By: Diane Benjamin
The FCC will rule to make the Internet a Public Utility on February 26th. The more than 330 page report is already written, even though the public can still tell them to keep their hands off, they don’t care. 3 Democrats will vote for Net Neutrality, 2 Republicans against it. 5 total people decide the future, none of them elected. Note: Congress is on vacation.
Government wants more control. The Internet is the last free place we have. We are free to exchange ideas, get unfiltered news, and learn about virtually any topic. We can watch and post videos, and keep in contact with friends. It is the new frontier, that’s why government wants control.
Is education better since Carter started the Department of Education in the 70’s? He also created the Department of Energy to make us energy independent. How’s that working? The private sector has made monstrous gains, while government locks up our natural resources. How about Healthcare? Is Obamacare better than what we had before? The list of government interference in the private market is endless. It always results in bad outcomes they continually try to fix. The Internet exploded because it was free and open. Capitalism created the opportunity and innovation of the Internet. Government can’t stand it. A Department of the Internet only means more un-elected bureaucrats writing regulations.
Expect new taxes. Expect lack of innovation. Government never makes things better. Any problems with bandwidth and access can be solved by the private sector. Problems have been solved since the very beginning of the Internet by capitalism.
Capitalism equals freedom – protecting it is the one job given to government in the Constitution. Capitalism (and freedom) has been replaced by “friends of government” get special favors. Net Neutrality is the last piece of the puzzle – complete government domination of all aspects of our lives.
Guess who wants Net Neutrality anyway:
Diane who created the Internet??????? The United States government. ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network.
Doesn’t exactly fit your anti-government rhetoric.
I expected as much from you. I didn’t say who created it – I said the private sector made it what it is today.
“Capitalism created the opportunity and innovation of the Internet.” Maybe we could agree the Government created the opportunity for Capitalism to innovate the internet.
and then they got out of the way
R. Kennedy I see that you are avoiding answering replies from the “Group Think” article. The time stamp says it all about you,,,cut and run.
Hey now lets get this correct. Al Gore invented the internet, global warming and various other things.
Yes Gent, the Internet was developed AND FUNDED by the National Science Foundation, which took it from the Defense Department and created the modern TCP/IP protocol. Al Gore had A GREAT deal to to with telecommunication legislation that made the internet possible. Also Gore was correct about the fact that our earth is warming. I’m cutting and running? Why? Because I’m not a knee jerk anti-government ideologue. The same goes for ACA, there would not be over 10 million people who have health insurance who didn’t have any access before the law.
Lulz….
You make it sound like some innovation that a group of government funded researchers developed to better humanity by, when in fact it was developed as a countermeasure to the very real possibility of a nuclear apocalypse – an apocalypse started by your wonderful government.
Go back to the kiddie table. The grown-ups are having a discussion here.
Why is your opinion relevant if you have no original thoughts?????
“The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network.”
https://www.facebook.com/lddwebdesign/photos/a.1468334846743677.1073741828.1463363233907505/1474027289507766/
The Internet is not Free. It’s not a place for total free speech nor is the cost free. For example the Dark Net is not easily accessible which makes it restrictive.
IMO there should be basic government Internet free via WIFI with limited access, designed more for educational purposes. However the Capitalists (me) want to jerk around the consumer from there, is fine. Do you have a recommendation other then limited freedom and being open game to the service providers?
If Obama and his pack are allowed to control the internet people and sites like BLNEWS and Drudge who have honest news will cease to exist and be replaced by the OBAMA NETWORK spewing lies and more lies. Do we really want that? I can see why Prof wants net neutrality he’s a carbon copy of the community organizer in the WH!
There is a picture of them together somewhere here – back when Renner was trying to get to Springfield.
So you all of your readers are SO paranoid that you and they believe that the President of the United States actually cares about your little blog? Get over yourself!!! You behave as if everything on the internet is true–it is NOT, and many things that Drudge and even this blog spews out is false and riddled with lies….
Obama is a Democrat and likely most of us are Republican’s so I doubt we believe the President cares about this website. Obama has long forgot Renner in fact he probably doesn’t even remember who he is.
I’m not a Republican! I’m a conservative – meaning I won’t vote for RINOs because they are way too much like the Democrats.
I actually don’t think that any of you much less Ms. Benjamin are “defenseless” or have a clue about net neutrality. It has nothing to do with preventing anyone’s free speech. It has to do with Internet suppliers giving prioritized “Fast lanes” to some and leaving others behind with slower service and access.
Is it truly necessary to have government-mandated rules to ensure net neutrality? Yes. One argument made by opponents of Title II classification is that we essentially have had net neutrality all along, so why does the government need to get involved? “There is no market for paid prioritization.
But this is not necessarily because of the workings of the market. For starters, the fastest broadband providers are mostly cable companies, which are quasi monopolies. As part of its deal in buying NBCUniversal, Comcast agreed to net neutrality rules until 2018, regardless of the eventual court decision.
The FCC is doing the right thing, but will they prevail against the mountain of money that the likes of Comcast, AT&T, etc. spend on the Congress to influence legislators and get their way.
Ugh…’progressives’ like you are clueless and hopeless.
Why?
Cause you’re not that smart. Can’t you even make a comment on a blog without plagiarizing the snot out of someone else’s work?
“Is it truly necessary to have government-mandated rules to ensure net neutrality? Yes. One argument made by opponents of Title II classification is that we essentially have had net neutrality all along, so why does the government need to get involved? “There is no market for paid prioritization,” said Berin Szoka, the president of TechFreedom, which vehemently opposes the reclassification.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/opinion/joe-nocera-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
Next time, try to formulate an original thought.
(kicks R Kennedy back to the kiddie table)
Good grief!
You even ripped off one of the comments from that page.
97 Comments – Comment from ‘gunste’ posted on
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/opinion/joe-nocera-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
“The FCC is doing the right thing, but will they prevail against the mountain of money that the likes of Comcast, AT&T, etc. spend on the Congress to influence legislators and get their way. The bottom line usually comes first, and the interest of the citizens much later”
As long as I can uncover frauds like you using my internet just the way it is, I say leave it alone.
“• Comcast Executive Vice President Cohen “On net neutrality, Cohen says that activists calling on the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a so-called Title II common carrier service that could be more easily regulated would be disappointed in the result. “There is nothing in Title II that provides authority for saying that all [Web] services have to be treated the same” — in other words, preventing Internet providers such as Comcast from offering a for-pay fast lane for certain content providers. Telecommunications companies now deemed common carriers “are allowed to provide different levels of service for different amounts of money.” A change also could backfire: “There’s no way Google is going to invest the money they’d need to invest” in Google Fiber if the Web is a Title II service, he says. “It’s inconceivable that any company would do that.” Meanwhile, those who object to Wheeler’s attempt to set net neutrality rules under the current legal structure are “reacting to a document they haven’t seen….It’s been the specter that’s been stirred up by the net roots.”
@R. Kennedy 3:09pm post. Oh, there you are. That was a decent summation of the internet thing. Congrats. Too bad you can’t apply similar logic to a man that has shown multiple verbal/mental attacks on defenseless women and see that he has issues which of which he should receive professional help and resign while recovering. Frowns. Then at 3:338pm you’re back with the ridicule thing because you have no facts to support your bull. Lol.
I have no facts? I was stating that every one on this post is so paranoid about the government that they have NO idea what they are talking about. The Obama administration is FOR Net Neutrality, the Republicans are for big Business taking over the Internet. That’s what it boils down to, big Business like Comcast and ATT taking over you internet access. I copied? Yes, because, there is SO much misinformation on this blog it isn’t funny.
You’re worried about monopolies? Then why on earth do you want the government anywhere near the internet? The government decided to regulate the phone business back in the 1930’s and stiffled innovation for the next 40 years. Those regulations led to the creation of the AT&T monopoly ( which had to be broken up at great expense). As soon as those antiquated regulations were removed, innovation flourished.
No monopoly that has EVER existed did so with out government sanction. Government sanctions are usually enforced by regulators. You’re stupid enough to believe regulation actually increases competition. It doesn’t. It’s not supposed to. It’s used by dominant entities in a particular industry to eliminate competition.
Dude…just stop already. You’re embarrasing yourself and sounding like a fool.
Last June I did a lot of research on this subject as result of Mayor Renner’s support. The nationwide push for Net Neutrality in the United States began with University of Illinois professor Robert McChensey, former co-editor of the “Marxist Journal Monthly Review.” In 2009 McChensey stated “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to be part of revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself…to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself . Rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” Other Chief actors involved are Moveon.org, George Soros, Progressive Democrats of America. The very term “Net Neutrality” was coined by staunch Obama supporter Columbia professor Tim Wu who used it to explain how the centuries old concept of ‘Common Carriage’ could be applied to the Internet in the same way that highways, telephone networks, electricity and water are applied to Common Carriage.
Problems with Net Neutrality:
1. Net Neutrality tries to fix a problem that does not exist.
2. It’s about control.
3. Most Americans have never had a problem with the Internet.
4. Wired or wireless Internet already reaches 99% of Americans and connections runn ing 100 MPBS and faster are already available in 85% of the homes.
Net Neutrality an Attack on Free Market Economics:
1. Mayor Renner nor the FCC understands the complex issue of Net Neutrality. It is a false premise that it is simply about creating a level playing field. Policy which seeks to ‘Micro Manage’ the Internet competition by influencing investment decisions could have a negative impact on consumers, job growth and the economy.
2. The more restrictions or confusion that are placed on a organization the less likely it is to be creative or innovative. Investments in infrastructure or highly sensitive to expected subscriber revenue. Anything that curtails revenue can delay or curtail infrastructure investments.
3. According to a study by Consumer Communications Services net neutrality could impose a $10 and as much as a $55 fee on top of the already average monthly broadband service charge of $30 a month. To the extent that consumers can afford it Net Neutrality could actually have the effect of reducing broadband participation among the populace.
4. Research by Mark Crain of Lafayette College shows that federal regulation hurts small business. Research shows the total cost to be 1.1 trillion or $7647 dollars per employee with firms with 20 employees or less.
5. A New York school of Law Study concluded that Net Neutrality enforcement by the FCC over the next five years would cost the economy $62 Billion dollars and eliminate 502,000 jobs.
5. I f Net Neutrality is reclassified as a utility Mayor Renner and others may see this as a opportunity to further control and tax the public to fund their desired ‘Culture Change.”
Net Neutrality Invokes Privacy Concerns:
If Net Neutrality goes into effect the government would have to monitor the telecoms and cable companies broadband connections. This raises the possibilty of government needing to install it’s own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet Traffic. The government could even further intrude into the private lives of every American.
By Passing Congress:
In 2006 The US House of Representatives DEFINITIVELY rejected the concept of Net Neutrality. This latest attempt sees to be a way around Congress.
What makes Mayor Renner a expert on Net Neutrality? Net Neutrality is complex issue. Does Mayor Renner understand the different complex business models of each and every Internet Service Provider and how it will impact each company even those that install the infrastructure? Of Course Not. Yet in his arrogance he moves forward because in my view this is a Democrat Agenda Item that President Obama has supported since 2008. The current regulations that the FCC are trying to impliment in a never before seen action were written by the White House and given to the FCC to vote on. There are five people on the panel three are democrats and two are republicans. The two republicans have sounded the alarm that they had no input and the Net Neutrality proposed is about “Control.” Once again it appears that mayor Renner is bringing National Politics to the local level. Did Mayor Renner campaign during the election on the issue of net Neutrality? Has the Mayor debated this issue at a council meeting with the other alderman? When did Mayor Renner ever seek feedback from the people of Bloomington on this issue of Net Neutrality?
What makes YOU an expert on net neutrality? Nothing. Do you even KNOW what President Obama’s position is on Net neutrality? No.
The Republican position is that there should be two Internets. One where those who can pay for faster service wins, and those who can’t get slower service. Republicans are actually Net neutrality foes not advocates.
President Obama stance on Net Neutrality: “One of the issues around net neutrality is whether you are creating different rates or charges for different content providers. That’s the big controversy here. So you have big, wealthy media companies who might be willing to pay more and also charge more for spectrum, more bandwidth on the Internet so they can stream movies faster. I personally, the position of my administration, as well as a lot of the companies here, is that you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.”
I don’t support any further government regulation or net neutrality of the Internet from democrats or republicans. You seem to be worried about the big wealthy powerful companies and them forming a monopoly. Yet you seem eager for the biggest monopoly of all the federal government. After all you can trust government regulators. (Kidding). Its not like the IRS has ever targeted citizens to carry out a political agenda. And we can absolutely trust Obama. It’s not like he ever lied about his healthcare plan. (You keep your doctor if you like him or her). Lastly there is no problem with the Internet. Where are the large crowds of protestors demanding net neutrality? They do not exist. It seems the vast majority of people yelling for net neutrality are far left extremists and politicians. And both should scare the hell out of you.
The fact is that the IRS DID NOT target anyone. The fact is that no Political Super Pac should be able to hide behind “social club” status in order to hide from being taxed. They are political Parties pure and simple, be they Tea Party or liberal parties, which the IRS also “targeted”. The IRS was doing its job. After hours of investigation and reams of paper, no one has been able to find any wrong doing by the IRS.
I actually was able to keep my doctor, and those who had health insurance through their employers kept their insurance. Only a fraction of those who had individual health insurance had to change their insurance, hence doctors. Did Obama over promise? Yes. Did he lie? NO. Bush stating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, now there a lie….Also the Bush lie about Iraq being responsible for 911 was quite a whopper.
I don’t know, YOU scare the hell out of me, if you really think that both Comcast and ATT have your best interest in mind, then your more gullible than all get out. There no problem with the Internet? Gee, wait until Comcast is able to charge you MORE for access while someone else gets it cheaper because they can pay more. You’ll be screaming for regulation. Like traffic rules there are regulation for a reason.
Ask True the Vote if they were targeted!
True the Vote is a political party hiding behind suppressing people’s voting rights.
Your ignorance amazes me.
True the Votes was formed by the King Street Patriots, a Tea Party group in Houston, Texas.So, yes, it’s a thinly veiled political party running around suppressing people’s right to vote. It’s suit against the IRS was thrown out by a Federal Judge. True the Vote has skewed and cooked numbers on vote fraud, harassed legal voters trying to legally vote. They forged the names of its own volunteers in Franklin County, OH where they have now been barred from participating in poll-watching. The group’s “evidence” of voter impersonation fraud as “downright goofy, if not paranoid,” citing “nonexistent buses”. Voter impersonation fraud is very rare as to be non-existent. So, no I’m not ignorant, I’m better informed than you.
Ensuring honest elections is suppressing the vote. Sure. Going to say the poor don’t have ID? What a farce.
Actually they don’t, and that includes the elderly and the disabled. If you ever have to get on two or three buses to get to a distant DMV, or had to pay for the documentation to get a photo ID, you’d know. That’s actually a poll tax that those who either poor or elderly have to pay in order to vote. The fact is also that Photo ID would do little to prevent in person voter fraud. if someone really want to do that. Boy, you people want NO government interference, except when you say you want government interference. Voting is a basic right that should NOT infringed at ANY time. What a bunch of hypocrites.
I’m all for free speech – but ignorant speech and not discussing issues with intelligence is going to get you kicked off. You would be my first. If you want to spew trash, you are gone.
I’m spewing trash and ignorance? Really? What are you scared about? The fact that Photo ID’s aren’t end all and be all? Or that there is very little In Person voter fraud? Or the fact that you want government interference to limit voting, a basic right in this country? Apparently, your “freedom of speech” is for people who agree with you, not those who dare to oppose you. I have given a great deal of thought and “intelligence” to my posts, so your charge of ignorance is totally unfounded. Just because I don’t agree with you, doesn’t make my view point invalid.
IF You want to be some sort of “publication” or “newspaper”, kicking someone off who isn’t writing anything obscene off color is showing that you can’t stand anyone whose ideas aren’t shared by you. That is an intolerance that any other newspaper wouldn’t be able to get away with….
You attempt to use facts that aren’t facts. They are talking points meant for the low information voters. My readers aren’t in that class.
They aren’t facts? According to whom? Who is engaged in group think here, AND “talking points”? No me. The fact is that voting IS very basic right that should not be infringed. That right goes back to the very founding of our country.
The fact is that Photo ID’s will not fix imaginary voter fraud. The fact is there are many elderly and disabled people who getting a Photo ID would be a problem in which they would have to pay for the underlying documentation, birth certificates, etc which are not free. If you don’t drive and don’t travel since you are elderly or disabled how exactly are you to get to a distant DMV which are open limited hours and days? Are you stating that these are not facts? They are facts.
Are you stating that my view point is one of “low information”? Who said you were in the possession of all the “information”, or that all your information is true? As I stated I suspect that you just can’t stand anyone who has a opposing views from you and you would really like to not have me on you blog at all.
Only the left claims people don’t have ID’s. An ID is needed for almost everything done in society. Are those elderly on Medicare and Social Security? How did they get it without an ID. Are those disabled on SSI? How did they get that without an ID? Your talking points were invalidated decades ago – come up with some new ones. Nobody is buying the ID claims anymore.
Comparisons between voter ID laws And poll taxes are silly. While poll taxes sought to create fraudulent results, voter id laws have the opposite intent. The goal of voter Id is to protect the integrity of the election. It seems it is the democrat opposition to voter id that has more in common with poll taxes. Democrats play the race card by bringing up Jim Crow area poll taxes because they know their argument is weak and lacks common sense.
Personally, I love you on this blog and showing all of us how mindless you Obamaroids are – and how unimaginative YOU are.
For example, I thought we cleared up your plagiarizing yesterday, but it seems like you didn’t learn anything about using words that aren’t your own (You’re supposed to cite your sources when you rip them off). So, I’ll ask you, from which source did you rip off these words regarding your vast knowledge of “True the Votes”?
“The group’s “evidence” of voter impersonation fraud as “downright goofy, if not paranoid”
Was it:
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/07/wingnut_voter_id_group_fails_again_voter_integrity_outfit_unable_to_find_midterm_fraud/
or,
http://bradblog.com/?p=11021
or,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025782036
Boy…those are some really unbiased sources you got there kiddo….LMAO
Sheet…..I’d read you just for the lulz.
Kennedy won’t be back unless he has something intelligent to say that obviously isn’t ripped off another site without being sourced.
The FCC has created the environment that has given a select few Internet providers an almost complete market share. Now that this is complete, the FCC (and other statists) are using this new reality to lobby/persuade the American people to let them have even more power so that things will be fair. The bottom line is that the free market was never allowed to succeed.
I can’t come back since Ms. Benjamin keeps deleting my responses. There’s journalistic courage for you…If she doesn’t agree with you, your comments disappear. Ms Benjamin is scared of any opposition any disagreement with her worldview.
I won’t allow copying talking points from left wing blogs without sources. If you want to comment, keep it short. Nobody cares about the stats leftists make up to support their made up facts. Then LISTEN to responses, not expand the conversation to things totally off topic.
I did NOT copy ANY “talking points” in my last couple of responses. It was YOU that inserted the Photo ID in this thread, not me. I was responding to you contention that EVERYONE has a Photo ID, which they don’t. I used statistic that I did look up that up to 25 to 35 percent of those who are elderly and disabled do not have Photo ID and never needed a Photo ID. That was from the League of Women Voters, which the last time I checked was not some “leftist” group but a non-partisan group that has a very good reputation for fairness. I was responding to the remark that someone left for me, which you also deleted. It is my contention that you don’t want ANY opposition in this site, just people who agree with you.
As usual you are uninformed again. The League supported ObamaCare. Very non-partisan. Many local members participated in trying to pass Modified Wards in Bloomington. The ONLY reason anyone would oppose Voter ID is to make sure election fraud stays hidden. Look up the stats on what percent of the population supports Voter ID.
O. K. Ms. Benjamin look up how many “in Person” voter fraud cases have happened, since that’s the only voter fraud Photo ID’s would stop. I’ll give you the answer exactly 10 since 2000. From the Washington Post “Sixty-seven percent of white Americans support voter ID laws, according to a new University of Delaware study of 1,436 U.S. adults. But when the voter ID question was accompanied by a photo of black people using a voting machine, white support for voter ID laws jumped to 73 percent.” So, races plays a part in this equation. Why exactly is ANY state making anyone jump through hoops for a Constitutional RIGHT?
As I stated I thought you were for non-governmental interference. I bet anything that if the Federal government said that you personally had to go out get a government ID and carry it around and show it whenever, you’d be up at arms.
So, my question is that if Photo ID’s are so important, why did we have elections for over 216 years without them? Should we call into question the elections of Reagan and Bush II because they didn’t use Photo ID’s? I content that it isn’t about “election integrity”, it’s about making sure that certain people don’t vote. That not my opinion but the opinion of several Federal judges who have struck down Voter ID laws.
We do know voter fraud exists, but evidently you don’t realize we don’t know the extent because ID is not required! Geez.
So in order to route out those 10 identity fraud cases, we need Photo ID. Geez, why don’t we bring back poll taxes and literacy questions, that would be more honest, in that it would route out the people you don’t want to vote.
Listen closely: We Do Not Know The Extent Of Voter Fraud Because People Don’t Have To Prove Who They Are. Get it? Where that statistic on how many people support Voter ID? I will help you out. NBC poll 74%, Rasmussen has 78%.
“Listen closely: We Do Not Know The Extent Of Voter Fraud Because People Don’t Have To Prove Who They Are. Get it? Where that statistic on how many people support Voter ID? I will help you out. NBC poll 74%, Rasmussen has 78%.”
I’m stating that the only fraud that Photo ID’s prevents is in person voter fraud. Period, it DOES NOT prevent any other fraud. The amount of “identity” voter fraud since 2000 was a grand total of 10. I also quoted a Washington Post article that when a photo of a black person was shown, the support goes up to the higher percentage. So the fact that there is racial angle to this seems to escape you. Just because something is “popular” doesn’t make it Constitutional or right.
You live in a world where common sense doesn’t exist. You are about to be gone again.
LMAO….
Nobody is scared of you. Trust me. I can whoop your lame ideas into a sticky paste all day.
My beef with you is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. For example, if you’re so well informed regarding net neutrality, it should have been rather easy for you to write your argument using your own words – but you didn’t do that, did you?
Your excuse for plagiarizing was also lame. To paraphrase, ‘there is so much bad information here, I had no choice’. Seriously?
No. Here’s what I think. You thought you’d be able to waltz in here and teach Diane a lesson. The subject matter was irrelevant. If that was the case, I think even your Obamaroid playmates would say you failed spectacularly! With your witless prattle and lack of focus, you prove a point I make all the time – that ‘progressives’ cannot articulate an argument with any semblance of fact, logic, or reason.
Lick your wounds and stop being a crybaby. Come back when you can formulate a thought of your very own.
Well Gent, didn’t you tell me off!!! What if I never voted for Obama? What if I actually voted for Romney or McCain? How the heck do you know how I voted? Your making a lot of assumptions about me all without knowing any of the basic facts about me.
“Witless prattle”, “lack of focus” Wow. As I stated, I certainly ran into the hall monitor of this blog. Are you going send me to detention, rap my knuckles with your ruler? Geez, from all the self-righteousness of your post, I’d say you are the most joyless frustrated sophist bar none.
Lol…too funny!
As I stated Gent, who am I? How exactly do you know who I voted for in any election? The fact is that you are the voice of someone who is self-righteous ideologue. One who apparently has tons of time to endless Google and tsk, tsk if someone copied like a sad out work professor on hard times.
Where are all these people who say they can’t vote because they can’t get a ID or don’t have one. Funny listening to the left you would think there were tens of thousands. However , I have never seen one person on Tv in the paper or anywhere identifying themselves as a voter that doesn’t have an ID or can’t get one. This may be a scandal on the same level of the lefts other big lie “Global Warming.”
What Television do you watch what newspapers do you read? You want people who don’t have Photo ID? From Bill Moyers “Now, meet two Philadelphia women at serious risk of losing their rights to vote due to Pennsylvania’s strict new voter ID laws: Laila Stones, a retired nurse working towards a culinary degree; and Ana Gonzalez, a community organizer, mother of four and grandmother of twelve. These women, and many like them, are stuck in a real-life Catch 22: You need a birth certificate to get a government-issued photo ID, but you need a photo ID to get a birth certificate. Local activists also explain the difficulty in getting such IDs.”
Here is a link to the program http://billmoyers.com/content/voter-id-who-doesnt-have-photo-id/
From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/29/this-is-what-its-like-to-try-to-get-a-voter-id-when-youre-disabled-poor-or-dont-drive/
From the article: “Olester McGriff, an African-American man, lives in Dallas. He has voted in several Texas elections. This year when he went to the polls he was unable to vote due to the new photo ID law. Mr. McGriff had a kidney transplant and can no longer drive; his driver’s license expired in 2008. He tried to get an ID twice prior to voting. In May, he visited an office in Grand Prairie and was told he could not get an ID because he was outside of Dallas County. In July, he visited an office in Irving and was told they were out of IDs and would have to come back another day.
He is unable to get around easily. Mr. McGriff got to the polls during early voting because Susan McMinn, an experienced election volunteer, gave him a ride. He brought with him his expired driver’s license, his birth certificate, his voter registration card, and other documentation, but none were sufficient under Texas’s new photo ID requirement.”
A: Why are you so ashamed to admit you voted for Obama? For all your attempts to feign an intelligent conversation, it’s obvious your an Obamaroid.
B: I had to laugh. You actually think uncovering YOUR nonsense took a lot of time?
You’re just mad I pointed out the fact you’re not as smart as you want us to believe. You really didn’t have to go through so much trouble. Simply typing what is on your mind pretty much proves you don’t put a lot of thought into anything, and that you let other people do the thinking for you.
C: You have a lot of room to talk about Google being MY best friend…LMAO
D: Self Righteous? Nah… I’m just right.
Funny how you found a few who have to make an effort to vote. Voting should take effort, not open season for fraud. Maybe we should start doing a purple finger so we know who values freedom. It would also prevent fraud. Make it long lasting ink and we won’t need ID
Yanno…R Kennedy might be right. Check out these fascist bastards and see how they suppress and infringe on voters rights:
http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/when-you-need-id-to-vote.html
If you read CAREFULLY the web site says the you can produce ANY ID, NOT necessary a photo ID. That ID can be bank statements, utility bills, etc. The only place that someone would have to produce a Photo ID is early voting. I’ve been voting since the early 70’s and I have never had to produce Photo ID.
Ms. Benjamin has NOT produced ANY evidence of MASS in person identity fraud. That’s because it rare and she can’t find any that is verifiable. As the Brennan Center for Justice has stated most voter fraud is “smoke and mirrors, little actual fire”.
Just ignore the argument that we don’t know because nobody has to prove who they are. Voter roles aren’t cleaned in many parts of the country – leaving it wide open for fraud.
O.K. Gent if you so smart where exactly did you copy your reply at the beginning of this thread, about the government building the internet? I certainly did NOT use that source for my reply, if that was your implication. If you’re so brilliant omnificent, you’d know that. My reply was not from any source that you can Google, since it didn’t come from the internet, but from a resource book I used to get my facts straight on how the internet formed through the Defense Department and grants from the National Science Foundation in the 1960 and 70’s. I went back to my reply about the founding of the internet, and I did NOT copy my reply from ANYWHERE. I certainly looked up pertinent facts, about ARPANET etc, again to get my fact straight.
Your right? About what? You actually haven’t said anything other than to pick apart statements on a blog.
“Funny how you found a few who have to make an effort to vote. Voting should take effort, not open season for fraud. Maybe we should start doing a purple finger so we know who values freedom. It would also prevent fraud. Make it long lasting ink and we won’t need ID”
You have not given ANY proof of in person voter fraud, because it’s RARE. I got an idea, we should have the Federal government come in a put a tracking devices on everyone including YOU. That way the government can track everyone and make sure that no one commits voter fraud, we’ll give up some personal freedom, but heck our vote will be secure.
None so blind . . .
“Just ignore the argument that we don’t know because nobody has to prove who they are. Voter roles aren’t cleaned in many parts of the country – leaving it wide open for fraud.”
What kind of fraud are you talking about? When Florida tried to scrub their information turned out to be faulty and incorrect. This led to people having little time act when their registration was being questioned and did NOT allow enough time them to bring documentation to show they were eligible to vote. They were disenfranchised, it was no surprise the most of those where minorities.
So, the Photo ID your pushing would only prevent in person identity fraud.
How would I do identity fraud? Let’s see, I go and vote once, my name is on the rolls and I sign my name and vote. I go to another location, I make up a name. Since my name isn’t on the rolls, I have to vote with a provisional ballot. I go to the next location and vote with a provisional ballot again. The election board and prosecutors catch me in voter fraud. I’m spending the next 7 years in the Federal Pen and wondering how I’m going to pay the $15,000 fine. The two votes I cast were thrown out. Does that sound like effect voter fraud? i don’ think so..
“Your right? About what? You actually haven’t said anything other than to pick apart statements on a blog.”
In the real world (not the one you live in obviously), we call that making a counter-argument.
As for my poking holes in your so-called scholarship…that’s just too easy. If you want to revisit your first post, that’s fine. Why’d you bring up ARPANET in the first place (and ripping off a lesson made for 3rd graders in the process)? Diane wasn’t disputing the Origin of ARPANET. You’re the one who dragged that silly cat in the house.
If you’re left with the impression that I haven’t disputed anything else you’ve ‘written’, all I can say is I’d rather argue with the people who were smart enough to write those statements in the first place – not you.
I’m done with this thread…and you.
Thanks for playing. Come back soon.
He may be back, he may not. It’s waste of time to have a conversation with anybody who doesn’t listen to all sides.
So gent you “believe” that I didn’t “write those statements”. Yes I did. I was trying to inject some prospective into Ms. Benjamin’s rather hysterical view point that February 26 is the end of the “free” internet. I don’t how you wanted me to write a very basic overview and history of the the fact that the very government that Ms. Benjamin hates, fostered and paid for the inception of the internet. Perhaps you wanted me to write in Latin or Greek or maybe Swahili.
Capitalism does not always foster invention, governments are sometimes are the catalysis for that invention like the internet and the many, many contributions that NASA has given to modern science and technology. Government does play a role in regulations so that corporations do not gain monopoly on what is a utility we all use. If in the end corporation like Comcast or ATT can charge differently for those who want faster internet, then that will be the end of the “free” internet. I believe that the FCC is trying to not have this happened where we have two internets, one for the wealthy and one for those who can’t pay. That capitalism at its worst.
I wrote about Robert McChesney in a post above. He also co founded the Marxist publication Free Press. Free Press ran a article thanking the US Conference of Mayors and the committee Mayor Renner co chaired for passing the Net Neutrality Resolution. The letter was signed by a couple dozen far left organizations. Do theirs groups reflect the citizens of Bloomington? http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/06/27/dozens-organizations-companies-thank-us-mayors