JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
edit:
June 22nd, @01:57PM
| reply to Nerdtalker
Re: Small, unintrusive government
This is a state and local level issue. AND it looks like a nice conflict of interest too. Imagine that... |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by JakCrow  :This is a state and local level issue. I understand that. You're saying that it's ironic that a republican (who would usually advocate for state rights) is getting involved with an issue that should only concern that state. You're insinuating that there's some hypocrisy here, right?
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 6200+ |
|
Blasterbator
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Jackson, MS
·Cox HSI
| reply to JakCrow
Obviously it is not just a state / local issue right now.
Any law, whether it is for or against it makes it a national issue. It would be nice to see a law defining it as not a national issue.
--
"If PCs are hard, then Macs are flaccid" -bb |
|
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| reply to JakCrow
Conflict of interest? Not for McCain. Conflict of interest YES for Sessions, the individual whose already trying to regulate broadband by BANNING local governments altogether from setting up their own broadband networks. Funny that an ex SBC employee whose wife owns more than $500,000 in stocks would do such a thing. McCain and Launtenberg are simply reacting to corrupt legislation, attemping to insure city's rights to set up their own utility infrastructure. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Nerdtalker
said by Nerdtalker :said by JakCrow :This is a state and local level issue. I understand that. You're saying that it's ironic that a republican (who would usually advocate for state rights) is getting involved with an issue that should only concern that state. You're insinuating that there's some hypocrisy here, right? You are correct. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to broadbanderexpanderc
said by broadbanderexpanderc:
Conflict of interest? Not for McCain. Conflict of interest YES for Sessions, the individual whose already trying to regulate broadband by BANNING local governments altogether from setting up their own broadband networks. Funny that an ex SBC employee whose wife owns more than $500,000 in stocks would do such a thing. McCain and Launtenberg are simply reacting to corrupt legislation, attemping to insure city's rights to set up their own utility infrastructure.
Yes. Conflict of interest on Session's part. I should have made the clearer. |
|
