 MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Small government Didn't this bill for a national franchise go against the conservative viewpoint of a smaller national government?
The power needs to lie in local communities to write it's own agreements. If the agreement is too pesky the company can reserve the right to not serve that community. In which case the community should have the option to build it themselves, or for someone else to come in and do the job the way the community wants it. Or the company can bite the bullet and agree to the local franchise. Either way, we don't need National Government telling Local Government how to act outside of what is offered in the Constitution.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Maxo:Didn't this bill for a national franchise go against the conservative viewpoint of a smaller national government? Yup. The Republicans have been the party of Very Big Government for the past 6 years now. Very Big Government is not what conservatism is all about and Ted Stevens is not a conservative by any measure of the word. People like him, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and other professional legislators are the reason we need congressional term limits of some form.
I agree with you that the a national franchise would be an excessive over-reach of Federal authority into what should be a state and/or local matter. I for one am glad that this bill died just on those grounds alone.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
| reply to Maxo
Local requirements make it more difficult to run a nationwide network. Diferent communities have different needs. One community will demand that pay-per-view broadcasts be blocked to prevent pron, other communities will say they want the provider to build a new parking lot. It makes things much easier to have a nationwide standard that hopefully won't upset too many people. |
|
|
|
| reply to pnh102
quote:
People like him, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and other professional legislators are the reason we need congressional term limits of some form.
Damn right. |
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | reply to hoyleysox
said by hoyleysox:Local requirements make it more difficult to run a nationwide network. Diferent communities have different needs. One community will demand that pay-per-view broadcasts be blocked to prevent pron, other communities will say they want the provider to build a new parking lot. It makes things much easier to have a nationwide standard that hopefully won't upset too many people. Just because something is "more difficult" doesn't give the feds the right to regulate it. The federal government only has the right to regulate services that cross state borders.
So if I grow oranges here in Florida and sell them to my neighbor the feds have no right to tell me anything about my selling of the oranges. The local government can levy taxes and tell me my oranges have to be such-and-such. If I ship them to Georgia then the feds can come in and tell me what I can and can't do with my oranges.
If I own an orange grove in Florida, and an orange grove in California, it may be more difficult to have to deal with the regulations of each local government, but it's their right to be difficult.
For issues such as, which pesticides I use, the feds can regulate that because those spread into the water and into the ground and affect everyone, not just Floridians.
Power needs to stay in with the local governments where it belongs.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
