What is Digg?76 Comments
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Ah yes.. we broke them up so that they could slowly reform. I just hope it doesn't take 50 years before we break them up *again*.
- ntnwwnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21God damned politicians.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20That just shows the ignorance of their CEO. It's tubes, not pipes. Get it right when you're talking about the internets.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The gov says "Give us access to your records and we will let your reform"
AT&T says "No ***** problem!"
Meanwhile the consumer/citizen takes it from both ends. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Congress is on a losing streak? Who the ***** are you kidding. These ***** are on a winning streak. They've been whoring the law, selling control to the highest bidder, and raking in the benefits from Abramoff and the like. It's the Constitution and the American public that's been on a losing streak.
- t3hCyborg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"The Internet is not a big truck, it's not something you just dump something on! It's a series of tubes!"
- U.S. Senator Ted Stevens - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Politician is one of the few professions that require vast amounts of experience, that go largely unused." -Me, Right Now.
A lot of these leaders aren't even qualified to make the decisions they make.
(Heard someone say they're not good with computers? There's other fields like that too.)
Worse yet a lot of these people don't even read the bills they pass. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Ed Whitacre of AT&T told Business Week last fall:
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"
For one thing - the $50 a month I PAY YOU a month is for ME to use your friggin pipes you moron! If I want to surf YouTube or Google, I pay you to do this. You do not get to tell me where I can surf and you don't get to charge the sites I surf because I went there fool.
If those sites were not there, I would not pay you - get it? - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"It's the Constitution and the American public that's been on a losing streak."
Yep, and they can do pretty much anything they want; corruption doesn't really phase their fundamentalist constituency as long as they keep on persecuting those damn dirty gays. ***** the war in Iraq and massive corporate corruption, those homogays want to get married! - evensong, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If the merger doesn't go through, Bellsouth and AT&T are still pricipal providers in many states. The issue here isn't monopoly, its net neutrality. Serving half the population of America allows them to have free reign over the internet. The more important quote from the article would be:
"Ed Whitacre of AT&T told Business Week last fall:
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Cable. Another incumbent. Yea, that's some real competition....such a wonderful choice. And satellites? I suppose...except they're controlled by the telcos. And I don't know what you're talking about with WiFi. Outside of Mountain View, CA, public WiFi doesn't exist (unless you mean piggy backing off a neighbor's unprotected WiFi). The only other wireless solutions out there run off the telco's 3G cell networks.
- jpeckinp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How is letting the Govt rule on net neutrality and them them controlling it neutrality? Wouldn't just leaving it the hell alone do just what we want?
Also if you are a music or movie downloader AT&T is the way to go. Them and Verizon told the RIAA to go stick it up there ass when they asked for records. - DaPope, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I usually don't do this, but you can make yourself heard at http:://www.savetheinternet.com
It contains info on Net Neutrality, the merger, how to contact your local government and stop this from happening, and so on. - wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It comes and goes, #801. Rest in Peace Albert Pacino :)
Congratulations Digitalgopher! - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh goodie, nothing like NSA approved internet from AT&T. I cant wait until they start upgrading DSL to 9600 baud. One could only hope this would be the end of the PSTN, but they have the government of the corporations on their side. As always the people loose, but what else is new?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This should clear things right up for you.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5616 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, in this case, I stand corrected. All of these were supposed to have been lawyered and lobbied into oblivion. Just look at BellSouth's reaction to New Orleans WiFi plans, or Verizon's reaction to Philadelphia's plans.
I agree that competition is generally for the best, but not when you have a handful of incumbent companies doing battle. In such a case, regulation is for the best. Seeing as they're not in the hands of the telcos or cable companies, I will say, if these WiFi networks can get off the ground, I'm all for deregulation. Of course, you know the ironic thing? All these networks are being built by the government. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh, so we should cow to one destructive, monopolistic company because they're protecting from other desctructive, monopolistic companies? Why not just hire the Russian mob or Don Corleone?
Or to hell with all of them, and buy file sharing insurance for $19.
http://digg.com/tech_news/P2P_insurer_will_pay_your_fines_if_RIAA_sues_$19_year!
http://www.tankafritt.nu/index.php?menu=medlem - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yea, cable. Only problem is they're all incumbent, just like the telco's. You only have one cable company to chose from. You don't like it? Too ***** bad, cry me a river. And wireless? STFU. If it's not controlled by ATT, it's controlled by Verizon. Apparently the FCC (along with people like Tocard) think that "competition" means incumbent telco versus incumbent cable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3MAJORstrasser - you get on my friends list for that comment.
I'm glad some people have common sense about these things - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Um, thanks to AT&T and the other telcos' corrupt bargain with the federal government's NSA program, the internet is kind of turning into what it is in China; the government gets to see everything that everyone does. And in return for this, the telcos get to destroy net neutrality. The result is websites will have to either pony up to the telcos for bandwidth the consumer has already paid for, or be blocked/made so slow as to be unusable. Consumers suffer either way. If sites opt to pay, the costs will of course be passed on to the consumer. If sites opt not to pay, the consumer no longer has access to the site...though I'm sure the telcos will offer some service for a premium price that allows consumers to pick up the websites tab.
Anyway, tell me where the consumer stands to gain in all of this? How is this any better than the current system? - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Oh, and to add a shorter answer... b/c the citizens of California trusted the government to handle the problem, and that's like trusting a donut eating mouth breather with a mental defect.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wow that took about 2 seconds to figure out that you posted a link to something that wasn't actually deregulation...
"Then, in 2000, wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices were regulated for the incumbents as part of a deal with the regulator, allowing the incumbent utilities to recover the cost of assets that would be stranded as a result of greater competition, based on the expectation that "frozen" would remain higher than wholesale prices. This assumption remained true from April 1998 through May 2000."
Same ***** with Enron.. sweetheart deals with the Government... You are making my case for me...
If you'd care to post an example where the Government isn't still ***** the little guy, I'd love to see it. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No, you could just switch, to cable.. or wifi... or satellite... or...
Hrm.. who knows what the future will bring if we don't regulate it out of existence...
(maybe you could think of a few things, and then take out some patents so that you can sue and make sure that no one can innovate, seems like the style of solution that alot of people like these days... make a few laws so that Mommy government can do all the "protection" becuase Government protects us SO WELL) - rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4tocard, if you stopped with the personal insults you might just notice the one thing lacking for all of your comments: a logical argument.
- SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GG deregulation.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Are you kidding me? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think that's deregulation?
What industry do you do business in? I'm betting you don't sell any products or services, and that you likely work for someone else.
I mean come on... It's like trying to say that becuase Taxis exist that the public transportation industry isn't regulated.
Sorry guy, but when ONE part of an industry is regulated... the ENTIRE industry is regulated... It's called PRICE FIXING... and the Government was doing that.
It's just like the POSTAL service... You think that would still exist if there wasn't a federal LAW preventing other carriers from delivering any peice of mail for less than a $1.00?
The example you gave is just like the MAIL industry... The BASE price is being FIXED and REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT... and NOT market value, and NOT competition.
You have to wake up, (especially upon seeing your comment above about the people and the constituion getting screwed)
I hope you aren't like those types that believe that if we got rid of the USPS, that the cost of delivering mail would go UP? Come on man... simple economics... Competition and technology make prices go DOWN...
COMPETITION.... you cannot have real competition when one of the players is funding everything they do through theft and threats of violence. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So the market was deregulated, but wasn't actually deregulated. Right.... Then riddle me this, Batman: how were Duke, Dynegy, Enron, Mirant, Reliant, Williams, and others charged with, and fined for, price gouging and market manipulation?
Rate reductions have not, and never will, occur in a deregulated energy market. Didn't happen in Europe, hasn't happened anywhere here in the states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/business/15utility.html?ex=1318564800&en=99e4faf2d8d0e8e2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Amazing that someone actually has some goddamn sense in their heads here on Digg. Nope, everyone here wants there to be a LAW... Mommy government will take care of all the problems. Lets use FORCE on the big bad telephone companies... rather than just SWITCHING to the competition...
(I can hear the Baa'ing from the pastures now)
Instead of trying to eliminate the force... Some of these morons actually want to give the government MORE power.. and use MORE force to try and solve the problems...
It's like a fistfight on a middleschool playground. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and I liked the first part...
""We recommend total abandonment of restructuring and a more thoroughgoing embrace of markets than contemplated in current restructuring initiatives. But we recognize that such reforms are politically difficult to achieve."
Yeah... good post... basically what they said there is not that they disagree.. but they basically said... to translate...
These people don't get it... they aren't going to get it.. the best we can hope for is a small government solution.. and not a no government solution, becuase these people are addicted to the Government teet.
The tone of that little paragraph was "defeated". Whoever wrote that felt sorry for the rubes in that area of California. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh, and apparently Cato no longer agrees with you.
"We recommend total abandonment of restructuring and a more thoroughgoing embrace of markets than contemplated in current restructuring initiatives. But we recognize that such reforms are politically difficult to achieve. A second-best alternative would be for those states that have already embraced restructuring to return to an updated version of the old, vertically integrated, regulated status quo. It’s likely that such an arrangement would not be that different from the arrangements that would have developed under laissez faire."
I especially like that part at the end, "it’s likely that such an arrangement would not be that different from the arrangements that would have developed under laissez faire."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2609 - Thruxomatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What a load of baloney. Have you every been in municiple government? I have.
There are zillions of little committees and corporations spun off to handle x, y or z project and a municiple network would be just more of the same. I'm pitching for a city-wide fiber network built with public funds, but which would be administered by a non-profit, co-operative formed from every citizen of the city. It would have elections for offices, conflict of interest rules re: local providers and current office holders, etc. I'm using as my model the co-operative that currently administers oil revenues in Alaska, a model that has had considerable success for that state.
The goal is a network capable of enough bandwidth that the co-operative would sell to the local telco, cableco, new inet startup, etc. and the customers would have the benefit of competition for their money, but with a network that isn't owned by any one provider exclusively, i.e. they can't take their marbles and run.
So far, it has some pretty good traction, seeing as we could wire the whole city for about half the annual road repair budget.
The problem is that providers know that such a scheme would come in at under their costs by a considerable margin and so vehemently oppose it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Let me guess, you weren't around for the oldschool of Ma bell were you?
"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Was that an example of a logical argument...? I think you need to look up what the term means.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21. Incumbants almost never get voted out of office
2. Even if you vote people out of office laws are hard to change
3. If a service gets bad, its very easy to SWITCH TO THE COMPETITION.
If the Ma Bells screw up the internet (which is VERY VERY unlikely to happen - I see what they are doing is probably going to speed things up, becuase I'm not willing to accept the story being broadcast by democrat politicians, or republican ma bell lobbyists) then what they will do is create a MARKET for competition. If the ma bells make the current fiber backbones unusable, then a NEW TECHNOLOGY will arise.
Someone will find a way AROUND the ma bells... or the cable companies will run new lines, or the wireless companies will invent SuperWiFi.. or whatever... Where the market goes, the money flows, and nessecity is the mother of invention.
It's FAR FAR easier to incite changes to a corporation than it is to a government.
http://www.walmartfacts.com/featuredtopics/?id=1
In fact, the ONLY reason why it's as hard as it is to change corporations... is BECUASE they are INCORPORATED. If they weren't being protected in the mafia-life protection scam that is the US Government, then they would be far easier to influence. - khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Tocard, you're stupid. The government CREATED THE INTERNET. Then they let universities in. Then they let defense contractors in, then they let the general public in. THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THE INTERNET no matter *WHAT* you ***** think. Go to school and LEARN ABOUT IT'S ORIGINS.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So then tell me, almighty one, if the California energy market was regulated, why did the price of energy skyrocket, why did consumer's bills go up, and how did the state of California end up with $30+ billion in debt from contracts with energy wholesalers?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude, why don't YOU go learn about the Internet.
It was originally created by UNIVERSITIES... and THEN Darpa jumped in to get their grubby little hands on it.
Quote from Tyler Cowen:
"Back in the mid-1980s the Internet was the sole province of universities and government institutions. Private individuals who just wanted to send e-mail over the Internet would have had a hard time doing so.
But that doesn't mean there weren't vibrant computer networks. In fact there were tens of thousands of Bulletin Board Systems around the country that were relatively cheap to join and offered e-mail, files, discussion forums and a whole host of things that are now largely on the web; although some remnants of this BBS culture still exist.
The main problem with the BBS system was a lack of standards for interconnection. As the 1990s approached and computers became more powerful and modems supported more bandwidth there were several competing proposals for graphical interconnection standards, but those were wiped out by the Internet tsunami.
It is interesting, given [Barbara] Ehrenreich's view that the Internet was an innovation made possible by the government, that prior to the early 1990s almost nobody outside of governments and universities had home access to the Internet while several million had logged on to a BBS at one point or another. What caused the change? Something Ehrenreich and her left/liberal friends usually fight tooth and nail -- privatization. The floodgates of the Internet came open only after key resources became privatized and companies and individuals could operate on the Internet. For much of its existence, commercial activity on the Internet had been forbidden. The removal of that barrier is primarily responsible for the Internet we have today, where both anarchists and Abercrombie and Fitch use the web to broadcast their respective messages.
The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished with almost no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less than a decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia.
So can we interpret the history of the Internet in largely laissez-fiare terms? Well, uniform standards are useful, the U.S. had better telecommunications policy than most other countries (including a system of managed competition), and local phone calls were set at price zero. All of these helped the Internet, if you have other interventions in mind add them to the comments. It is nonetheless correct that private initiative made the Internet what it is."
So, you see, you are interpretting what you WANT to interpret. I'm sorry to insult what you believe to be your parents... but Government isn't your mommy...
Without the content that people really wanted to get off the BBS's and entertaining sites of the time that were connected to form the WWW by PRIVATE entitities... no one would be using the internet from their households today, and it wouldn't be any better than a fancy library catalog system, or a nasa shuttle launch computer. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ MAJORstrasser
"So the market was deregulated, but wasn't actually deregulated. Right.... Then riddle me this, Batman: how were Duke, Dynegy, Enron, Mirant, Reliant, Williams, and others charged with, and fined for, price gouging and market manipulation?"
You obviously didn't read the link that tocard supplied, specifically:
"By all appearances, then, this is a victory for markets over regulation. Think again. While the advocates of California's electricity restructuring are wearing the garb and makeup of Adam Smith, they are in truth Ira Magaziners in drag -- political cross-dressers selling higher taxes and more regulation under the guise of "competition." "
This article was written in January 2001 and turned out to be a completely accurate prediction of what happened in California. They said that, bad as the regulation was in California, the new regulation would make it worse. Sure enough, but people still don't get it, even after Cato spelled it out for them and were proven right.
The reason for the charges was that the government wasn't about to admit how it screwed up and screwed the people of California.
If the history of energy regulation in California doesn't do it, what will it take to wean the people from the government teat? - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Companies are in it for the money, even if demand is low, if they can sell products for a higher price than 'necessary', they'll do it.
That is something a general interest 'guard' should not be able to do."
If companies are in it for the money, what are politicians and bureaucrats in it for? Do they suddenly have no interest in money or power once they are elected to office or, even worse, hired for a job that has no personal accountability? Look at the real world. Politicians don't lose elections because they failed to keep their campaign promises. Bureaucrats don't lose their jobs because they failed to solve the problems they were supposedly hired to solve. In fact, both politicians and bureaucrats get MORE money and power when they fail to accomplish their stated goals. "It wasn't our fault. If we had been given more money and power, we could have solved the problem." That is how government grows. Look around you.
If I want a "general interest guard" to make sure my society runs smoothly, I would much rather trust in a company that depends on willing customers to buy its goods and services than on a government than can forcibly take my money for whatever it wants, no matter how badly it does its "guard" job. - evgen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The original poster's points were quite correct and whining about it does not change facts. I too remember the days of Ma Bell, and things actually did work. The entire system, end to end, was run by a single company. That company was legally responsible for the entire operation and government regulation mandated certain service levels. The phone company was actually _required_ to over-build and over-engineer the system. The ***** just worked.
The downside was that it was incredibly slow to offer new services (partially due to institutional inertia and also because if you are the only company who runs the show you will get all of the blame if something goes wrong) and in terms of the "real" price of services the customer was almost always getting raped for long-distance calls. This is why "in the good old days" a long-distance call was a rare and somewhat celebrated event.
If Ma Bell was still running the show we probably would have been at one of two points by now: either we would have had a good, cheap high-capacity network similar to other nations or else we would have the best damn POTS network in the world and you would still need a bag of money and serious pull at the local Bell office to get a 128K ISDN line... - etnu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How is a corporate monopoly better than a government monopoly when it comes to a service that's a necessity for everyday life again?
At least with a government monopoly, you can vote people out of office. - tmcdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RIP Covad Dsl operations
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ rowanjl
"tocard, if you stopped with the personal insults you might just notice the one thing lacking for all of your comments: a logical argument."
He may not have been very tactful, but tocard gave an explanation of a basic economic principle and backed it up with a concrete example that everyone should be able to understand. If that isn't the definition of a logical argument, I don't know what is. - bdpf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I really hate to throw my $2.00 worth on this subject.
I'm61 years old and clearly remember the old MA Bell & Western Electric [Bells equipment provider}. We had rotary dial phones back then which were replaced latter with push button tone phones. They all worked real good even if you threw it out the window, hit a bugler with it, etc. You had several different calling plans to chose from or even a nickle pay phone in your home. But they all worked because they were made by Western Electric.
Now you buy a phone a pray they work with your provider. You need to have a college degree to figure out your bill or just to see which provider will screw you the less. OH! The phones don't play nice with each other or last too long. Wife keeps me broke buying new phones to replace the broken ones that will not work with the other phones in the house.
Da Da and so on.
Ma Bell worked and fixed your phone & line making sure it worked.
Now if you have a problem they tell you to check the line at the box. The line is full of static from the rain ya had all week, you can't hear them over the line.
It's raining cats and dogs too or snowing or just well digger's ass cold. Once in the last 20 times I had a problem in the house. Every time had to go threw the check the line bull ***** at the box. Some times they would keep saying it was a problem in the house. Yep it was a problem in the house on a line they installed. Nothing like a few staples threw the phone line to make it go bad over time or sneak it in the cracks between the subfloor boards after a dry spell. Thanks SBC for the good service....
Will the merger make thinks better I just don't know.
There is no way to get the old Ma Bell back or Western Electric, they gone for good, with all the jobs. Thank the government and greedy CEO's, etc.
OH yes enjoy the rest of the smoke that clouds these comments. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3To tocard and other deludeds:
Funny how you hold on to your capitalistic 'wonderland', even if all facts point in other directions.
Example: What happens if local government is low on cash in many capitalistic countries these days: public institutions and infrastructure investments are sold, usually to politically gain short term advantages (cash to spend). These sell-outs are always promoted with claims that the 'free market' will lower the prices and the bureaucracy.
Problem is, those sell-outs will at first create new semi-monopolies, and - since companies are in it for the money - they'll use this temporary advantage to rise prices, all in the name of 'if demand is high, we'll simply have to' or 'there are problems on the delivery side', even if they are not, they cannot be held accountable.
That is something a general interest 'guard' should not be able to do.
Even if in time the market is more evenly divided between multiple companies, and prices start to lower, this will influence the quality of the product, lower prices are not always 'better', if you get crap for your little money, you had better payd some more.
In an ideal, honest, capitalistic world, price would fluctuate evenly among the demand/supply movements. But, it doesn't.
Companies are in it for the money, even if demand is low, if they can sell products for a higher price than 'necessary', they'll do it.
That is something a general interest 'guard' should not be able to do.
Companies don't care about quality, they only care about their sell. If they can degrade the quality to make it cheap, and still can sell it, they will.
That is something a general interest 'guard' should not be able to do.
You refuse to see that if private companies take over the responsibility for critical infrastructures, like phone, internet, electricity, water, one should be able to hold them accountable, for these infrastructures are very important.
Problem is: how? Sue them? If all goes wrong, a company can simply pull out by declaring bankruptcy, that's an easy let off, not really responsible. What does a company do when things go bad? Remove the 'unnecessaries', first on the product, next on the internal workings, next on the external (outsourced) workers, next on the internal workers, and - just before it hits the ones in the top of the company, bankruptcy is declared. The company will do all that it can to lower the damages (money wise, not general interest wise), which means as much self-profiting as possible, and even corruption. And, if the company fails, the government will be the first institution they'll run to, claiming they have a right to be supported by them.
Companies simply are not responsible entities. Allowing them control over infrastructures that are in the general interest will not do the general interest any good, only the companies and those who profit off it. And remember, they are smart enough to profit from it even if it goes wrong.
And that is something a general interest 'guard' should not be able to do. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5No, what I think is that a new law isn't going to help the situation. I think that incumbant cable vs incumbant wireless is a ***** deal, but it's better than Government Cable, or Government DSL.
Do you want our government to handle the internet like China does?
The big thing you are forgetting is who put all those fiberoptic "tubes" there in the first place. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ MAJORstrasser
"Actually, yes, it was deregulation, and the people were raped by the utilities. While the retail market was regulated (except for San Diego, where retail prices fluctuated with wholesale prices)"
It is NOT deregulation if the demand side of the market is still regulated. The main thing that "deregulation" did was give Enron a license to steal by forcibly protecting the supply side of the market from market discipline. San Diego's retail prices were "allowed" to fluctuate with wholesale prices, but one city isn't enough to save the whole state from the horrible disincentives of the government's CHANGE in regulations that benefited the utilities with a windfall profit and the wholesalers with that license to steal from the short-sighted utilities. Or maybe they weren't so short-sighted since they did eventually get bailed out by the taxpayers. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The biggest thing people like you guys (not the original poster to this little thread)
are forgetting... is that when you back a tax supported government system, you are backing an aggressive violent system of force and theft.
I still can't understand how people today think that the idiots who work at government jobs who burns money like leaves in the fall, somehow runs things well... have you EVER been in ANY government office ANYWHERE?
USPS? DMV? Tax Collector's office? Local Police? Have you ever talked to the people that worked there? They are about as sharp as spoons, why do you believe a service funded by theft, and not hard work, is going to work better? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What a bunch of non-sensical *****. Where the hell have you been living? North Korea? Have you been brainwashed, or are you just an agent for AT&T? You know, I would'nt be suprised to hear you call Ed Whitacre is your "Dear Leader." So please, for the sake of all of us, SHUT THE ***** UP!!!
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is