how-to block ads
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | In other news, dog bites man The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. | |
|  
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: In other news, dog bites man said by russotto  :The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.
It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it?  | |
| | 
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Spring City, PA | Re: In other news, dog bites man Correlation does not prove causation.
Money changed hands, but it can't be labeled a "bribe" unless you have other evidence to the fact. | |
| | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: In other news, dog bites man "Money changed hands". That statement is true. Thus, it was a BRIBE. By definition, a bribe is money or goods and services changing hands to influence someone/something. AT&T paid money to this 'think tank', in order to get results they wanted. That, by anyone's definition, is a bribe.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | |
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Spring City, PA | Re: In other news, dog bites man By that definition, then every campaign contribution is a bribe. | |
| | | | | 
AnonDOG
@kaballero.com | Re: In other news, dog bites man quote:
By that definition, then every campaign contribution is a bribe.
Ayup, you are beginning to see the light grasshopper.
 | |
| | | | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL | Had they done a paper on it, they would have had the same position even if the muni's had given them the money. They will always take the no-government position. Move along, nothing to see here. | |
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by kamm : On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? Perhaps if you had been following the Reason Foundation's positions for the last 20 years you would know that this was the completely predictable position by people who steadfastly value liberty and see increased government as a threat to that (even when the people want it).
There are plenty of places where the analysis follows the funding, but here it's the other way around.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
| | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| said by kamm :said by russotto :The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? Perhaps you didn't see the linked article where it reminds us that AT&T is a provider for the large Utah muni Utopia project, among others:
»www.muniwireless.com/newsletter/nr157.html
»www.muniwireless.com/newsletter/nr150.html
It's hardly "proof" that AT&T is "bribing" the Reason Foundation to oppose muni broadband when they're profiting from it. | |
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by kamm :It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? A witch! Burn them!
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
| | | |
|
·