US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1643

On February 13 2015 14:33 IgnE wrote:


You are the one who should be doing the research.

The coaxial cable networks that carry the majority of the country's internet services are the same ones that were used in the 80s to carry tv cable. What exactly are you asking me to prove other than pointing out that your "investments" line on a financial report could mean anything, including updating the uniforms of the comcast guy who comes out to check your box? I can't prove that you don't know anything about the internet industry. I just know it.

On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

House Republicans are continuing to threaten the rebels within their ranks.

At least three committee chairmen have issued formal warnings to subcommittee chairmen that lawmakers planning to vote against procedural motions on the House floor should give up their posts — the third time in just six weeks that Republican leaders have made it known they will not tolerate members stepping out of line.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway of Texas, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce of California have all warned their subcommittee chairs that voting against rules while occupying the coveted positions will not be accepted, according to lawmakers familiar with the discussions.

Bishop said his Wednesday night warning was part of a larger discussion on how he wants his committee to run, including how bills and amendments will be introduced.

“On a procedural issue, especially a rule, if you feel strong enough against something, you should also feel strong enough to remove yourself from the situation in which you would be a distraction to what we are trying to do on the committee,” Bishop said.

The Republican leadership team, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), did not issue a directive to its chairmen to punish members who vote against procedural motions. However, sources said GOP leadership made clear to all full committee chairmen that there is an expectation that subcommittee chairs will vote with Republicans on rules.

The warning does not automatically come with a punishment if subcommittee chairmen vote against rules, sources stressed, but it’s yet another sign that Boehner and his allies are looking to bring the rank and file into line after a series of close votes on budgets and appropriations bills in the previous Congress.

Already this year, the Ohio Republican stripped committee spots from two lawmakers who challenged his speakership in early January. Reps. Richard Nugent and Daniel Webster, both of Florida, were removed from the Rules Committee — a panel appointed exclusively at Boehner’s direction — after Webster launched a challenge for the top spot in the House and Nugent backed him.

In a second move, Republican Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana told whips that any lawmaker serving on the team would be expected to fall in line on rules and speaker votes. In response, Reps. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina both gave notice that they no longer wanted to be part of the leadership operation.

On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.

On February 14 2015 05:40 Nyxisto wrote:
An appeal to the authority of California sounds dangerous given the fact that at the time the state was run by a guy whose English was so bad that they had to dub the original versions of his movies. Also even if California decided that the earth was flat with a 100% yes vote I don't understand how this would make the situation in any way less ridiculous.

On February 14 2015 05:42 farvacola wrote:
Danglars is also attempting to hide the fact that California produces a great deal of conservative electoral force through his gesticulation towards San Francisco and Santa Monica.

On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.

On February 14 2015 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:


I think "Only 7 years" is a silly argument to make when you look at how many states legalized it between now and then. This is clearly an extremely different landscape. Progress is happening a lot faster than it ever did. I think that's a big reason a lot of anti-gay marriage people have been comfortable making their positions public on social media etc. They assumed that it would be a long time before it was nationally recognized, which essentially puts them in the same position as people who were in favor of segregation shortly before that was overturned. They are going to become the people we read about in textbooks and I think a lot of people against gay marriage assumed that label would come much later, if at all (likely not at all) because they didn't expect this to happen so fast.

On February 14 2015 06:00 Danglars wrote:
You should've seen the guy we recalled!

I should ask you if you're on board with some law of words with worsening connotations. I don't know if his perception/proposition is any less ridiculous than flat earth theory.

On February 14 2015 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's kind of weird how you can replace "gay" with "interracial" and see the exact same rhetoric being used as was used back then.

On February 13 2015 22:13 heliusx wrote:

The coaxial connections are typically from the street feed to your home. The "network?" Isn't made out of a bunch of coaxial cables, that's absurd. Anyway if anyone is interested in a success story of municipal utilities including fiber to the home you can check out lus. We pay a bit over $100 for 1gbit.

On February 14 2015 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:


Yup, and that's my main point. All of these people who have friends and family aware of their positions are going to remember the positions they held. 50 years from now, kids are going to learn about civil rights movements in the united states. They'll learn about women given equality, people of color given equality, LGBT etc people being given equality. In each case, the group being given rights will of course come to be recognized as the rightful cause. How are people against black rights and women's rights portrayed? That is what I think a lot of anti-gay people are not quite realizing will become their reality.

On February 14 2015 06:37 IgnE wrote:


The "last mile" lines are typically coaxial with some fiber in larger cities and denser areas, and they are the bottleneck in terms of bandwidth. Yeah there are optical fiber lines that make up most of the internet backbone, and there was even a "fiber glut" from companies laying fiber lines in the 90s boom, but those lines were redundant lines between cities and long distance rather than complete fiber lines down to the last mile at the street level. Cable companies say they have had no reason to upgrade the last mile lines because customers aren't asking for faster internet service.

On February 14 2015 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's kind of weird how you can replace "gay" with "interracial" and see the exact same rhetoric being used as was used back then.

Declaring that the Internet has become the “Wild Wild West” with consumers and industries as top targets, President Obama on Friday called for a new era of cooperation between the government and the private sector to defeat a range of fast-evolving online threats.

Mr. Obama signed an executive order urging companies to join information-sharing hubs to exchange data on online threats — and, in some cases, to receive classified information from the government. But the order stopped short of exempting the companies from liability if the data they collected and shared led to legal action.

Only legislation, which Mr. Obama has tried and failed to get through Congress for three years, can exempt the companies from such liability. Many companies outside the financial industry have been reluctant to share data without such a law in place.

Mr. Obama’s intelligence and law enforcement aides would like to preserve access to all digital communication with a court order. The companies say that would create a breach that China and Russia, among others, would exploit...

Not mentioned at the event was the issue that has most roiled companies in Silicon Valley. Disclosures by Mr. Snowden showed that intelligence agencies were surreptitiously siphoning off customer data from companies like Google and Yahoo as it flowed internally between their data centers.

That information created an atmosphere of distrust that executives say will make information-sharing much more difficult.

On February 14 2015 12:54 coverpunch wrote:
Some of you guys have been insisting this is a distinct issue from net neutrality but I wouldn't be so sure. President Obama urges cooperation for information sharing from tech companies: