Republican presidential hopeful John McCain issued his technology policy today, which strongly supported open markets and unregulated competition for the nation's IT sector. Like his Democrat competitor, Barack Obama, McCain wants to keep the internet tax free; unlike Obama, however, he doesn't support network neutrality, which would mandate broadband service providers treat all network traffic in a non-discriminatory manner. "John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like net neutrality," the nearly 3,000-word policy statement on McCain's site declared. "Rather, he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."
View: Full Story at eWeek View: John McCain's Technology Policy
The reason I'm voting Obama...
With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.
The reason I'm voting Obama...
"The" reason?
Basing your voting decisions on one thing is an utterly stupid thing to do, and a huge problem with the mentality surrounding politics in this country.
There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for McCain.
That said, I don't think this is one of them. Who would be charged with regulating net neutrality if it went through? The FCC? Ugh. Giving them more power over something is a recipe for absolute disaster. They'll twist and corrupt and gain more power, eventually becoming a real threat to free speech on the web.
With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.
couldn't care less
With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.
couldn't care less
With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.
couldn't care less
With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.
couldn't care less
Haha, yes it is good to know :-D.
With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.
couldn't care less
Yes, I would expect to find at least one more freak on the Internet. Or English teacher.
This will hit his vote count.
We lose both ways.
exactly... cause i feel 'Ron Paul' is the only one that aint messed up.
to bad he pretty much has ZERO chance of winning
cause i feel between Obama and McCain it's pretty much boiling down to 'trying' to pick the lesser of the two evils.
Go Obama!
Last edited by John S. on 15 Aug 2008 - 16:23
What if I were to say, "I hope Obama get assassinated before he gets into office." I bet you wouldn't like that too much, would you?
What if I were to say, "I hope Obama get assassinated before he gets into office." I bet you wouldn't like that too much, would you?
No i would feel bad for Obama, but not so much for the other old fart
What if I were to say, "I hope Obama get assassinated before he gets into office." I bet you wouldn't like that too much, would you?
No i would feel bad for Obama, but not so much for the other old fart
Hahahaha
On top of that, I wonder how many people are in agreement with either Obama or McCain based on their political party. There are many more important issues to discuss. Anyone who thinks this issue will be of any substance doesn't know politics at all.
Why would you agree with him on taxes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html
I originally thought like you; McCain is the worst candidate to receive the Republican nomination in my 30 year lifetime. I originally thought of "showing the party how I feel" by voting independent. But IMO, we can't afford to have Obama as our next president. McCain is the lesser to two evils from where I sit. I love this country too much to throw away my vote in such an important election.
Why would you agree with him on taxes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html
What's wrong with that? The rich already carry the largest tax burden in the country. Raising their taxes even more solves nothing. Cutting their taxes gives them more money to spend which trickles down.
Case in point: I work in a private company of roughly 75-100 people. With our paychecks today, we received a bonus of a month's salary. Most rich people know they're rich because of their hard work and the work of the people they employ, and they have no qualms with passing some of their success to their workers. The extra money I received today is more than either candidate promises me in tax breaks. So the moral of the story is: take care of the rich, and they'll take care everyone else one way or another.
I originally thought like you; McCain is the worst candidate to receive the Republican nomination in my 30 year lifetime. I originally thought of "showing the party how I feel" by voting independent. But IMO, we can't afford to have Obama as our next president. McCain is the lesser to two evils from where I sit. I love this country too much to throw away my vote in such an important election.
I totally see where you're coming from. The problem for me is... I can't in good conscience vote for a man (or woman) whom I don't like, can't trust and see as pretty much the "McSame" leader we've had for 8 years. We do need change, the problem is I don't like Obama's definition of change or his very liberal social polices. Neither candidate has a clear exit strategy for Iraq. The list goes on.
Through out my whole life I've followed politics and world events with great interest. This year will be the first time I really don't give a crap who gets in office. We, as a people, deserve what ever douche bag gets elected. Let's all hope and pray 2012 is much different.
What competition, Cable or DSL that's all people can get and some only have one choice.
What competition, Cable or DSL that's all people can get and some only have one choice.
I live in a relatively small community. The nearest "big city" is 140 miles from here. We have two choices in cable companies, one choice in phone (other than the cable companies), and many other ISPs, be they wireless, dial-up, ect. But competition's competition. I didn't say the competition would be perfect.
What competition, Cable or DSL that's all people can get and some only have one choice.
I live in a relatively small community. The nearest "big city" is 140 miles from here. We have two choices in cable companies, one choice in phone (other than the cable companies), and many other ISPs, be they wireless, dial-up, ect. But competition's competition. I didn't say the competition would be perfect.
You have two wires coming to your house, one is coaxial cable owned by your local cable company and the other is telephone cable owned by your local telephone company. Like I said, NO COMPETITION.
disgusting, youre nothing more than CCCP of XXI century.
the americans ... a proud nation of so called "freedom" now they tap phones, net restrictions, cell restrictions (among other things) .... is just communism in disguise
If a provider starts throttling to many forms of traffic then you can just drop your sub and go somewhere else. If a provider starts getting a bad wrap for throttling to much then you will most definitely see another provider pop up and say, "Come to get your internet from us, we don't shape or cap our customers". Then the provider that was shaping will have to lay off the shaping a little. The problem is that there are a lot of people that have very limited ISP choices.
Both candidates have their problems though. This personally isn't one of them. I surely wouldn't jump from McCain to Obama over this. I didn't vote for McCain in the primaries but will be on 11/04. Obama is very scary.
If a provider starts throttling to many forms of traffic then you can just drop your sub and go somewhere else. If a provider starts getting a bad wrap for throttling to much then you will most definitely see another provider pop up and say, "Come to get your internet from us, we don't shape or cap our customers". Then the provider that was shaping will have to lay off the shaping a little. The problem is that there are a lot of people that have very limited ISP choices.
The government usually shouldn't have the right to tell a business how it should run, but when there are government protected monopolies in the vast majority of the US, you should get regulated. Period. I'm not sure how people will think a free market will straighten this out when we already don't have a free market. We have protected monopolies creating artificially high prices.
95% piracy, 5% legitimate. Now as a business man, what are you going to do? It's very simple logic.
Only in the days of "net nutrality" brain wash (Here's a hint, it's not the little guys against the big mean isps, it's the big mean guys vs the big mean guys throwing around a LOT of money to get their way one way or the other.) would it be regarded as a fundamentally wrong thing to regulate the internet more.
But any informed republican would never go with Obama. True must republicans aren't blown away by McCain. He is sort of a democrat in disguise. Like the comerial he is running that says he is going to go after big oil. Give me a break. Big Oil is at the bottom end of the profit margin scale. So if we are going to tax the hell out of big oil (which is passed on to you and me) then what industry will be next to be taxed like hell.
McCain is still the better option. A vote for McCain is a vote taken from Obama.
Eisenhower
Hagel
Powell
Are these so called "liberal Republicans" maybe, but probable not. They are more like "moderate republicans" Are these conservative Republicans easily fooled I think not.
Do you know what unifies all these people?
engagement in Iraq,
greater fiscal responsibility,
better energy policies.
These are all issues that Obama is better at. And before you blabber about how Obama is not a fiscal conservative you should know that Obama believes in pay as you go while McCain does not.
Obaba believes in taxing everyone to death so he can redistribute the money to slack asses. He believes in punishing success. Brilliant.
I don't see how that is the bad thing. Look at your parents or your grand parents, they don't know much about computer, but I'm sure they manage the financial way better than you.
This argument and all arguments like it are useless. No president, or individual for that matter, knows EVERYTHING. They rely on experts to help explain both sides and then they make a decision. Although some may not like it, this is the right decision in my opinion. This country is based on open markets, the government can’t, and shouldn’t, pick and choose who they should and shouldn’t regulate.
And he needs a font this size in order to read text!
Most things are now controlled by one or two big companies.
Two percent of Americans own fifty percent of America's wealth.
Really? I thought it was 90%...
A. Raise Taxes
B. More Government Regulation.
McCain is right when he said that the free market should govern itself.
A. Raise Taxes
B. More Government Regulation.
McCain is right when he said that the free market should govern itself.
Hey dumb dumb, do you not pay attention... this country doesn't have a free market.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.