Obama, internet nanny

[RandomGuy]

Yeah he's still pushing for internet regulation....


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/11/obama-the-internet-nanny/

This goes deeper than not being able to download your bootleg music,


Discuss.


Dunno, IMO the way everything has been going, it seems really strategic, note how something of this magnitude is downplayed in the media....

Shit is going to hit the fan, I have a feeling we are going to invade my home country, Pakistan, with all of these jackals ("terrorists") the gov't has positioned to stir shit up.

Checks and balances are increasingly being pwnd more than ever...

[§treet_§peed]

Fuck Obama. There will ALWAYS be ways around things on the interwebz.

[oneSLOWex]

WTF. Are there not worse things that they should be worried about beside looking over someones shoulders?

[§treet_§peed]

Not when it comes to the United States of America government.

[BanginJimmy]

Obama's appointee's have been doing this type of shit since he got into office. The EPA is planning on imposing cap and trade without congress if congress doesnt pass it first.

[e30pwr]

fuck that.

[loverboy_gnd]

wait dont we have people dying on the streets daily, people starving, living under bridges, dudes putting bombs in vans....... does he really have nothing better to do than to "change" the internet.

[jesus bonill]

sorry to say it, BUT OBAMA SUCKS BALLS.....he fucking up big time, out of all the shit going thats more important...he wants to monitor the interwebz, instead of taking care of the terrorism, immigration reforms, etc???........like, C'mon dude, pass the damm immigration bill already.....many hispanics are or were looking up to him...me being one of them..

[Elbow]

Obama FTMFW.

[bu villain]

Wow, I know that was an editorial but that was incredibly biased and misleading. The government isn't trying to regulate the internet, they are trying to stop the ISPs from regulating it (e.g. throttling torrent traffic). Personally I don't want any company effectively telling me what information I can access. I'm afraid many of you are being mislead by this opinion piece.

[Total_Blender]

[quote=bu villian
I'm afraid many of you are being mislead by this opinion piece.[/quote]

I think thats what most who have posted in this thread are not getting, is that that article is an opinion piece. The author doesn't make it clear exactly what's being proposed or who in the administration is proposing it. Some people on this site love to hop on the "lets hate on Obama bandwagon," and fail to actually read the fine print on the issues at hand.

From what I have been reading the Obama administration is actually for net neutrality, which means that ISP's cannot control what content their customers post or access. Many republicans/conservatives/teabaggers, particularly Mayor McCheese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain), believe that ISP's should be able to censor or regulate the content that you receive (ie only letting you access Fox News or Free Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit) and not letting you access the AP or HuffPost). They also believe that ISP's should be able to tier bandwidth, so they can restrict your speed for accessing certain types of content.

The whole imbroglio in the "opinion piece" in the original post is over Comcast restricting bandwidth to subscribers who were using peer-to-peer filesharing or Torrent applications. The FCC, acting independently from Obama as they are a separate agency, sued Comcast for restricting bandwidth to those customers. So the FCC and the Obama administration are actually fighting for your rights to unrestricted bandwidth on peer-to-peer sites (which you all are presumably using to illegally download). :boobies:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/05/republican_lawmakers_tell_pres.html

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/06/technology/net_neutrality_fcc_comcast/

[sti_cham]

Fuck Obama, Ive heard about this before and this is just another way the government will control every aspect of our lives.
i heard the internet will eventually be like buying dish or direct tv, it will be a package of internet site with the more popular site such as facebook.com, myspace.com, cnn.com, yahoo.com, etc.
therefore most people will only have access to these mainstream site and while other smaller sites will die out.

[Me86Rob]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2rf4sk8.jpg

[90_ACCORD]

see for everyone who thought "oh hell yeah a black president. he will solve all our problems with his "change"" all he is doing is fucking us over. i wish 2012 would get here so we can get his ass out of the white house.

the only reason the world is going to end in 2012 is because of Obama.

by 2012 he is probably gonna have all our troops out of afghanistan and our asses our gonna be blown to hell once pakistan losses there nukes.

[SKarpenz]

Glad to see people finally hopping off the bandwagon.

[burnout1990]

But I thought everyone wanted change and yes we can.......Don't like the changes being made or proposed shoulda looked into his ass a little earlier before getting on the bandwagon....

[Total_Blender]

Fuck Obama, Ive heard about this before and this is just another way the government will control every aspect of our lives.
i heard the internet will eventually be like buying dish or direct tv, it will be a package of internet site with the more popular site such as facebook.com, myspace.com, cnn.com, yahoo.com, etc.
therefore most people will only have access to these mainstream site and while other smaller sites will die out.

I hate to bust your bubble there guy, but that is the type of thing Obama and the FCC are fighting AGAINST. Its the Rupert Murdock types who want to allow the ISP's to control your access to content.

I saw your post about the NWO is the thread in politics so I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you are getting your info from some sort of crappy source like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones, and they have framed this situation completely backwards from what is actually going on. People who were fans of that MadInfoWarsNWOconspiracyTyte crap should try reading their local newspaper and maybe even try reading a book or two.... Jeezus :lmfao:.

[Capt._Ron]

I hate to bust your bubble there guy, but that is the type of thing Obama and the FCC are fighting AGAINST. Its the Rupert Murdock types who want to allow the ISP's to control your access to content.

I saw your post about the NWO is the thread in politics so I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you are getting your info from some sort of crappy source like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones, and they have framed this situation completely backwards from what is actually going on. People who were fans of that MadInfoWarsNWOconspiracyTyte crap should try reading their local newspaper and maybe even try reading a book or two.... Jeezus :lmfao:.

Blender,

Whatever the administration's resoning for increased regulation (be it sincere or not), the point is that it is still INCREASED GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Bigger government, increased spending, and more power to the executive branch is the real issue. Obama consistenly oversteps the boundries of the executive branch in an attempt to give himself more power and to put more of his people in place.

In regards to the conservative spin and an increased conservative presence in the media (Beck, Fox, Drudge, etc.)....ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! Liberals have been doing this for YEARS!! Now they are scared to death and in attack mode because an oposing point of view now has an equally powerful media outlet. No hard feelings left-wingers....dont' be afraid to take a little of your own medicine.

[Total_Blender]

So you would be happy having restricted access to certain internet content just based on the whims of your ISP? Suppose your ISP decides you shouldn't be able to access your conspiracy crap sites like InfoWars or WND? Its not like you have much to choose from in a competetive market when it comes to ISP's, you are pretty much limited to whatever DSL your phone company provides or the broadband your cable company provides. Since phone and cable companies are based on the franchise system there is no competition.

I really think of internet access as more of a utility than anything.

[Capt._Ron]

Please elaborate on this "franchise system" and how it eliminates all aspects of competition. I would think that if an ISP censored too much material they would lose business. You know people will deal with a lot of BS but they won't go without their porn. What prevents big brother government from limiting access??? At least there are multiple ISP's. With the government regulating the internet you have no choice. They could basically limit access to anything they deemed "unsafe". I'll take my chances with ISP's who make choices based on the bottom line.

I have no clue what "InfoWars or WND" is but it's probably no worse than your socialist bullshit.

[blaknoize]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2rf4sk8.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_03/rafaandalex_468x467.jpg

[blaknoize]

But I thought everyone wanted change and yes we can.......Don't like the changes being made or proposed shoulda looked into his ass a little earlier before getting on the bandwagon....

This has to be the single most relevant and simple reply to anything going on in our country today.

Obama was elected for "Change" he is "Changing" things, now everyone is upset at the "Change" thats in progress, although very little change is actually up and functional. Wow, if I was in GA, I'd give u a high 5 and a girl to plow if u so desired so u can "change" her perspective on white boys (if u are one :ninja: )

[The Ninja]

Woah....check the internet regulation bill McCain is pushing through congress.

Imagine paying more to access a "tiered" internet.

ie. +$15 for access to social networking sites (twitter, facebook, myspace, etc) +$5 for news syndicate websites, +$10 for "entertainment value" websites....lol @ those of you who haven't kept up with net neutrality. ~10 yrs from now the internet will not exist as we know it.

[The Ninja]

Don't forget the president is just a social figurehead provided to sympathize with the masses while the true dealings are handled by the billion dollar companies whos negotiations with governments leadto/determine civil wars and wars among other nations.

[The Ninja]

America: We have to have the biggest stick. No...no you can't have a stick. Not even a twig. What? You want what for your people? No. Get out of your country? Lulz, don't be stupid. How else would we impose our will if we didn't occupy you.

[Total_Blender]

Please elaborate on this "franchise system" and how it eliminates all aspects of competition. I would think that if an ISP censored too much material they would lose business. You know people will deal with a lot of BS but they won't go without their porn. What prevents big brother government from limiting access??? At least there are multiple ISP's. With the government regulating the internet you have no choice. They could basically limit access to anything they deemed "unsafe". I'll take my chances with ISP's who make choices based on the bottom line.

I have no clue what "InfoWars or WND" is but it's probably no worse than your socialist bullshit.

Its obvious you have no idea how cable and phone companies operate so let me explain it to you. A cable company makes a contract with the county/city government to provide cable service for X number of years. No other cable provider is allowed to operate in this area until the contract expires. This is called a "franchise".

The cable system works on a franchise because the gear to run cable to each home is hellaciously expensive. Since the cable provider puts up the cash to set up and maintain the cable system they want to protect their investment from competition. Likewise, the cities don't want scads of cables and gear all over the place so it benefits them to have a single provider.

The phone lines work pretty much the same way. A landline phone company (Bellsouth, AT&T, Verizon Landline, etc) is granted a monopoly to operate in a certain area.

The system works the same way for utilities. If you don't like your service with GA Power, you can't just up and switch to Greystone. GA Power owns the grid that supplies power to your home. If you don't like them becuse they aren't giving you the service you want... tough shit you're stuck with them.

So as a consumer you are limited to one cable provider and one phone provider. There are other options like satellite ISP (Hughesnet, etc), but its in its early stages and the technology just isn't there yet. You are limited in your choices of ISP's. As far as ISP's losing business because of them censoring too much material... when they've got the market cornered with a monopoly people really don't have much of a choice but to buy their product or do without.

As far as InfoWars or WND the less you know about those shithole sites the better.:goodjob:

[burnout1990]

This has to be the single most relevant and simple reply to anything going on in our country today.

Obama was elected for "Change" he is "Changing" things, now everyone is upset at the "Change" thats in progress, although very little change is actually up and functional. Wow, if I was in GA, I'd give u a high 5 and a girl to plow if u so desired so u can "change" her perspective on white boys (if u are one :ninja: )
All I could do is LOL....Yes I'M a white boy....ready to make my own "change" LMAO....

[Total_Blender]

All I could do is LOL....Yes I'M a white boy....ready to make my own "change" LMAO....

Its hilarious to hear the "lets hate Obama" bandwagon try to talk tough. If you want to take up arms against the gov't, be my guest. Just know that it didn't work out too well for the last group that tried it.

http://img.imaginecasting.com/blog/waco.jpg

[Capt._Ron]

Its obvious you have no idea how cable and phone companies operate so let me explain it to you. A cable company makes a contract with the county/city government to provide cable service for X number of years. No other cable provider is allowed to operate in this area until the contract expires. This is called a "franchise".

The cable system works on a franchise because the gear to run cable to each home is hellaciously expensive. Since the cable provider puts up the cash to set up and maintain the cable system they want to protect their investment from competition. Likewise, the cities don't want scads of cables and gear all over the place so it benefits them to have a single provider.

The phone lines work pretty much the same way. A landline phone company (Bellsouth, AT&T, Verizon Landline, etc) is granted a monopoly to operate in a certain area.

The system works the same way for utilities. If you don't like your service with GA Power, you can't just up and switch to Greystone. GA Power owns the grid that supplies power to your home. If you don't like them becuse they aren't giving you the service you want... tough shit you're stuck with them.

So as a consumer you are limited to one cable provider and one phone provider. There are other options like satellite ISP (Hughesnet, etc), but its in its early stages and the technology just isn't there yet. You are limited in your choices of ISP's. As far as ISP's losing business because of them censoring too much material... when they've got the market cornered with a monopoly people really don't have much of a choice but to buy their product or do without.

As far as InfoWars or WND the less you know about those shithole sites the better.:goodjob:

Ok, good deal....I knew how cable worked but I didn't know that the contract with a municipality was considered a franchise. Thank you for the explanation. That being said, I think internet is a different story than cable. First of all you touched on satellite internet as an alternative, but there is also all of the phone companies (T-mobile, sprint, verizon, att) who don't need a contract with a city to provide internet and only need pockets of land (for towers and the like) for their infrastructure. Cable is not the future of internet and I think the competition is there for internet service. The government stepping in will only muddle and decrease that competitiion.

As far as taking up arms again the government....no need...2012 will be here soon enough. I don't think anyone can make the case that Obama has done a "good job" as president and that will show in the next election. What he has done is give a voice the conservatives who would normally be sitting at home while the "young liberals" protested, and this is a good thing.

[Total_Blender]

The internet, the infrastructure that supports it, and the protocols that allow it to function were developed by the government (see also: DARPAnet). It was only after the gov't made DARPANET accessible to the public and made the protocols open-source and non-proprietary that the internet as we know it was created. Had those protocols been developed in the private system and been made proprietary to one or two companies, the internet wouldn't have grown by such leaps and bound nor would it have been accessible to so many so soon. To say nothing of the lassiez faire "wild west" nature of it. It is only through the "socialism" of keeping the internet open domain that this is possible.

[bu villain]

The government stepping in will only muddle and decrease that competitiion.

I think you are still confused about what is being proposed. The only issue is whether your ISP can treat some internet traffic differently than others. No one is proposing that the government be given the power to censor any part of the internet. That has never been part of the discussion. I know the words "government" and "regulation" can instantly scare some people but this is one of those times where regulation really is a good thing!

[Capt._Ron]

I think you are still confused about what is being proposed. The only issue is whether your ISP can treat some internet traffic differently than others. No one is proposing that the government be given the power to censor any part of the internet. That has never been part of the discussion. I know the words "government" and "regulation" can instantly scare some people but this is one of those times where regulation really is a good thing!

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.

I fully understand that this topic was brough up because a Large ISP was regulating the amount of bandwidth to certain applications. I wouldn't want this to happen to me but fortunately I have several options for internet service and if one doesn't provide the service I want I will go to another. My issue lies is that rarely does the government de-regulate anything (thank goodness they did for radio). The FCC may begin its regulation with the best intentions but the govenment is not in the habit of gaining power and then giving it back. I think this will end up being a way for the government to wring more money out of the ISP's.

[Total_Blender]

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.
. .

I don't think the FCC are nearly as bad as you claim they are... if they were on top of their shit Glenn Beck and others of his ilk would have taken a permanent vacation from the airwaves some time ago. Granted I have my own grievances with the FCC but when these far right wingnuts are able to broadcast seditious rhetoric daily without the slightest fear of reprimand you can't really argue that they are heavy handed toward either side when it comes to regulation.

What do you think will happen to discussion of political topics when the internet is only open to those who pony up the extra $$$ for unrestricted access? Isn't the so called "tea party/Ron Paul Revolution/9-12 project Glenn Beck Tyte Yo/John Birch Society" movement supposed to be about grassroots and the power of the internet to organize? Remember that the ISP's will be working out deals with the so called "liberal media" that will effect what sites you can access.

I really don't understand why conservatives are against Net Neutrality... they always baselessly claim to be disenfranchised by the media and then when the people of America really are about to get disenfranchised, they are all in favor of it.:screwy:

[BanginJimmy]

I don't think the FCC are nearly as bad as you claim they are... if they were on top of their shit Glenn Beck and others of his ilk would have taken a permanent vacation from the airwaves some time ago. Granted I have my own grievances with the FCC but when these far right wingnuts are able to broadcast seditious rhetoric daily without the slightest fear of reprimand you can't really argue that they are heavy handed toward either side when it comes to regulation.

Do you feel the same about the left wing wackos out there on the radio too? How about MSNBC, should they be held accountable for their record during the Bush administration? Should the 'Fairness Doctrine' also be used when conservatives are in power? Use the oppressive power of govt to completely stamp out and kind of liberal speech? That is all that the 'Fairness Doctrine' is about, eliminating any type of opposition to a liberal agenda. Stamp out any semblance of truth in the quest to socialize this country?


You really are so far out in left field Mao couldnt even find you.

[Total_Blender]

The second part of my previous argument supports Net Neutrality from a conservative perspective and all you got after that is calling me a lefty. I know I'm a lefty, so fucking what??

Let me rephrase that first argument into bite size pieces for you.

I think Glenn "crocodile tears" Beck, Rush "Hillbilly Heroin" Limbaugh, and Alex "why so conspirious?" Jones and all the rest of the right wing nut jobs should be able to broadcast their seditious schpiel, its their first amendment right. However, if the FCC were as heavy handed with their regulations, and as liberally biased as most conservatives claim, then they would be after those hosts. But they're not. Conservatives can't argue that they don't have any voice in the media when they have a 24 hour cable network and pretty much all of talk radio devoted to their agenda.

But thats an aside. I really don't see anyone lamenting over the by-gone days of the Fairness Doctrine. Even of there were people who want to bring it back it'd be conservatives who feel they are under-represented in the "liberal media".

[Total_Blender]

The real reason Glenn Beck is against net neutrality is because the W.I.P.O (World Internet Protocol Organization) ruled against his complaint to have the following domain name revoked:

GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com

The W.I.P.O found in favor of the admin of that site and allowed them to keep it.

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/glenn-becks-wipo-complaint1.pdf

The domain registrar did take their domain offline during the legal proceedings, and once the admins got their domain back they actually gave it to Beck (they didn't have to, they just did it as a good faith gesture).

The "truth in 1990" website can now be found at:

http://www.gb1990.com/




That's what differentiates us from Beck. We're TELLING you up front that the rumour is a lie; that the rumour is horrible; that it got you to visit this site and listen to what we have to say. But we're also TELLING you that the rumour itself is false, over the top, and stupid. We have nothing against Glenn Beck, the man. We do object to certain tactics we believe he uses, sure. And this is how we are protesting - using those tactics to point out examples of his use thereof.

"But," you say, "Glenn Beck is good for America! He's pointing out the truth! You libs just hate him!" First of all, this isn't about liberals and convervatives; Republicans and Democrats. This is about Glenn Beck, whom we believe is one of many who are tearing this nation apart. This is about patriotism and love-for-country - the kind that Beck and his ilk claim to have, we believe for the sake of ratings and money.

[Capt._Ron]

The real reason Glenn Beck is against net neutrality is because the W.I.P.O (World Internet Protocol Organization) ruled against his complaint to have the following domain name revoked:

GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com

The W.I.P.O found in favor of the admin of that site and allowed them to keep it.

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/glenn-becks-wipo-complaint1.pdf

The domain registrar did take their domain offline during the legal proceedings, and once the admins got their domain back they actually gave it to Beck (they didn't have to, they just did it as a good faith gesture).

The "truth in 1990" website can now be found at:

http://www.gb1990.com/

Who wouldn't attempt to get that domain name revoked!??!! To be such a "right wing nut job" Beck sure does have a lot of viewers, readers, etc. You mean to tell me that millions of Americans are "nut jobs" and all suffering from the exact same condition?? . BTW the left wingers have had MULTIPLE 24 hour cable news channels devoted to their agenda for a while now. It just so happens that many more Americans tend to agree with and watch Fox.

[Total_Blender]

The admins of that site have had a hotline for Mr. beck to call and deny the allegations for months now. He has yet to call. Instead, like the douchebag he is he sent his lawyers after them. Like he has something to hide... his guilt, maybe??

[Capt._Ron]

The admins of that site have had a hotline for Mr. beck to call and deny the allegations for months now. He has yet to call. Instead, like the douchebag he is he sent his lawyers after them. Like he has something to hide... his guilt, maybe??

Come on now Blender LOL. You have been making well-researched, well written post (not saying mine are) till this one. I could say the same for the whole "Birther" movement. Like the douchebag Obama is, Obama won't just post his birth certificate. Like he has something to hide.....his lack of U.S. citizenship, maybe?? (disclaimer: I'm not a birther Obama is probably a citizen and even if he isn't the American people are responsible for electing him, regardless)

[bu villain]

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.

I fully understand that this topic was brough up because a Large ISP was regulating the amount of bandwidth to certain applications. I wouldn't want this to happen to me but fortunately I have several options for internet service and if one doesn't provide the service I want I will go to another. My issue lies is that rarely does the government de-regulate anything (thank goodness they did for radio). The FCC may begin its regulation with the best intentions but the govenment is not in the habit of gaining power and then giving it back. I think this will end up being a way for the government to wring more money out of the ISP's.

I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.

[Capt._Ron]

I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.

That would be nice...a FCC the enforces neutrality without controlling content or a true competitive markey with many options for every consumer.

I think the debate comes down to a few major questions

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?

[Total_Blender]

Come on now Blender LOL. You have been making well-researched, well written post (not saying mine are) till this one. I could say the same for the whole "Birther" movement. Like the douchebag Obama is, Obama won't just post his birth certificate. Like he has something to hide.....his lack of U.S. citizenship, maybe?? )

He did post his birth certificate. And Hawai'i verified that his birth certificate was genuine. And the Supreme Court has ruled supporting his citizenship... several times.

The controversy has gotten to the point that if you make a request for info on Obama's birth certificate to the state of Hawai'i, they will just ignore you, hang up on you, etc.

Aloha, bitches!!11!1! (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/13/2010-05-13_aloha_birthers_hawaii_law_lets_state_ignore_rep eated_demands_for_obama_birth_cer.html)

[Total_Blender]

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?

Option 1.) Open and unrestricted content for all. Pertty much maintaining the status quo we have now.

Option 2.) The only sites you get to access will be shopping sites or advertising, everything else will come at a premium. Whatever content can't find corporate sponsorship will disappear completely. In other words, Import Atlanta will become "Import Atlanta brought to you by Budwieser," and every time you click you'll get a popup add telling you how awesome Budweiser is.

[bu villain]

That would be nice...a FCC the enforces neutrality without controlling content or a true competitive markey with many options for every consumer.

I think the debate comes down to a few major questions

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?

1. Nope, but the ISPs have already proven they can't be trusted either. The word "regulate" here is misleading. That is like saying I don't want the government to remove all the speed limit signs on the road because I don't trust them to tell me how fast to drive. In this case regulating net neutrality is actually a protection of freedom for internet users.

2. Neither. Noone should determine priority. All content should be treated equally. Also what market? because right now there is no truly free market for internet services in most of the US.

[burnout1990]

Its hilarious to hear the "lets hate Obama" bandwagon try to talk tough. If you want to take up arms against the gov't, be my guest. Just know that it didn't work out too well for the last group that tried it.

http://img.imaginecasting.com/blog/waco.jpg


When did I EVER say I hate Obama? L 2 Read high speed...I simply said that Everyone wanted change and that was their excuse for voting for Obama...and I'm only speaking of the people I'm around and heard their opinion (U.S. Army personnel not just two or three friends) or have read their post on any forum. Don't quote me and then make it how you think you read it....I said one thing and was replied with one thing and my comment about making change had NOTHING to do with Obama, a let's hate Obama bandwagon or taking up arms with the Government.....it was the fact people wanted change and now don't like the changes being made....