Worst Posts

User avatar
Posted by crimsongulf
08 Mar 2015, 4:54 pm

User avatar

Posts: 24403
Sorry, I have lost count of threads that you have been blown up on because you only read the headline. This is just another one.

Even downs syndrome folks learn from repetition but seems that you do not.

User avatar
Posted by Lostphoenix
09 Mar 2015, 4:34 pm

User avatar

Posts: 5686
Cannonpointer » 08 Mar 2015 8:24 pm wrote:

Shazaam! This queer made a post that didn't whine about a status of forces agreement.

The pecker checker is on record .

I wonder how you qualify as a pecker checker...you probably go to the same internet school that str8 went to for bedpan engineering

say what you wish about baby huey but at least he has job security

User avatar
Posted by Huey
13 Mar 2015, 5:11 am

Post 13 Mar 2015, 5:11 am
User avatar

Posts: 24541
Mark Lindberg » 12 Mar 2015 8:44 pm wrote:

It doesn't matter any longer to people like you what anyone says. You deny it, reword it, whatever, it doesn't matter what anyone you like says, no matter how counterproductive or dangerous it is, you support it. Words mean what you say they mean, not what they've historically meant nor what the dictionary says they mean. You've decided to construct reality on the fly -- it exists in whatever form and with whatever characteristics are useful to you at the moment. I used to expect this from the commies, from dictators -- now right-wing Americans are doing exactly that.

I remember during Star Wars tests, I saw a news video of 10 drones flying (not the modern type, this was during Reagan). They tried to shoot them down with the new technology, and out of ten they managed to shoot down one. The reporter asked the commanding officer what he called these results, and the man faced the camera, smiled, and said 'an unqualified success!" That's what you people are doing. Reality is not real, it's what you say it is.

Sounds like you, Obama and the rest of the drones describing the ACA. An unqualified success.

User avatar
Posted by #ShePersisted
09 Mar 2015, 7:13 pm

#ShePersisted Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 16776

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
14 Mar 2015, 1:47 am

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 58900
Truthwarrior757 » 13 Mar 2015 10:57 am wrote:

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and it seems the state of Oklahoma may have found a way to keep the Federal Government out of its business. States were assured if the Supreme Court struck down DOMA -- the Defense of Marriage Act, states could govern marriage without any intrusion by the Federal Government and its courts.

This all changed when California voters voted to define marriage between a man and a woman and a single judged overturned the referendum.
The same judicial intrusion has happened in state after state. While 81 percent of the voters in Alabama voted to stop same sex marriage, a single judge overruled that vote.
Oklahoma believes it has found a remedy.
As I've repeatedly argued, the advocates of same-sex marriage have to account for marriage. What is the source of marriage? Evolution can't account for it. Marriage is a creation ordinance. God ordained marriage, and if God ordained marriage he also defined it and set certain standards for it. the most fundamental standard is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The funny thing about what Oklahoma wants to do is that the Democrats are fearful of "unintended consequences." Really?
Haven't opponents of same-sex marriage saying this all along? Justice Scalia said as much.
OKLAHOMA CITY—Sparked by controversy over same-sex marriages, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would abolish government-issued Oklahoma marriage licenses.
“The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” said state Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, the bill’s House author. “Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second. Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy.”
Under House Bill 1125, marriage licenses would be replaced by marriage certificates issued by clergy and others authorized to perform marriage ceremonies. The bill passed the House 67-24 and will now go to the Senate for consideration.
Russ’ bill sparked spirited discussion on the House floor, with some Democrat lawmakers arguing that the bill could have unintended consequences — like eliminating the state’s ability to stop bigamy or polygamy.
“As I read your bill, as long as the clergy has signed off on it, the state will have essentially signed off on it,” said House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Oklahoma City. “You are potentially opening up Pandora’s Box.”
Russ disputed that interpretation, saying other provisions in the law that make multiple marriages illegal would remain in place.
Russ said the bill is designed to protect employees of county court clerks’ offices who have been “caught in the middle of a fight between the federal and state government” over the legality of same-sex marriages.
Oklahoma law currently defines marriage as being “with a person of the opposite sex,” but federal circuit courts have ruled same-sex marriages are legal. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue later this year.
Read the rest of the article here.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/20971/okla ... UaZ5Bdk.99

First off, I hope you're not expecting liberals to cry about the state getting out of a religious ceremony? I believe the world worked better in the days before child support. There was plenty of ugly - which is what got the state involved in the first place, - but LESS ugly, IMO. Secondly, there has never been a time when states were promised the right to violate the 14th Amendment requiring equal treatment under the law. That your copy paste thinks there was, merely exposes the ignorance of the author - AS DOES his perfectly relaxed and freely uttered - yet UTTERLY undefended - claim that evolution could not be at cause in the matter of marriage - in the face of wolves, eagles, Canada geese, swans, cranes, hawks, condors, coyotes and perhaps a dozen other animals which are KNOWN to mate for life. Did God instruct THOSE creatures to marry, and to hold that union sacred? Is it obedience to the bible, or is it instinct?

IF evolution is indeed responsible for human existence - and I take neither an affirmative nor a negative stance for the purpose of this post, - then evolution is likewise almost CERTAINLY responsible for the widespread lipservice humanity gives to marriage and monogamy. Women are weaker and smaller and more vulnerable than are men. They break easier and are physically less capable of either offense or defense. Additionally, they are the one and only medium by which humanity continues the species. If humanity were reduced to 5 women and a thousand men, it would take thousands of years to get the kind of numbers and the amout of individual variation which we are told is necessary to our long term survival prospects. On the other hand, of we had 5 men and a thousand women, we'd be up to par in 10 generations - a couple hundred years.

Until the advent of industrialism - some would argue post industrialism, - women have NEEDED men for their well being - and THEIR WELLBEING has always been and always will be central to the survival of humanity, If one accepts evolution as a given, one would be ignorant to opine that marriage is perforce NOT an aspect of evolution. If one does NOT believe in evolution, one ought to argue that issue on it's merits rather than dishonestly and blithely making grandiose claims on the way to some OTHER equally wrong headed assertion.

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
14 Mar 2015, 11:53 am

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3734
Huey » 14 Mar 2015 11:46 am wrote:
GailyBee » 14 Mar 2015 11:24 am wrote:

This is really a gorgeous piece of art.

I am surprised. I live on the chesapeake portsmouth line. I see nothing wrong with this display and don't understand what the issue is.

I can't figure it out--overkill on being politically correct, maybe?

It's art--it isn't political...it should stay.

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
15 Mar 2015, 5:16 am

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 58900
golfboy » 14 Mar 2015 6:25 pm wrote:
What is the "Falklands", and who owned it?

Who is moose and who is squirrel? I don't play cheap games, and if I did, it would not be with cheap guys.

Direct quote - you can STFU or keep embarrassing yourself, sonny. But what you WON'T do is get that quote to go away - imo keep it in your face,

Cannonpointer » 14 Mar 2015 2:04 am wrote:
Little Billy O'Really lied:
"I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.

Your false claim, "He said he was in Argentina," coupled with your REALLY STOOPID question (are you an actual dumbsmith?), are seriously pathetic. WHO OWNED THE FALKLANDS?

Tell the class precisely what you think the falklands dustup was INTENDED TO SETTLE??? To say that england OR argentina had ownership of the falklands, you dimwit, is to pretend the war he said he reported on never even happened -- making your hero even more the lying ass. :drool: Hey - wanna see the quote again? It's an important and intertesting quote, in that it proves you wrong - and whenever you get proved wrong, you lose your mud and start acting the insane ass - like demanidng to know what "is" the Falklands and who "owned" a territory which hosted two contending armies at that precise moment in time. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I predict a gooey meltdown - I don't think you are competent to not throw a hissy - I don't think you have that kind of freedom around being shown incorrect. I think your Oppositional Defiance Disordwer is set to kick right in there, Duncecap McGoo. :D

Okay - prove me right. I made your prediction. Let the lying and reframing and complete inability to simply correct yourself begin. :wave: :die:

User avatar
Posted by tech guy
17 Mar 2015, 6:23 am

tech guy      
User avatar

Posts: 4576
How many owners cited the minimum wage as a factor in their actions? None.


No, the minimum wage isn't forcing these Seattle restaurants to close

confirming that "Hot Air" is aptly named.

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
19 Mar 2015, 3:52 am

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 58900
Is there a single girl on this board who has not shriekeed at the top of her ling that climate change is SETTLED SCIENCE\? The facts are in? There's no debate, no question - SETTLED SCIENCE?

The IPCC's Working Group One says you girls are fiull of shit.

Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas:

1. Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world.Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossibleto detect climate change over large parts of the globe.
2. Sustain and expand the observational foundation for climate studies by providing accurate, long-term, consistent data including implementation of a strategy for integrated global observations. Given the complexity of the climate system and the inherent multi-decadal time-scale, there is a need for long-term consistent data to support climate and environmental change investigations and projections. Data from the present and recent past, climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, and for the last several millennia are all needed. There is a particular shortage of data in polar regions and data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale.

This is a flat out confession by Working Group One that they have never had the necessary data to make the claims which the Al Gore Rythmic Dancers have pushed on this chat board. Al's Gals (mischievously refered to as Gore's Whores) - have SWORN the data were available and called us petro-trollops for discounting those claims. Suck it, you loud, ignorant trollops. IT WAS NEVER THERE, YA NASTY THANGS.

This next one is even better, and knowing that you hysterical nutjobs thought algore renting a scissor lift was a legitimate scientific presentation, I will translate it into luddite at the end, ya loudmouthed high school drop outs:

3. Understand better the mechanisms and factors leading to changes in radiative forcing; in particular, improve the observations of the spatial distribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols. It is particularly important that improvements are realised in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and particularly aerosols, and in addressing biogeochemical sequestration and cycling, and specifically, in determining the spatial-temporal distribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) sources and sinks, currently and in the future. Observations are needed that would decisively improve our ability to model the carbon cycle; in addition, a dense and well-calibrated network of stations for monitoring CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentrations will also be required for international verification of carbon sinks. Improvements in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and in the prediction and assessment of direct and indirect aerosol forcing will require an integrated effort involving in situ observations, satellite remote sensing, field campaigns and modelling.

Translation: We currently have no real idea how any of this works. None of our theoriees have worked when we modelled them. This shit is far more complaex than you have been led to believe - FAR more complex. Also, were drunk when you fell for that scissor lift retarded shit? And were you gay when you puked the hockey stick into the memory hole, ya no integroty having republican sluts?

4. Understand and characterise the important unresolved processes and feedbacks, both physical and biogeochemical, in the climate system. Increased understanding is needed to improve prognostic capabilities generally. The interplay of observation and models will be the key for progress. The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises.

Translation: Everything we're doing right now is blowing up in our faces, Not one of the things we've projected has been CLOSE to the actual outcomes. Everybody needs to cool their jets and retrench, because what we are doing now is just spinning our wheels and burning money.

5. Address more completely patterns of long-term climate variability including the occurrence of extreme events. This topic arises both in model calculations and in the climate system. In simulations, the issue of climate drift within model calculations needs to be clarified better in part because it compounds the difficulty of distinguishing signal and noise. With respect to the long-term natural variability in the climate system per se, it is important to understand this variability and to expand the emerging capability of predicting patterns of organised variability such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This predictive capability is both a valuable test of model performance and a useful contribution in natural resource and economic management.

Wow, A frank and honest admission that they simply have not done the work it takes to back the claims they've made. I am flabbergasted,

6. Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

I am gonna let you girls follow the link and read the other two for yourselves - I tire, and they're more complex. I tire because I already know that I'm speaking to deaf people over a disconnected line. Otherwise, I would push on through.

It's nice to see an actual honest report come out of the IPCC now and again, I can tell you that. The hysteria, the fake math - they tend to push the buttons of growups, while merely raising the estrogen levels of the faithful.

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
19 Mar 2015, 5:47 pm


Posts: 12585
Mark Lindberg » 19 Mar 2015 9:58 am wrote:

Larry, for heaven's sake, don't you know there are cultures on this planet who have been at war with one another for hundreds, even thousands of years? Are any of the original antagonists still alive? People have long memories.

Those still at war with one another see the antagonists before them. Good Lord. :rolleyes:

Those memories in no way have to be first-person accounts. Do you think that a family standing in a courtroom hating someone on trial for killing their son, brother, or husband, is irrational? After all, the perp didn't hurt them personally in a physical sense, but he certainly hurt them spiritually and psychologically.

If you're trying to use that example as equal, you're delusional. The ACTUAL - REAL perp is indeed standing before them. :rolleyes:

What about Israel sending rockets into Palestine in retaliation for Palestine sending rockets into Israel? The Israelis firing the rockets were not personally hurt by the rockets sent by the Palestinians, so what business is it of theirs (the Israelis) to fire back at them?

:loco: How about real people; real time? How about self-defense? How about protecting others? How about protecting what is yours? You're really starting to make me wonder about your senses. Really.

And even society as a whole, in punishing a lawbreaker, is irrational by the above argument because the lawbreaker, let's say he robbed a bank, didn't hurt anyone at all. The money he took was insured, no one got hurt, yet we put him on trial. Isn't that irrational, by this argument?

Of course not. What would be irrational within my argument would be to jail the guy's grandson if the grandfather had never been caught. You either don't understand what I mean by irrational or else you're just hodge-podging anything I say about it.

Re slavery, if you see someone whom you figure had ancestors who owned, whipped, beat, or killed your ancestors, I find it hard to believe you would have no reaction.

Perhaps you would. That's irrational. I indeed have an ancestor on my dad's side who was killed in the Civil War. If I were you, I'd have the ass for today's southerners. After all, I'm sure one of their ancestors did it. But, I don't. Go figure, eh?

I saw a news story where a Japanese fighter pilot who took part in the raid on Pearl Harbor was introduced to a US Navy sailor who was on one of the ships. These men cried and embraced, though neither did personal harm to the other. So why did they cry? You know the answer.

Yeah, I do. They were able to forgive and forget. You just made my case. Two past military men who put the hate behind them. And that was without ancestry in the mix. Shouldn't all Americans hate the Japanese now? I sure don't. Do you? If you don't, then why not? You'll forgive those people whose ancestors attacked us with all they had without even returning any war effort from us? Or will you? But you can't bring yourself to see any reason to forgive an entire race of people whose very few ancestors were slave owners? You say you're a Christian, so why aren't you preaching that forgiveness, especially when such a huge percentage of us whites are sorry that slavery ever took place? Another thing - something I keep asking and you keep ignoring - why aren't Jews going about running down Germans whose ancestors not only enslaved them, starved them, beat them, experimented on them, shot them down for standing in the wrong place, separated their families, gassed them and incinerated them, but also to the tune of 6 MILLION of THEIR ancestors? Why, Mark? Could it be that they aren't irrational people? Until you can make sense of that behavior in line with your assessment of the black population, you're doing not a single thing but backing the behavior and extending your own hate with it.

Mark Lindberg's Photo
Posted by Mark Lindberg
18 Mar 2015, 3:11 pm

Post 18 Mar 2015, 3:11 pm
Mark Lindberg      

Posts: 4302
from an attorney on LinkedIn:

No Big Surprises: The FCC Releases its Network Neutrality Order

Today, the FCC released its 400-page report
(including 80 pages of dissents from the two Republican commissioners) in the network neutrality proceeding. Despite speculation that some of the rules might not have been revealed in the FCC's previous public statements, the order contains few surprises.

Highlights of the Order

Scope of the rules: The rules apply to "broadband Internet access service," defined as any service, wired or wireless, that provides access to substantially all Internet end points, except for dial-up services. The rules apply to both licensed and unlicensed wireless services. The rules do not cover (a) "specialized services" that use Internet Protocol but do not provide access to the entire Internet, such as voice over IP service offered over cable facilities or medical monitoring devices; (b) enterprise, virtual private network, hosting, data storage, and Internet backbone services; or (c) "premises operators," such as coffee shops, bookstores and colleges and universities that provide access to the Internet.

Blocking: The rules prohibit blocking access to lawful content, applications, and services, or blocking use of devices that are not harmful to the network.

Throttling: The rules prohibit impairing or degrading Internet traffic based on content, applications, or services, or an end user's installation of a device that does not harm the network.

Paid prioritization: The rules prohibit paid prioritization, which is defined as using any technique to give some traffic an advantage over other traffic in return for any kind of payment or on behalf of an affiliated entity.

Transparency: The FCC retained the existing rule requiring ISPs to disclose the terms and conditions under which they provide service, including prices and speeds. The new rules also require ISPs to disclose promotional rates, all data caps and allowances, and packet loss, as well as to provide specific notification of network practices that are likely to significantly affect consumers' use of the service. The additional requirements will not be applied to ISPs with 100,000 or fewer subscribers, at least initially.

General conduct rule: Broadband Internet access providers cannot "unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage" either end users or edge providers in the use of Internet service. This rule is in addition to the specific network neutrality requirements, and questions under the rule will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Interconnection: The FCC concluded that what it calls "commercial arrangements for the exchange of traffic with a broadband Internet access provider" are within the scope of the common carrier provisions of the Communications Act, and therefore subject to complaints that practices are unjust or unreasonable. It did not adopt any specific rules, but instead decided to "watch, learn, and act as required" in response to complaints.

Reasonable network management: Most of the FCC's substantive requirements—but not the paid prioritization rule—will be subject to an exception for reasonable network management. Network management is reasonable only if it is "primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose." The FCC will consider technical characteristics of the provider's network in determining what is reasonable, but did not provide any guidance on how acceptable practices might differ between wired and wireless services. (This has suggested some concerns about how wireless providers might differentiate services as they move to 5G.)

Reclassification of broadband services: The FCC determined that broadband Internet access should be treated as a telecommunications service subject to the common carrier requirements of the Communications Act. As described below, the order forbears from applying some of those requirements to broadband services.

Taxes and fees: The FCC will not require broadband Internet access providers to contribute to the federal universal service fund today, but is considering whether to change the contribution rules in another proceeding, and could require contributions later. The FCC took similar action as to contributions to the fund that supports Telecommunications Relay Service. The FCC also concluded that the reclassification of broadband Internet access as a common carrier service would not affect the existing exemption from state and local taxes under the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

State regulation: In addition to classifying broadband Internet access as a common carrier service, the FCC also reaffirmed that it is a jurisdictionally interstate service. Based on that determination, the FCC concluded that the service is not subject to state regulation. It also determined that its decision to forbear from certain types of regulation also precludes states from applying the same types of regulation.

Enforcement and interpretation:The order creates new procedures for complaints about potential violations of the rules and for issuing advisory opinions on the permissibility of particular actions that ISPs might take. The rules permit formal and informal complaints to the FCC, and the FCC can take action to address specific complaints or take broader enforcement action to impose forfeitures or other remedies available to it under the Communications Act. While advisory opinions will not bind the FCC, they will immunize a party that receives one against enforcement actions unless the FCC specifically advises the party that the advisory opinion has been withdrawn.Common carrier regulation
The reclassification of broadband Internet access as a common carrier service subjects that service to a much different regulatory regime than the one that applied to it as an information service. The order used the FCC's authority to forbear from applying certain regulations to craft a specific set of requirements for broadband Internet access that are related to, but distinct from the rules that apply to telephone service.
These are the most significant requirements that the FCC decided to apply to broadband Internet:
Limitations on unjust and unreasonable practices: The FCC will apply the core elements of common carrier regulation, which prohibit carriers from engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices and from unreasonably discriminating among customers.

Enforcement: The FCC will apply the provisions of the Communications Act that permit parties to file complaints with the FCC about violations of the statute or the rules. Parties also will be allowed to file complaints in federal court, but the FCC urged courts to send cases to the FCC.

Customer privacy: The customer privacy obligations of Section 222 of the Communications Act, which include a requirement to obtain customer consent before using information related to the customer for marketing purposes, will be applied to broadband Internet service. The FCC is not, however, applying the rules that implement Section 222 at this time, which leaves some question as to how broadband Internet access providers will ensure that they comply with the statutory requirement.

Accessibility: The requirements to provide accessible services for people with disabilities will apply to broadband Internet service. Many of these requirements already apply through other provisions of the Communications Act.
These are the most significant requirements that the FCC decided not to apply to broadband Internet:
Pricing regulation: The FCC will not apply any of its specific pricing rules to retail broadband Internet and, specifically, will not require providers to file and receive approval of tariffs listing their prices and other terms and conditions. It may review the reasonableness of rates, particularly for interconnection, on a case-by-case basis.

Contribution requirements: As noted above, broadband Internet access providers will not be required to contribute to the federal universal service fund or to the Telecommunications Relay Service fund, at least initially.

Entry and exit requirements: Broadband Internet access providers will not be required to obtain FCC approval to begin providing service, to stop providing service or to be bought or sold.

Telephone-specific interconnection and unbundling: The interconnection and unbundling rules adopted following the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will not be applied to broadband Internet access. This includes requirements to permit resale of retail or wholesale services.

Truth in billing and slamming:The FCC concluded that there is no need to apply these rules to broadband Internet access, particularly in light of the transparency rule.
The classification of broadband service as a common carrier service also permits providers to take advantage of some benefits of being a common carrier under the Communications Act. Most notably, the FCC determined that broadband providers will be eligible to use utility poles and conduits in the same way as telephone companies and that broadband providers will be eligible for universal service funding, provided that they meet other requirements in the Communications Act.
What was not known before
The FCC's previous public statements about the order described most of the significant decisions it contains. There were, as a result, only a few elements of the order that could be thought of as surprises. They included the following:
The paid prioritization rule covers affiliated entities: The focus in discussions of this rule had been on third parties paying for preferential access to end users, but the rule also prohibits preferential access—even if no money changes hands—for affiliates of an ISP. This is similar to the non-discrimination rule the FCC adopted in 2010.

Waivers of the paid priority rule: The order creates a process for waivers of the paid priority rule if an ISP can demonstrate that a waiver is in the public interest. The standards for waivers are strict; in fact, the order notes that waivers for telemedicine likely would not be granted because it could be offered as a specialized service.

Ability to rely on advisory opinions: Some of the discussion during the FCC's open meeting suggested that advisory opinions would be entirely non-binding. However, the actual rules give the party that requests the opinion protection against enforcement action unless the opinion is revoked and the FCC gives notice. This makes such opinions more useful, although still only in a limited way.

Customer notice of network practices that are likely to significantly affect consumers' use of the service: This requirement was not mentioned at the open meeting, and depending on how it is applied, could require customer-specific notice in certain circumstances, or simply require notice that particular kinds of uses (e.g.,gaming) may be affected by specific network management techniques.Next steps
As the FCC indicated at the open meeting, the order will not go into effect until 60 days after notice of the decision is published in the Federal Register. There is no specific time for Federal Register publication, but an order this long may take two weeks or more to appear. The changes in the transparency rule also must be reviewed by the federal Office of Management and Budget before they can go into effect, and that could take six months or more.
Appeals of the decision can be filed as soon as the order appears in the Federal Register, and likely will be filed immediately. Because the FCC is treating this decision as a response to the D.C. Circuit's decision on the 2010 rules, it is likely that the appeal will go to that court. Filing an appeal will not automatically stay the rules, so if the court does not grant a stay, the rules will be in effect while the appeal is being considered.
The rules also could be overridden if Congress passes and the President signs legislation creating a different network neutrality regime. Unless the legislation largely follows the framework of the FCC decision, it does not appear likely that the President would sign it. Congressional Republicans also could try to overturn the decision through a legislative veto or a rider on an appropriations bill, but those actions also would require Presidential approval.

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
21 Mar 2015, 4:01 am

Post 21 Mar 2015, 4:01 am
Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 58900
RichClem » 20 Mar 2015 3:45 pm wrote:

Singapore's retirement system allows private ownership of one's retirement funds and health care savings, making it less Socialist than the US's Social Security and Medicare systems.

Bungling that obvious reality makes you a psychotic.

Singapore's government owns thenation's largest share of the means of production. It owns 88% of the residential housing. It owns the health care delivery system. It does not allow citizens to gamble in the casinos without a permit - and the permit will let them know how much they are allowed to bet and when they must stop.

Socilalism is not dead, homotard.

User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
21 Mar 2015, 7:59 am

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
Democrats just playing to their base. :die:

User avatar
Posted by tech guy
21 Mar 2015, 12:47 pm

tech guy      
User avatar

Posts: 4576
Reasonable » 21 Mar 2015 12:32 pm wrote:
Let's add the license to discriminate to the license to add more toxic emissions into our atmosphere.
The republicans have bought themselves a one way ticket to oblivion.

Let's not overlook their license to war monger openly and contrary to current diplomatic negotiation.

User avatar
Posted by GeorgeWashington
21 Mar 2015, 4:43 pm

User avatar

Posts: 5294
nefarious101 » 20 Mar 2015 10:02 pm wrote:
A Democratic bill unveiled this week would allow former convicted felons released from prison to vote in federal elections.
The measure would create a uniform federal standard applicable to ex-felons who are no longer in prison. It would not apply to state elections.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and lead sponsor of the bill, said it would help former criminal offenders reintegrate into civil society. He also noted that preventing former prisoners from voting disproportionately affects racial minorities.

Nearly six million Americans cannot vote because of a felony conviction.
"Just as poll taxes and literacy tests prevented an entire class of citizens, namely African Americans, from integrating into society after centuries of slavery, ex-offender disenfranchisement laws prevent people from reintegrating into society after they have paid their debt by serving time in prison," Conyers said in a statement.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... -ex-felons

I think all rights should be restored once time is served. If a crime warrants a lifetime loss of rights, then don't let them out.

As it is now, we release felons and expect them to assimilate back into a society without allowing them to be on equal footing with everyone else in society.

User avatar
Posted by Vegas
22 Mar 2015, 1:54 pm

Vegas Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
User avatar

Posts: 11416
I think we should sticky this thread until Mark?Lisa decideds to finally pull her head out of her ass. Ill start.

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
22 Mar 2015, 4:43 am

Cannonpointer 98% Macho Man
User avatar
98% Macho Man

Posts: 58900

ABOVE, a short clip from Bill Maher's new polemic, VICE, the opening sentence of which tells two implicit lies, gangnam and goebbels style:

1. That visually observing the melting of some antarctic sea ice is the equivalent of observing and scientifically measuring the melt rate of all the ice on earth, and
2. That rising sea levels can be a purely local phenomenon, putting folks at sea level in one place permanently under several feet of water, while leaving folks at sea level in all other places right at sea level and NOT several feet beneath. To prove the world's ocean level (there is only one ocean, with different names in different areas) is rising apace, they used Bangladesh - which has been KNOWN to be sinking, because of ill-advised engineering, for fifty years.

Lemme query those of you who are on the left politically, like me, but have a fucking independent brain - again, like me. I want you to just CONSIDER what I am saying to you, and make up your own mind how COMFORTABLE you ought to be, taking the pro side in this debate - and perhaps you'd be kind enough to share with me what you feel I am missing, which separates us on different sides of an enormous gulf. I want you to know I have read NOTHING which debunks climate change. I cannot stomach lush rimob or clem beck or shawn ham and tea. I don't read Heritage or CATO any of those types, and I CERTAINLY could not stomach the assery that goes on in the downstream echo chamber of those organs. My skepticism of what I call (I think very rightly) your religion is based purely on YOUR preachers and on my observations of the incredibly brazen lies they tell, friend.

People with steak DO NOT NEED to create artificial sizzle. The fact that VICE felt compelled to dupe you, to mislead you, to LIE to you about the reasons Bangladesh is in the situation it is in OUGHT to tell you there's something shady going on. The fact that they used a very, very, very bad model for the MATH by which they created the UTTERLY ERSATZ 97% figure - and the smarminess with which they have used it - OUGHT to make you distrust any OTHER, FAR MORE COMPLEX models they want to spring on you. The fact that they want you to behave - with them - as if ocean levels rising can possibly be a LOCAL phenomenon, as they are pretending in the case of Bangladesh, OUGHT to gain them your enmity for treating you as a fool. Consider: If they are desperate enough and lazy enough to let a guy like me catch and expose them using the shoddiest statisitics possible short of those ubiquitous bar tricks wagered upon by bored traveling salesmen, why in the name of god would you trust them with more complex and less easily verified claims?

The crap that Al Gore pulled in his film - AND PLEASE, BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF FOR CHRIST SAKE. HE WAS YOUR PROPHET, YOUR AVATAR, YOUR ESTEEMED LEADER - AND YOU LOVED HIM AND YOU QUOTED HIM AND YOU TRUSTED HIM. HOW DOES LYING TO YOURSELF SERVE YOU???? - the shit he pulled with the scissor-lift - ALL BY ITSELF - ought to have your bullshit detector at DEFCON 1. Then there is the fact that GORE (and many of your sources) said our atmosphere has never had more carbon, and SCIENCE says it's been 5 times higher. Then there was the suppression on wiki of the medieval warming period, to prevent the immediate fall of the THEN-ESSENTIAL hockey stick graph (again - just stop the damned lying. You were there. You said that hockey stick was the smoking gun - all of you did. I have the scars from being hit with the hockey stick graph and I do NOT pay unmanly visits to the memory hole the way conjobs and gorebal warners do). Then there were the emails which, in plain English and without ANY question, plotted to punish those at variance with orthodoxy financiallly and professionally by - among other bully sticks - denying them access to peer review. In a publish or perish world, alleged scientists plotted like Jersey wise guys to prevent those who had any questions from ever publishing again.

The ugly and unforgivable presence of anti-science "science" charts in actual U.N. issued reports and papers Chart Prepared by Prestigious "Science" Agency and Published Under Imprimatur of the U.N. ought - ALL BY ITSELF - to give you pause regarding every word those organizations (the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Panel on Climate Change) utter on the subject in future. Get caught lying, lose all credibility - a fact of the adult world which seems not to operate in YOUR adult world. And violating the rules of presentation for visual effect is precisely lying, to educated people and people of any character. I ask you in all seriousness, how can you POSSIBLY fancy yourself an intellectual, while advocating "science" which is nothing but shucking and jiving hucksterism ON IT'S FACE - which is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY presented as such, by such, ever?

In the face of every failed prediction - in the face of hyperventialted claims of conformity based on ludicrous and deceitful mathematical methodology - in the face of hucksterism at every level of the game, including the once trustworthy world of science - in the face of having personally witnessed
the republicans using the "global emergency" of terrorism and "WMDs in the wrong hands - KABOOM!" to turn America into a police state, deprive your children of their rights and enrich Wall Street, and KNOWING AS YOU DO that there has only ever been one proposed "solution" to the manufactured "global emergency" of climate change, and that is the corporatocratic wet dream, Cap and Trade (Introduced to America by Poppi Bush), - how can you POSSIBLY embrace with great enthusiasm, and actually fight in favor of, a claim which was LITERALLY introduced to you by a fat assed circus barker using methods that would make P.T. Barnum blush - and subsequently sustained by similar methods, up to and including HIDING AND SUPPRESSING science and BULLYING scientists, lying about history and producing veritable infomercials (more accurately, UNinfomercials) under the imprimatur of science but using methods of pursuasion taken DIRECTLY from grifters and propagandists? How do you sustain any PRETENSE of intellectualism while being used as a proxy by folks that are wiping their corrupt asses with your good name?

User avatar
Posted by Rebel
23 Mar 2015, 9:49 pm

User avatar

Posts: 5509
Well, now we know why the right wingnut minions let the Kochs bang 'em up the bunghole. They sold 'em the mineral rights.

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
24 Mar 2015, 9:11 pm

User avatar

Posts: 51288
Mark Lindberg » 24 Mar 2015 9:10 pm wrote:
golfboy » 24 Mar 2015 9:06 pm wrote:
Sorry, why is Cruz a hypocrite for following the law?
It's not like he has a choice.

Liberals are SUCH idiots.


Nobody's forcing him to get Obamacare. Aren't you part of the group who says nobody forces anyone to work min wage jobs? Well, nobody's forcing Cruz.

My God girl, read the fucking law. Do you not understand that he is REQUIRED to go though the public exchange?
It's amazing how ignorant liberals are of their own laws.

Independent's Photo
Posted by Independent
25 Mar 2015, 2:53 pm


Posts: 5487
Because he HAS to by LAW!!!


Omg. Thanks for making my day Mark, Phoenix,and Scarp.

I knew you were thoughtless puppets dancing on the strings of your masters, but even I never thought you'd say something so stupid like this....