dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
451
share rss forum feed


Titus
Mr Gradenko

join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..

Please teach this in high school

Historically and logically, nearly any instance of the Federal government looking to usurp the powers of the state (or local municipality) is for the benefit of the few and not the many. Anyone that believes otherwise is history's fool.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde



garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY

said by Titus:

Historically and logically, nearly any instance of the Federal government looking to usurp the powers of the state (or local municipality) is for the benefit of the few and not the many. Anyone that believes otherwise is history's fool.
Agreed. Unfortunately, by a quick look at the usual suspect's postings above, the so-called "conventional wisdom" on this issue appears to be largely ignorant of that history.

Sigh.

BrotherJPW0

join:2003-11-27
Glen Ellyn, IL

10 Public Access Channels would follow as:

ComEd Public Repair Access Channel
AT&T Public Repair Access Channel
Nicor Public Repair Access Channel
Comcast Public Repair Access Channel
Community College Access Channel
High School TWP#87 Access Channel
Elementary TWP#89 Access Channel
Elementary TWP#41 Access Channel
Park District Access Channel
Government Access Channel


SD6

join:2005-03-26
reply to Titus

said by Titus:

Historically and logically, nearly any instance of the Federal government looking to usurp the powers of the state (or local municipality) is for the benefit of the few and not the many. Anyone that believes otherwise is history's fool.
yea, all that civil rights legislation taking away the states' right to discriminate, etc., only helped a few people...
and federal legislation preventing states from taxing Internet service hurt too - only a few people have Internet today...
oh, and the Bill of Rights forcing states to let people say and print and read what they want was a dud too...
so, we should protect the "powers of the state" to prevent citizens from watching tv of their choice except as permitted by their local government...

OR

maybe it's overly simplistic to try to make broad political generalizations in a complicated field like telecommunications regulations


Titus
Mr Gradenko

join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..

said by SD6:

said by Titus:

Historically and logically, nearly any instance of the Federal government looking to usurp the powers of the state (or local municipality) is for the benefit of the few and not the many. Anyone that believes otherwise is history's fool.
yea, all that civil rights legislation taking away the states' right to discriminate, etc., only helped a few people...
and federal legislation preventing states from taxing Internet service hurt too - only a few people have Internet today...
oh, and the Bill of Rights forcing states to let people say and print and read what they want was a dud too...
so, we should protect the "powers of the state" to prevent citizens from watching tv of their choice except as permitted by their local government...

OR

maybe it's overly simplistic to try to make broad political generalizations in a complicated field like telecommunications regulations
No political intent was intended nor implied. That's from your end. It's all about economics, and it always is w/capitalism.

I plead guilty to a broad generalization in this case, but not to the intent, within context, of my OP. It's also easy to take a generalization out of its original context and use generalized examples, once a broad premise is established, beyond the original scope to attack the original point as well as ignore it.

Of course the Federal Government intervenes to enforce the Constitution (when doing its job), either by legislation, jurisprudence, or hook/crook.

However, when the federal government involves itself in matters historically left to the state, it is "nearly" always to the benefit of business interests and not the people of the state. I would think that plainly discernible from the post juxtaposed with the topic. I'll be sure to dot the i and cross the t from now on to deflect specious argument, thank you
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde


RadioDoc
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2
reply to BrotherJPW0

10 channels and nothing on.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.



historyteacher

@comcast.net
reply to SD6

Are you a new citizen to the United States? Do you even understand the history of the USA? Geez, even the name "United States of America" implies something, doesn't it? When the founding fathers of this country came together to write these "rules" for the new country they intended these documents to serve as a "starting point" if you will. There was every intention of allowing each state to govern itself and allowed them to leave the "voluntary association of states" if it felt the federal government took things too far (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_ri···_to_1865). You brought up two things that the federal government has done in the last 230 years that were "good," both of which were in the last 60 years. Argue opinion all you want, but the facts will remain. Allowing the federal government to become involved in some things is a good deal, but in this case they should keep their nose out. You think there is a digital divide in the US now? Just wait... No franchises or city/state agreements will mean that telecom co's will not be required to maintain or expand any wires outside of the areas of high population. Rural areas will lose their ability to keep in touch.