Mmm, evidently I must retract the Fox News statement. Just tried to refresh my memory about it, and it turns out the case was not what I (or I'm guessing many people) thought it was. The rest of my comment stands though.
What?!? Please show me where lying is defined in the Constitution and its Amendments as a non-protected classification of speech. Your statement is a classic example of what Ken is talking about! There are tons of lies you can tell that are perfectly protected speech! Fox News even won a court case stating that the "news" they broadcast did not have an obligation to be true!
Well, if you unshackle donations/cash/bribes from speech, you change the whole dynamic of the argument. In that case, I probably couldn't care less. It is the ability to buy elections using the argument that giving donations to candidates is protected by corporations' First Amendment rights that is truly at issue.
Why yes, I have, thanks for asking. Right now I'm studying the human condition. In particular, I'm studying a hypocrite who knows that large groups of people formed solely for the purposes of obtaining large amounts of money should not be granted the same rights as those already granted to individual humans in our society, and yet this hypocrite argues that it makes sense and is true and just because a bunch of rich people paid a bunch of slightly less rich people to say it is so.
No. That is some of the stupidest drivel I've ever read. The INDIVIDUALS who make up corporations have First Amendment rights. Giving corporations the same rights effectively gives the CEO/President/Whatever of the corporation the clout and speaking power of the voices of all its employees, many of whom will not agree with all of the CEO/President/Whatever's speech or stances. How in the hell do you justify that? Because he owns the company, he speaks with the company's voice?
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for living, breathing people. They never even dreamt of the concept of allowing an amoral money making entity have an equal say in our country's politics.
Lariat's argument might hold a little water, except that Netflix is not "pushing" content to its subscribers, it is only supplying requested content. Therefore, it is untrue to say that Netflix is eating up all the bandwidth; it is Lariat's customers who are eating up all the bandwidth, which is ok, since that is what they pay to do.
Also, the FCC's new rules don't even apply to wireless carriers, so hopefully Lariat isn't one of the sheep bleeting about how the new rules will hurt them.
Mmm... did you read the article? I agree, the sensationalist title is, well, sensational and overdramatic, but the reporting itself seems pretty much spot on. What portions did you have exception with?
I know this was intended as a humorous comment (and I gave you a "funny" vote), but still I had a moment of cognitive dissonance as I realized that is exactly the feeling I get from almost all of our legislators lately.
"Most of all I feel enormously privileged to have been born in 1943 and not 1983, to have been around when there was a music business and the takeover of Silicon Valley hadn't happened and, in consequence, you could still make a living writing and recording songs and playing them to people,” the bass guitarist and singer said.
Too bad he wasn't born back in the good old days, when he would have been a wandering minstrel and would get paid every time he played... and only when he played... by people tossing coins at him *while* he played.
It amazes me how entitled "artists" are now. I wish they would take a couple of history classes so they would know how incredibly lucky they are to be living and working in this day and age.
Was going to say the same: internet services will need to block all access to/from France. Microsoft, Google, Twitter, etc. should put out an immediate press-release to that effect, and let the backlash do its work.
"It would increase the amount of power in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats that don't have terms at all."
I don't see how that follows. There would be no overall reduction in the amount of power that Congress wields, just a shorter duration for any particular person to wield it. Less time worrying about re-election campaigns. Less time redrawing district maps. In general, less time to get up to the shenanigans that has essentially broken our method of government.
I have to disagree: first, there wouldn't be any more congress critters, the way you and I mean it. No more professional politicians. Just people that come in, do a job for a short while, and then go back to their own job. I also think it would reduce the effect of lobbying, in that the good ol' boys network would not have enough time to grow strong.
I have a simpler idea: congressional term limits. Three terms, lifetime total, per person. That is, John Doe can only ever have up to three combined (not necessarily back to back) terms in the Senate and House of Representatives. This one simple change would eliminate vast swaths of corruption and hypocrisy. And please, no one spout that crap about not having enough time to "learn the job", you see what happens when they have enough time to learn the job... they never leave! This is not what our founding fathers intended. In fact, serving in Congress was supposed to be an obligation similar to jury duty, not seen as a benefit or plus in any way.