goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: AbeFroman on January 26, 2017, 06:49:00 PM
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexican-president-cancels-visit-to-washington-as-tensions-with-trump-administration-intensify/2017/01/26/ececc3da-e3d9-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.f4af781ec4d4
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/economy/trump-tariff-power/
-
:zzz:
-
My former congressman is currently working on reimplenting black sites and waterboarding.
Seriously tho it is very silly to get worked up over this. Trump is calling Mexico's bluff. It's up to them how far they want to take this, but the peso just tanked today on the suggestion that Trunp might impose tariffs.
-
Betsy DeVos has already been mentioned but she needs to be in this thread. She is not qualified to be Secretary of Education. She isn't even educated enough to know the requirements regarding students with disabilities, enacted by Republican presidents.
If you live in Kansas, call Senator Pat Roberts to let him know you oppose her. He is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee which will determine if she makes it to a full confirmation vote.
202-224-4774
-
Do you have to speak to a person?
-
Do you have to speak to a person?
Yes but all you need to say is...
Hello, my name is [YOUR NAME] and I am a constituent of [SENATOR’S NAME] from [CITY WHERE YOU LIVE]. I’m calling to urge [SENATOR’S NAME] to vote against Betsy DeVos’ confirmation as Secretary of Education. There are plenty of reasons to oppose her confirmation, but I’m concerned with her complete ignorance around special education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — which DeVos did not know was a federal law — guarantees rights to both students with disabilities and to their parents. So this isn’t just about civil rights; it’s also crucial to families. We cannot afford a Secretary of Education who’s “confused” on what the law is.
IDEA and the ADA were both signed into law by Republican Presidents. Disability rights are not and cannot become a partisan issue, and [SENATOR’S NAME] will lose my vote if [HE/SHE] votes to confirm Betsy DeVos.
-
Like Pat Roberts would ever vote against anything Donald Trump wants. :lol:
You would have much better odds calling him and telling him the date of the confirmation hearing has been changed. Maybe he won't show up for it.
-
Betsy DeVos has already been mentioned but she needs to be in this thread. She is not qualified to be Secretary of Education. She isn't even educated enough to know the requirements regarding students with disabilities, enacted by Republican presidents.
If you live in Kansas, call Senator Pat Roberts to let him know you oppose her. He is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee which will determine if she makes it to a full confirmation vote.
202-224-4774
Man really makes you wonder how we even had education before we had a Department of Education in 1979.
Here's what the super experienced Obama DOE did for education with a $7 billion initiative: jack crap. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/education-department-report-finds-billions-spent-under-obama-had-no-impact-on-achievement.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/education-department-report-finds-billions-spent-under-obama-had-no-impact-on-achievement.html)
So I think Betsy DeVos will be fine thanks. Heaven forbid we might help some poor children escape their crap hole schools with voucher aid.
(The liberal hatred and hysteria over vouchers never made much sense to me - but I guess unions are rung above poor black kids).
-
Hey crap sipper, your autistic children will be dumped aside when she takes over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Having an ignorant person run the DOE will be worse than not having it. I don't know if you noticed, but I didn't even mention vouchers in my reason that she is unqualified. She doesn't even know the difference between proficiency and growth which are two indicators used to measure school performance.
-
WaPo: White Phosphorus Level Meltdown.
-
Having an ignorant person run the DOE will be worse than not having it. I don't know if you noticed, but I didn't even mention vouchers in my reason that she is unqualified. She doesn't even know the difference between proficiency and growth which are two indicators used to measure school performance.
I bet the folks who just wasted $7billion knew the difference. Look, I'm not saying you're making more out of this than it really is, but you're making more out of this than it really is.
And I agree with you, I would much prefer to dissolve the DOE altogether. :cheers:
-
I just called and it took about 30 seconds, so I don't really think that amount of effort constitutes making more out of it than it really is.
-
An initiative failed = absolutely anybody person can run the DOE
Good luck arguing with anyone using the above logic Mrs. Gooch.
Steph Curry misses a three = absolutely anybody can play PG in the NBA
-
An initiative failed = absolutely anybody person can run the DOE
Good luck arguing with anyone using the above logic Mrs. Gooch.
Steph Curry misses a three = absolutely anybody can play PG in the NBA
Comparing the head of the DOE to an NBA point guard? I think the point I've been trying to make is that the DOE plays about as much a role in successfully education children as, say, the water boy to an NBA team. And I don't remember the last time people got worked up about the qualifications of the water boy for the Thunder.
The DOE is not essential or even helpful to educating our kids, so the hair on fire reaction to DeVos being "inexperienced" is hilarious. Inexperienced with a failed top-heavy bureaucratic teachers-first mindset? Yes, please.
-
Personally I prefer a student-first approach
-
Inexperienced and unqualified are not the same thing.
-
Having worked with numerous school systems for years I can honestly say I've never heard anyone mention anything related to the Fed DOE relative to making any substantial and positive impact on local education.
Nearly all discussion of that type revolved almost exclusively on state and local policy and resources.
There are a couple of programs that DOE has that are decent but could be managed by far fewer people.
The most recognized federal programs in terms of local schools don't even come out of the DOE.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/betsy-devos-grizzly-bears-donald-trump-guns/
People who advocate states' rights, but then say they would support the federal government taking those rights away on issues they agree on just piss me off.
-
Lol public schools
-
When the argument in favor of appointing someone is "well the job is pretty much meaningless anyway," it sends a pretty strong signal as to who is on the right side of the issue.
-
Betsy DeVos has already been mentioned but she needs to be in this thread. She is not qualified to be Secretary of Education. She isn't even educated enough to know the requirements regarding students with disabilities, enacted by Republican presidents.
If you live in Kansas, call Senator Pat Roberts to let him know you oppose her. He is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee which will determine if she makes it to a full confirmation vote.
202-224-4774
I had to press #2 to hear it in English!! :curse: (ftp://:curse:)
-
Guys, as you know, I'm a teacher. If you want to ask me anything about the DoE, SoE, Common Core, public schools as they relate to state and local government, etc. please ask away.
-
33, how do DoE, SoE, Common Core, public schools relate to state and local government, etc.?
-
Betsy DeVos has already been mentioned but she needs to be in this thread. She is not qualified to be Secretary of Education. She isn't even educated enough to know the requirements regarding students with disabilities, enacted by Republican presidents.
If you live in Kansas, call Senator Pat Roberts to let him know you oppose her. He is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee which will determine if she makes it to a full confirmation vote.
202-224-4774
I had to press #2 to hear it in English!! :curse: (ftp://:curse:)
Interesting. I didn't have to press 2 any of the 3 times I called (got a full voicemail the first 2 times).
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/betsy-devos-grizzly-bears-donald-trump-guns/
People who advocate states' rights, but then say they would support the federal government taking those rights away on issues they agree on just piss me off.
It happens both ways depending on who is in power at the time. California hired Eric Holder to states right's it up on their behalf.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/betsy-devos-grizzly-bears-donald-trump-guns/
People who advocate states' rights, but then say they would support the federal government taking those rights away on issues they agree on just piss me off.
It happens both ways depending on who is in power at the time. California hired Eric Holder to states right's it up on their behalf.
Right. But that doesn't mean that both sides are equally valid. Power is allocated between state and federal government by the Constitution. Anything not expressly enumerated as a federal power is reserved to the states (10th Amendment). I predict we're going to see liberals start asserting a lot of "states' rights" in areas that are constitutionally reserved to the federal government, like immigration.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/betsy-devos-grizzly-bears-donald-trump-guns/
People who advocate states' rights, but then say they would support the federal government taking those rights away on issues they agree on just piss me off.
It happens both ways depending on who is in power at the time. California hired Eric Holder to states right's it up on their behalf.
Right. But that doesn't mean that both sides are equally valid. Power is allocated between state and federal government by the Constitution. Anything not expressly enumerated as a federal power is reserved to the states (10th Amendment). I predict we're going to see liberals start asserting a lot of "states' rights" in areas that are constitutionally reserved to the federal government, like immigration.
We're all for the Executive Branch welding great power in regards to immigration: As long as they're Democrats.
-
The federal government should be much stronger, states can't be trusted, particularly red states
-
I support states' rights. That includes allowing some states to allow whatever ridiculous gun laws they want, but also making it so other states can do things like make it illegal to have a gun in a school if they want to. It also means legalizing marijuana at the federal level so growers in states where it is currently legal can transport their product to other states where it is also legal.
-
Personally I prefer a student-first approach
:cheers: we both dislike teachers unions!
-
Now cap, you know I'm not a pro union guy
-
I support states' rights. That includes allowing some states to allow whatever ridiculous gun laws they want, but also making it so other states can do things like make it illegal to have a gun in a school if they want to. It also means legalizing marijuana at the federal level so growers in states where it is currently legal can transport their product to other states where it is also legal.
Re guns states don't have the power to disregard the second amendment. But I agree on drug laws - the purpose of the commerce clause wasn't to allow the Feds to regulate anything that ever crosses a state line (it has actually been interpreted even more broadly than that).
-
Your second amendment rights are not violated just because you have to leave your gun in the car when you visit an elementary school.
-
Maybe KSUW thinks a room full of dead 1st graders is a militia
-
Maybe KSUW thinks a room full of dead 1st graders is a militia
If you send your kids to public, they basically are.
-
Betsy DeVos has already been mentioned but she needs to be in this thread. She is not qualified to be Secretary of Education. She isn't even educated enough to know the requirements regarding students with disabilities, enacted by Republican presidents.
If you live in Kansas, call Senator Pat Roberts to let him know you oppose her. He is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee which will determine if she makes it to a full confirmation vote.
202-224-4774
OK, now it is time for everyone to call their senator, not just those on the committee.
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
-
Too late, mrs gooch
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Too late, mrs gooch
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, it is not too late. The committee approved her for a full vote of the Senate. You can still call your senator to let them know how you would like them to vote in the full vote.
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE
OKC office: (405) 608-4381
DC office: (202) 224-4721
SENATOR JAMES LANKFORD
OKC office: (405) 231-4941
DC office: (202) 224-5754
-
He lives in Oklahoma, Mrs. Gooch. It's too late.
-
She's a terrible choice, I already called my reps.
-
Both of my state senators offices confirm that they've received majority calls of opposition from the public but they are voting how they want to, anyway
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Not Trump related but NO on HR621.
-
Not Trump related but NO on HR621.
Oh, I bet that one passes.
-
2 Republican no's so far. Glad to see not the entire party is corrupt
-
When Sally Yates was being confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions asked her if she would be able to stand up to a president who asked her to enforce an unconstitutional law. She said she would and she did.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-jeff-sessions-pressing-sally-yates-to-defend-the-constitution-against-presidents-unlawful-views-151137405.html
Now Jeff Session is up for Attorney General, and it seems like he will not stand up to Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dianne-feinstein-eviscerates-jeff-sessions_us_5890bc98e4b02772c4e96bf4
Call your Senators to let them know that you are opposed to Jeff Sessions being confirmed as Attorney General.
-
Not Trump related but NO on HR621.
Oh, I bet that one passes.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/letters-from-the-west/article130291054.html !!!
-
Lol, Dems clearly not getting that they themselves signed off on numerous pieces of legislation handing the power to deal with Immigration over to the Executive Branch.
But hey, partisan gonna partisan
-
Who is dax daxing at?
-
Who is dax daxing at?
Look just above, friend.
Do you read the posts in the thread, or just post random stuff?
-
I just post. It's not random though.
-
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/p720x720/16473237_249034408840835_1709360895861099125_n.png?oh=51dc1ed70586b0088b3423b2c2b1786e&oe=58FE18F3)
-
When Sally Yates was being confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions asked her if she would be able to stand up to a president who asked her to enforce an unconstitutional law. She said she would and she did.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-jeff-sessions-pressing-sally-yates-to-defend-the-constitution-against-presidents-unlawful-views-151137405.html
Now Jeff Session is up for Attorney General, and it seems like he will not stand up to Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dianne-feinstein-eviscerates-jeff-sessions_us_5890bc98e4b02772c4e96bf4
Call your Senators to let them know that you are opposed to Jeff Sessions being confirmed as Attorney General.
:lol:
You aren't actually going for this talking point are you?
-
The extremely liberal Ross Douthat of the NYT writes a surprisingly honest piece about the politics as usual behind the Dems' rabid opposition to Betsy DeVos.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/the-comforts-of-the-betsy-devos-war.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer= (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/the-comforts-of-the-betsy-devos-war.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer=)
In these distinctly abnormal times for the republic, with Donald Trump in the White House and a group of unprepared revolutionaries around him, one must be grateful for small doses of normalcy and politics as usual. Thank heavens, then, for Senate Democrats, who just gave us the most predictable of spectacles: a liberal holy war against Betsy DeVos, just confirmed as the new secretary of education by Mike Pence’s tiebreaking vote.
A visitor from Saturn might be puzzled by this particular crusade, since none of the things that liberals profess to fear the most about a Trump era revolve around education policy. If Trump is planning to surrender Eastern Europe to the Russians or start a world war with the Chinese, perhaps his secretary of state nominee deserved an all-night talkathon of opposition. If he’s bent on domestic authoritarianism with a racist tinge, then it’s Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, who presents the natural target for Democratic protest. If the biggest problem is that Trump will nominate allies who are unqualified for their responsibilities, then the choice of Ben Carson to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development seems like an obvious place to draw a line.
But somehow it was DeVos who became, in the parlance of cable-news crawls, Trump’s “most controversial nominee.” Never mind that Trump’s logorrheic nationalism barely has time for education. Never mind that local control of schools makes the Education Department a pretty weak player. Never mind that Republican views on education policy are much closer to the expert consensus than they are on, say, climate change. Never mind that the bulk of DeVos’s school-choice work places her only somewhat to the right of the Obama administration’s pro-charter-school positioning, close to centrist Democrats like Senator Cory Booker. None of that mattered: Against her and (so far) only her, Democrats went to the barricades, and even dragged a couple of wavering Republicans along with them.
DeVos did look unprepared and even foolish at times during her confirmation hearings, and she lacks the usual government experience. But officially the opposition claimed to be all about hardheaded policy empiricism. A limited and heavily regulated charter school program is one thing, the argument went, but DeVos’s zeal for free markets would gut public education and turn kids over to the not-so-tender mercies of unqualified bottom-liners. Just look at what happened in her native Michigan, her critics charged, where the influence of her philanthropic dollars helped flood Detroit’s school system with unsupervised charters run by incompetents and hacks.
But the empiricists’ argument wasn’t particularly empirical. There’s no evidence that DeVos-backed charters actually visited disaster on Detroit’s students. Instead, the very studies that get cited to critique her efforts actually show the city’s charters modestly outperforming public schools.
That “modestly” is important, because it tracks with much of what we know about school choice in general — that it offers real potential benefits without being a panacea. Decades of experiments suggest that choice can save money, improve outcomes for very poor kids whose public options are disastrous, and increase parental satisfaction. (The last is no small thing!) But the available evidence also suggests that choice alone won’t revolutionize schools or turn slow learners into geniuses, that the clearest success stories are hard to replicate, and some experiments in privatization (like Louisiana’s recent voucher push) can badly disappoint.
So in DeVos, we have an education secretary who perhaps errs a little too much on the side of choice-as-panacea, overseeing (with limited powers) an American education bureaucracy that pretty obviously errs the other way. And wherever you come down on striking the right balance, it’s hard to see this situation as empirically deserving the level of political controversy that’s attached to it.
So why did the Democrats fight so hard? Because in this particular case, the rules of normal pre-Trump politics still apply.
First, when interest groups talk, politicians listen — and the teachers’ unions are simply more powerful in Democratic circles, with more money and leverage and clout, than most of the groups leading the charge against other Trump policies or nominees. It’s not that liberals aren’t genuinely worried about everything that makes Trumpism potentially abnormal and un-republican and authoritarian. But a more normal threat to a deep-pocketed interest group’s preferences still turned out to be a more natural rallying point than the specter of creeping Putinism.
Second, even in the age of surging blue-collar populism, upper-middle-class suburbanites haven’t lost their influence, and they generally like their public schools and regard school choice as a threat rather than a promise. Charters and vouchers are most appealing to the poor, the religious and the eccentric — to low-income families locked into failing schools and religious conservatives and bohemians with ideological doubts about the content of the public-school curriculum. That’s a motley, divided constituency, whereas well-off suburbanites are easier to activate and rally. It’s the same dynamic that made it easy to defeat a modest expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts last November: Not only teachers-union-loving Democrats but also lots of Republican-leaning suburbanites, having bought (literally) into the existing system, tend to sympathize with liberal warnings that too much choice could leave their own kids worse off.
Finally, even after Trumpism’s disruptions, the older culture-war bogeymen still get liberals excited. Sure, they’re officially more worried about white nationalism and the fate of NATO, but wave the cape of looming theocracy, and suddenly it’s 2004 all over again. After all, did you hear that DeVos is some sort of Calvinist? That she’s actually linked her policy views to her Christian piety? That her support for school choice could conceivably enable more evangelical and Catholic parents to send their kids to conservative religious schools? (If, that is, they aren’t already … home schooling!)
I don’t want to make mock of all DeVos opposition. Senators had every right to vote against her if they felt her underqualified or uninformed. But the fervor and pitch of the opposition basically reflected the present Democratic Party at its worst: unstinting in defense of bureaucracy and its employees, more excited about causes dear to the upper middle class than the interests of the poor, and always girding for the battle with the Real Enemy, religious conservatives, no matter what the moment actually demands.
But again, these are troubled times. Familiarity has its comforts. And a debate this predictable, this pre-Trumpian, came as something of a relief.
-
Cool
-
Anyone following this twitter account?
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff
-
Anyone following this twitter account?
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff
well i am now.
-
The extremely liberal Ross Douthat of the NYT writes a surprisingly honest piece about the politics as usual behind the Dems' rabid opposition to Betsy DeVos.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/the-comforts-of-the-betsy-devos-war.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer= (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/the-comforts-of-the-betsy-devos-war.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer=)
In these distinctly abnormal times for the republic, with Donald Trump in the White House and a group of unprepared revolutionaries around him, one must be grateful for small doses of normalcy and politics as usual. Thank heavens, then, for Senate Democrats, who just gave us the most predictable of spectacles: a liberal holy war against Betsy DeVos, just confirmed as the new secretary of education by Mike Pence’s tiebreaking vote.
A visitor from Saturn might be puzzled by this particular crusade, since none of the things that liberals profess to fear the most about a Trump era revolve around education policy. If Trump is planning to surrender Eastern Europe to the Russians or start a world war with the Chinese, perhaps his secretary of state nominee deserved an all-night talkathon of opposition. If he’s bent on domestic authoritarianism with a racist tinge, then it’s Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, who presents the natural target for Democratic protest. If the biggest problem is that Trump will nominate allies who are unqualified for their responsibilities, then the choice of Ben Carson to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development seems like an obvious place to draw a line.
But somehow it was DeVos who became, in the parlance of cable-news crawls, Trump’s “most controversial nominee.” Never mind that Trump’s logorrheic nationalism barely has time for education. Never mind that local control of schools makes the Education Department a pretty weak player. Never mind that Republican views on education policy are much closer to the expert consensus than they are on, say, climate change. Never mind that the bulk of DeVos’s school-choice work places her only somewhat to the right of the Obama administration’s pro-charter-school positioning, close to centrist Democrats like Senator Cory Booker. None of that mattered: Against her and (so far) only her, Democrats went to the barricades, and even dragged a couple of wavering Republicans along with them.
DeVos did look unprepared and even foolish at times during her confirmation hearings, and she lacks the usual government experience. But officially the opposition claimed to be all about hardheaded policy empiricism. A limited and heavily regulated charter school program is one thing, the argument went, but DeVos’s zeal for free markets would gut public education and turn kids over to the not-so-tender mercies of unqualified bottom-liners. Just look at what happened in her native Michigan, her critics charged, where the influence of her philanthropic dollars helped flood Detroit’s school system with unsupervised charters run by incompetents and hacks.
But the empiricists’ argument wasn’t particularly empirical. There’s no evidence that DeVos-backed charters actually visited disaster on Detroit’s students. Instead, the very studies that get cited to critique her efforts actually show the city’s charters modestly outperforming public schools.
That “modestly” is important, because it tracks with much of what we know about school choice in general — that it offers real potential benefits without being a panacea. Decades of experiments suggest that choice can save money, improve outcomes for very poor kids whose public options are disastrous, and increase parental satisfaction. (The last is no small thing!) But the available evidence also suggests that choice alone won’t revolutionize schools or turn slow learners into geniuses, that the clearest success stories are hard to replicate, and some experiments in privatization (like Louisiana’s recent voucher push) can badly disappoint.
So in DeVos, we have an education secretary who perhaps errs a little too much on the side of choice-as-panacea, overseeing (with limited powers) an American education bureaucracy that pretty obviously errs the other way. And wherever you come down on striking the right balance, it’s hard to see this situation as empirically deserving the level of political controversy that’s attached to it.
So why did the Democrats fight so hard? Because in this particular case, the rules of normal pre-Trump politics still apply.
First, when interest groups talk, politicians listen — and the teachers’ unions are simply more powerful in Democratic circles, with more money and leverage and clout, than most of the groups leading the charge against other Trump policies or nominees. It’s not that liberals aren’t genuinely worried about everything that makes Trumpism potentially abnormal and un-republican and authoritarian. But a more normal threat to a deep-pocketed interest group’s preferences still turned out to be a more natural rallying point than the specter of creeping Putinism.
Second, even in the age of surging blue-collar populism, upper-middle-class suburbanites haven’t lost their influence, and they generally like their public schools and regard school choice as a threat rather than a promise. Charters and vouchers are most appealing to the poor, the religious and the eccentric — to low-income families locked into failing schools and religious conservatives and bohemians with ideological doubts about the content of the public-school curriculum. That’s a motley, divided constituency, whereas well-off suburbanites are easier to activate and rally. It’s the same dynamic that made it easy to defeat a modest expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts last November: Not only teachers-union-loving Democrats but also lots of Republican-leaning suburbanites, having bought (literally) into the existing system, tend to sympathize with liberal warnings that too much choice could leave their own kids worse off.
Finally, even after Trumpism’s disruptions, the older culture-war bogeymen still get liberals excited. Sure, they’re officially more worried about white nationalism and the fate of NATO, but wave the cape of looming theocracy, and suddenly it’s 2004 all over again. After all, did you hear that DeVos is some sort of Calvinist? That she’s actually linked her policy views to her Christian piety? That her support for school choice could conceivably enable more evangelical and Catholic parents to send their kids to conservative religious schools? (If, that is, they aren’t already … home schooling!)
I don’t want to make mock of all DeVos opposition. Senators had every right to vote against her if they felt her underqualified or uninformed. But the fervor and pitch of the opposition basically reflected the present Democratic Party at its worst: unstinting in defense of bureaucracy and its employees, more excited about causes dear to the upper middle class than the interests of the poor, and always girding for the battle with the Real Enemy, religious conservatives, no matter what the moment actually demands.
But again, these are troubled times. Familiarity has its comforts. And a debate this predictable, this pre-Trumpian, came as something of a relief.
I really enjoy how you assign non liberals as liberals in order to make your point that liberals agree with you.
-
I really enjoy how you assign non liberals as liberals in order to make your point that liberals agree with you.
Well I guess he'd be considered conservative by NYT standards, like David Brooks, but that doesn't mean much.
-
I really enjoy how you assign non liberals as liberals in order to make your point that liberals agree with you.
Well I guess he'd be considered conservative by NYT standards, like David Brooks, but that doesn't mean much.
or by anyone who has reviewed his books....or isn't a rough ridin' idiot.
-
This is the proper thread for the Net Neutrality issue.
Here's a link for you to actually do something.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/08/how-to-protest-the-fccs-plan-to-dismantle-net-neutrality/
-
Interesting take:
https://www.wired.com/story/net-neutrality-fiber-optic-internet/?mbid=synd_digg (https://www.wired.com/story/net-neutrality-fiber-optic-internet/?mbid=synd_digg)
-
Call, tweet, email to urge Congress to vote on a Resolution of Disapproval.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
-
Call, tweet, email to urge Congress to vote on a Resolution of Disapproval.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
https://resist.bot
-
The real problem is a complete absence of leadership and policy aimed at making sure that low-priced, ubiquitous, world-class fiber optic services reach every home and business. Left to their own devices, the giant US companies Pai is determined to protect have every incentive to divide markets, avoid capital investments in upgrades to fiber that reach everyone, charge as much as they can get away with, and leave out poorer and rural people. That is in fact what has happened here.
LOL, what a load of bullshit.
First of all, technology is making it possible for for customers to get more than enough bandwidth without FTTP. Already most coax based residential cable platforms are capable of offering up to 300Mbps straight out. Hell, many major cable providers already start at 100Mbps in their base offering which when bundled is cheap as hell, and still cheap when not bundled.
Dealing with larger Enterprise customers with "smart" IT staffs, I can tell you that people in most instances way, way, way over estimate the amount of bandwidth they need.
It's hilarious to think that some people actually feel like that they can sit on their ass gobbling up hundreds of gigabits a month in total Internet usage but then demand that it's provided to them for pennies on state-of-the-art networks.
Not to mention in the land of urban sprawl that all these neighborhoods that cost assloads of money to build out to, get state of the art platforms for pennies relative to the amount of bandwidth consumed.
I'm currently looking at a bill of materials core backbone upgrade in a Topeka sized city. $8.9 million before labor, bring in the remote nodes, double that price, before labor. Why, because in order to continue the franchise, the city demanded they become a Gigabit City, when customers can already call up and order 400x50 service for their house. Total takers: 376
-
Does dax hate net neutrality (or whatever he thinks net neutrality is) more than he hates Hillary Clinton?
-
I don’t think that’s possible
-
The wired article used Wilson,NC.
What it doesn't tell you that the City of Wilson runs a Power Monopoly, and the bonds they used to fund the GreenLight are paid for by money funneled via their electric and gas monopoly. They're also not bound by any franchise agreement or carrier of last resort mandates.
-
Are you able to choose your electric and gas provider dax?
-
Are you able to choose your electric and gas provider dax?
No, and in most places you cannot.
But in a substantial number of places you have at least two and in some cases more vendors for Internet.
But the main point is, Wilson is being painted as a model while leaving out a substantial number of facts, like the "model" being funded by a monopoly. Plus having worked with government enough to know that anytime they try and say it was financed by bonds instead of taxpayer money, it's pretty much a lie, the taxpayers are on the hook.
-
Does dax hate net neutrality (or whatever he thinks net neutrality is) more than he hates Hillary Clinton?
Not sure, but he sure does like to write a lot of words on a topic that have absolutely no practical relation to the net neutrality rules for some reason.