Milwaukee Sues AT&T For Ignoring Franchising Process > Don't they know?

Don't they know?

I thought that some of these franchise agreements(short sighted) these towns have specifically mention cable, and this is how AT&T figures it does not have to comply.

The law is....what the law is.....
I love how people whine and cry when others play by the laws that the whiners wrote and it doesn't work out quite as planned.

I would be quite sure though that AT&T is rather happy to "compete" against those who actually have to abide by the franchise agreement system (assuming AT&T doesn't).

If they were all exempt and they had to compete against an unfettered cable build out they might not be so thrilled, and would likely file a suit against the city on that.

Personally I don't really think these agreements have actually done a lot of good over the long haul. There might be pockets of benefit, but overall I think it is negligible.

K.
--
Race season is over, now what?!? |
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap

reply to Maxo

**WE** are the government.. in case you forgot.

No WE aren't.

reply to sea93

reply to squid7
Yes WE are.... "We the people, in order to form a ...."

The government is of the people, by the people, for the people...

We represent ourselves.. we elect our voice in the greater body called the government..

Please.. correct me, and all of our documents in this country that make me correct that WE are the government.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one.

Wrong again. That's "We the People...establish this Constitution"...not government. The perversion of the Constitution that resulted in our current gov't came many years and Amendments to that sacred document later.

Read the document you're quoting. We don't represent ourselves. We are a Representative Republic system of democratic republic with those Representatives looking out for their OWN interests instead of their constituents which would be the "We".

Politicians and their donors are the gov't. Not "We".

I don't remember "We" sending us to Iraq, killing us with an abusive tax code or denying us a-la-carte cable programming. The whores in Congress do that.

We the Senate...
We the House...
We the Special Interests...

That's the gov't thumb we live under.

That's very much a bitter Billy way to represent your side, but you are still wrong. We are a Democratic Republic form of government.

WE the people.. WE the government.. we self govern..

You can spin what you want... you can cloud the situation with all the things wrong with who is in office.. but it still remains that WE THE PEOPLE can remove those who abuse the system.. WE THE PEOPLE don't.

Please, get your facts straight when coming here and stop trolling.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one.

reply to squid7

reply to squid7
What spin? We don't govern ourselves as we are not a direct democracy but a representative republic. The only cases of direct democracy in California would be our initiative system which does not exist in Federal Gov't.

Special interests get money from a noisy minority or from corporate profit.

They purchase a political hack and give them money to buy advertising.

A minority of people believe everything they see on TV and put the hack in office.

The political hack repays whoever gave them the biggest contributions.

Regardless of what side you're on that is how our system of gov't works regardless of how you wished it worked or not. To deny it is to deny reality.

reply to Maxo

I don't think you can take the blame of the war in Iraq and the massive tax cuts for the extremely rich of of Bush. The congress certainly shares a large part of the blame. The congress and the President have been acting as a single entity, more or less, for the last 6 years.
The American people share a large part of the blame too. It's one thing to put someone back in power and have them screw you over. It's another to put him back in for another full term.
(This is all, of course, putting aside arguments about whether or not he actually won the election. No need for a tangent.)
We have all failed the system and ourselves.
--
"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

Oh for sure, Bush policy and Congressional eagerness to make political gain by looking tough after 9-11 (with the force authorization) is what got us into Iraq.

But I would like to take exception with the tax cut comment. The tax cuts were directed to those who paid the taxes. Given the progressive tax system where the bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 4% of the income tax revenue while the top 1% of wage earners pay more than 33% of the tax revenue (even when their share of wages earned are far less than 33%), it only makes sense that a tax cut will go the people with the highest wages...again because they paid by far the most taxes. As a percentage of taxes paid, the middle class got a larger percentage tax cut that the higher income earners did.

Another thing to note is that "wealth" isn't income and isn't subject to income tax. Point being "rich" people don't pay taxes because they're "rich". For example if a CEO who has a net worth of $5 billion earns $50 million in taxable income, he'll pay the same tax an iron worker with a $100,000 net worth who won $50 million in a lottery. The iron worker certainly isn't rich but would pay the big bucks.

Source: »www.house.gov/jec/publications/1···ares.pdf

As for the teaming up to screw us, yes in the case that Bush didn't seem to see a spending bill he didn't like and the lack of vetoes permitted the excessive spending. Tax revenues as a result of the tax cuts (because of economic growth offsetting the cuts) is actually up, but the Congress spent it ALL plus more. It's like the Treasury gets in an extra buck and Congress spends an extra $2. I read somewhere, don't remember where that the Congress in the first 4 years of the Bush Administration increased the size of gov't more than Clinton did in 8.

As a Republican I'm repulsed by this and in looking at the election see that I'm not the only one. It's Republicans changing their votes that gave the Democrats Congress and if the Republican whores don't start acting Republican for a change they'll hand the Democrats the White House as well.

Whether the rich deserved the tax cut or not, if you don't like it Bush shares in the blame, but is hardly the only person to blame.
On the other points I don't disagree.
I remember in the last election when all the republicans where saying they needed to stay in office or the Dems would increase government and spending. Pot Kettle? Holy crap.
I've heard many republicans giving the old speech of "I haven't left the party, the party left me." I think you could define Bush and co. as being the opposite of the Libertarians. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
There are some Republican candidates that look like promising conservatives that I hope make it on the ballot for the next election, to get the republican party back on track.
--
"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

Some Neo-Cons in Washington I think got the message that they can't ignore their constituency. They may realize that they can't rely on the "left" being a worse choice therefore the Conservatives will have to vote for Neo-Cons.

If the Democrats keep putting up centrist candidates they will continue to win elections...if they return to the left with a candidate like Hilary Clinton (the HilaryCare disaster is still fresh in the minds of many voters) they will lose when the Republicans counter with a popular centrist like McCain.

reply to Maxo
Don't bother with him. He can't take something on topic with out dragging it on 2000 tangents.

As soon as he learns what a Democratic Republic is, he will understand what "We the people" means.

Further.. he's just complaining that government has corrupt people in these offices doing the B.S. things they do... that still doesn't change the fact that WE the people are the government.

The minute he understands the difference between a monarchy or a royal rule or those kinds of governments.. maybe he will learn. Until then, he's just a victim of yet another child left behind.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one.

reply to squid7
Dude, seriously.. if you want to talk about government and what's wrong with it.. why not take this to the red or blue room. You are SOO off topic here.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one.

There isn't only one kind of democratic republic fiberguy, there are many.

It appears that you are confusing direct democracy and representative democracy.

A "We" are the gov't government would be a direct democracy, where We the People are making all of the decisions.

Our system of democracy is a representative republic. We elect representatives to make those decisions. They are the government supposedly working in our interests and on our behalf but as we see all to often they do neither.

We stopped being the government when we elect people to do that job in our stead.

But since you can't seem to engage in civil discussion without the constant insults and name calling I'm done with you.