific meaning, does not mean Wage War.

The '90 Day Congressional Authority' is about Waging War, not Declaring War. Which is an entirely another level, concerning 'Treaty's and Obligations'.

The USA's last Declared War, Constitutionally Declared by Congress, was WWII.

Since YOU have READ the Act about NET NEUTRALITY, which points, specifically, are you against?

Aw, c'mon, broh! You've had more than 4 hours to answer. Why don't you answer questions asked directly of you?
[That's FOUR (4) good comebacks! ;)]

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

"Declare War", a Constitutional Term and Specific meaning, does not mean Wage War.

The '90 Day Congressional Authority' is about Waging War, not Declaring War. Which is an entirely another level, concerning 'Treaty's and Obligations'.

The USA's last Declared War, Constitutionally Declared by Congress, was WWII.

Since YOU have READ the Act about NET NEUTRALITY, which points, specifically, are you against?

Aw, c'mon, broh! You've had more than 4 hours to answer. Why don't you answer questions asked directly of you?
[That's FOUR (4) good comebacks! ;)]

Sarge...

Get a life. This maybe important to you. Not me. Have more important things to do.

Just came home, and now going out, under swaying palm trees, to have a bite to eat. With the most beautiful woman in the world.

Just sit by your computer, and await my reply tomorrow morning.

:) :) :)

But! But?!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

But! But?!

Can't stir the pot if he answers - only if he asks!

---

Poor Clyde, operating under a delusion that this is some sort of new power being given. The power already exists. The proposal just changes who the regulator of the power is.

Depending on where you are located last week, the power to control was vested in your landlord, homeowners association, neighborhood council, city government, county government, and/or state government, under their general controls of property easements. Also part of the control was vested in a private company.

Now all of what you say about political parties fully applies to any and all of the above entities as well. Think long and hard about that. While you are considering that, think back to when Ma Bell was Ma Bell and was your only choice.

So Clyde, which money and power grubbing entity do you want in control?

---

Dr. HOHUM Likes 'Power' where Sun Don't Shine. Therefore, Grease 'is' Applied, and Now I Need to be 'Pushed Over', fO Maximum Benefit of 'Application' of This 'New' 'Power'.

Hoping 'Details' of This 'Power' ROCKS Me Down to The Core, with 'it's' Cool Lava Rockin' Beat Beat. HOHUM wif da POWERful DRum DRum.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

But! But?!

Can't stir the pot if he answers - only if he asks!

I think he's saying he hasn't read it.
Though I enjoy italics.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

But! But?!

Can't stir the pot if he answers - only if he asks!

Hi Gary...

One good thing about your Reply's:

The Reply, signifying nothing, is short. Unlike other's.

Remember this axiom: When ones Ideas are Bankrupt. Get personal, and silly.

Now let's see if you can/will respond to my forthcoming answer to Sarge, with an Intelligent and Thoughtful Disagreement.

I have faith you can.

Remember this axiom?
Why post something too long to read when you can post hundreds of short replies? I have faith you do remember and apply, as well as distort the meanings of short and long.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Didn't take long for the lawyers .....
Heard a new commercial for an internet provider that has a condition: the ISP reserves the right to throttle bandwidth.

---

Agreed. And I'm reading all around the Internet that "we won", yet Title II was only a small step in the right direction. There are many issues that Title II does not cover, or does not define clearly enough such as "reasonable network management".

Other than giving content providers like Netflix a place to file a grievance, Title II will change nothing with the Internet as it currently is. ISPs are still free to use data caps, be dishonest about network congestion, and can still misroute data packets to give the appearance of high latency while claiming it is part of "reasonable network management".

Working its way across the pond?

EU plans attacked

Okay, what don't you like?
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

---

How's Dat Content Cost Control workin' fO ya?

Net Neutrality leads to Net Neutering and TV Neutering.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The Internet is not a Power Company, nor the 'Old' AT&T.

Most people feel that in today's society, and the future society, the internet is a very important place, like electricity or telephone before it.

In that regard, the internet is the power company and the old AT&T.

Let's start over again. Make the process and proposals transparent. Debate it over years. Then, if necessary, implement new regulations.

Why should this proposal be any different than any prior FCC proposal? Again, there was already years of debate. Sorry you missed it, but you do need to stop making the false claim that it wasn't.

In the 400 pages, he isn't saying on page xxx, paragraph y, line z, I disagree, therefore he must agree with everything.

Correct?

---

Gary he says nothing and only asks mindless questions

---

The Internet is not a Power Company, nor the 'Old' AT&T.

Most people feel that in today's society, and the future society, the internet is a very important place, like electricity or telephone before it.

In that regard, the internet is the power company and the old AT&T.

Let's start over again. Make the process and proposals transparent. Debate it over years. Then, if necessary, implement new regulations.

Why should this proposal be any different than any prior FCC proposal? Again, there was already years of debate. Sorry you missed it, but you do need to stop making the false claim that it wasn't.

Old thinking.

The Internet is NEW. Never happened before.

Needs NEW Idea's.

The internet exists in the same capitalistic marketplace as those previous important infrastructures did. While the internet may be new (at least in a relative sense... it has its roots dating back to the early 60's), it doesn't need new laws to protect it from corporate greed.

Why should this proposal be any different than any prior FCC proposal? Again, there was already years of debate. Sorry you missed it, but you do need to stop making the false claim that it wasn't.

Old thinking.

The Internet is NEW. Never happened before.

Needs NEW Idea's.

The internet exists in the same capitalistic marketplace as those previous important infrastructures did. While the internet may be new (at least in a relative sense... it has its roots dating back to the early 60's), it doesn't need new laws to protect it from corporate greed.

Agree about Corporate Greed. I am an Anti-Capitalist (just disagree about the solutions).

The Internet ALSO incorporates Individual Free Speech, Individual Right of Association, Free Press, etc.

THAT IS NEW. And means Newer Thinking and Necessary Regulations.

Be very, very, very, cautious when 'Tinkering' with Individual, and Society's Rights.

Can you point out anything in the proposal, specifically, that targets individual thinking and society's rights?

There are little SPECIFICS. Just General Power to Regulate.

So you believe in Free Market Capitalism without regulation or self-regulation? Or do you only object to government regulation? If government regulation, why then suggest we need new laws since they would still come from government?

We then disagree about your Acceptance of Power.

What do you know about my acceptance of power?

I believe ALL power should be feared, and therefore limited. You don't (unless YOU control the power, of course).

How do you know what I believe from this one discussion? It's these kinds of comments that turn the person you're speaking with against you, and it rolls downhill from there.

You think that because I am for this regulation, that I somehow accept all power given to the government? Really? Why do you continue to lump me into groups without really knowing what my views are on several topics?

You should try addressing the individual, and realizing we are all individuals with our own views, instead of painting us with a broad brush and calling us "unthinking liberals".

Are you really for ALL the Provisions? Really?

I'm still in the process of reading them.

Don't you understand that ONLY One Line my give Regulators (AKA: The King), Power over Your Freedoms..

Why take that Real possibly.

So this goes back to fear of government power. I understand this concept well... because even though you haven't bothered to get to know me or my views, and continue to make broad, sweeping generalizations about me and my views, I greatly dislike our Federal Government, and I do not like giving our government more authority.

HOWEVER.. given the two evils between corporate greed and government regulation, I'll take the latter in this specific case.

Let's have a transparent discussion, over a long period of time, regarding this New Thing. Why not?

Ohferchrissakes! We already have! Why do you keep pushing this as if no prior discussion has happened?

You may Bow to Three (3) persons voting. I don't.

And there you go with your snide remarks. I have made none against you in my last few replies, and yet you accuse me of bowing to the three Democratic representatives on the FCC simply because I am for this regulation. What is the purpose of stating this if not to inflame?

Do you see know why you should adjust your approach in how you discuss things with people?

By the way, I notice you didn't provide any support for your claim when I asked you: Can you point out anything in the proposal, specifically, that targets individual thinking and society's rights?

Instead your entire reply was to turn everything around onto me by suggesting that I bow to three people on the FCC and that I accept power so long as I control it. Nothing in your reply actually addressed the question posed to you, in an effort to have you support your claim that this regulation limits individuals or society's freedoms or liberties - and therefor did nothing to progress the discussion other than downhill with lateral attacks against my character.

You do this all the time to everyone on the forums. It is why people respond to you the way they do. When brought up, you can only point fingers at everyone else rather than accept responsibility for your own actions.

For a rather interesting insightful view of the USA internet politics:


This isn't Net Neutrality. This is ... the FCC's new masters

... What is striking about the FCC's rules on net neutrality, released today and likely determining how the United States does internet access for the next decade, is how radical they are.

Radical is something that federal agencies rarely achieve because radical in the context of the large machinery of government is often a sign that a particular group has been given too much unchecked power.

Critics of the new net neutrality rules will certainly be making that argument: that the rules represent unchecked government power grabbing; bureaucrats imposing themselves on the free market.

Meanwhile, on the other side are those who can't quite believe that their petitions and the four million public comments have turned the course of a government regulator, especially when set against the might of Washington DC's big beasts: the cable companies. It is a rare victory for the little man.

But the reality is neither of these are true. What the net neutrality rules really demonstrate – and a little sooner that we are all comfortable with – is that a new status quo is emerging. And that status quo is Google, Netflix, Facebook et al.

There's been no Damascene conversion; the FCC hasn't suddenly discovered it must fight for the people's rights: it's simply realized that it's time to serve new masters.

And as excited as some of us all are that Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner have been given a bloody nose after years of price gouging and focusing on profits over customer service, the fact is that the new rules are simply paving the way for the next generation of companies who will bend the market and government to their profit-making will...


All a game of the shift of power and the subsequent shift of money, all in the American way...?


IT is what we allow it to be...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)