Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality
131 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gufu;47285090]The moment one of the major parties takes over completely, is the moment it will immediately fracture.[/QUOTE]
Dems had a super majority and the only thing they got through was the ACA and even then its been shot at in courts and vote killed by the republican house 57 times (maybe 58 will be the one?) Your right though because the republicans already fractured over the dhs bill with the moderates and leadership breaking rank and voting for a clean bill while the teatards said no
One party would have to essentially need 60 senators, 218 congressmen, a president and 6 SC justices to actually be considered in control of the government. Not too unrealistic but very improbable, but who knows when half of the SC is pushing 75+, a president could get to nominate 3 at once
As a person that swings right on some issues, really disappointed with republicans.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;47285204]As a person that swings right on some issues, really disappointed with republicans.[/QUOTE]
I think once this makes it to the floor, the backlash from constituents would be way too much for such an overarching special interest bill that wouldn't do anything to get them more votes. I know if my congressman signs on I'm giving him a sternly worded letter
hello founding fathers hey I got this government you guys sent me and honestly I really just don't like it so can I just have a whole, just give me a whole different one
thank you papa fathers
[editline]e[/editline]
no but for real I've noticed an increasing disinterest on both sides with any sort of compromise [I]at all[/I] and I get the feeling things are going to get very interesting
judging from the debates I'm hearing by the 2016 election we'll literally just be stabbing each other
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;47285996]no but for real I've noticed an increasing disinterest on both sides with any sort of compromise [I]at all[/I] and I get the feeling things are going to get very interesting
judging from the debates I'm hearing by the 2016 election we'll literally just be stabbing each other[/QUOTE]Put candidates in the Thunderdome and televise it all over the world, that'll probably solve the national debt as well.
Fuck off with your smoke and mirror bullshit.
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;47267282]as a conservative
fuck these guys
Even my super conservative dad hates these fuckers[/QUOTE]
Is he one of those super-conservatives that believes the government is classifying conservatives as terrorists? I've seen some of those on Facebook before, and the funny thing is, if you look up the definition of "terrorism" according to the FBI:
[quote=18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
[b]Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;[/b] and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).[/quote]
Fox News fits the first part of that perfectly. :v:
[editline]9th March 2015[/editline]
Fuck, the bolding fucked up on that one and it uses funny symbols so I can't edit it. :/ The part that says "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" is the part I intended to bold. The Teaparty technically fits the 2nd part of that, right?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47287082]Is he one of those super-conservatives that believes the government is classifying conservatives as terrorists? I've seen some of those on Facebook before, and the funny thing is, if you look up the definition of "terrorism" according to the FBI:
Fox News fits the first part of that perfectly. :v:
[editline]9th March 2015[/editline]
Fuck, the bolding fucked up on that one and it uses funny symbols so I can't edit it. :/ The part that says "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" is the part I intended to bold. The Teaparty technically fits the 2nd part of that, right?[/QUOTE]
I think they're using a stronger definition of "intimidation or coercion".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.