[DaleJrGirl]

They've been doing this for years. I recall an article in the Economist a few years back about a small town (I think it was in Pennsylvania but I'm probably not remembering correctly) which kept asking companies to hook them up for high speed internet access. The nearest large provider kept saying that the market in the town was too small to justify the expensive of hooking it up with DSL or cable service so the town decided to start it's own ISP offering high speed internet. The company's response was to seek a bill in the state government outlawing such competition and getting the town to stop. "We won't hook you up for service but we damn well don't want new competitors popping up which will potentially compete with us." This is nothing short but yet another example of political corruption in America; companies literally own legislatures and rather then letting markets decide winners and losers the politically connected big businesses want to simply legislate themselves as the permanent winners.

[Gazeboss]

Ahmurika.

What a shithole.

[RIjdrVs3]

I hate my state, i'd give them a small wack to intill some common sense but it would be a high crime, bleh........ forget it, i hope it fails...

[vipdumpp]

But the speed of that internet access isn't all that great even with DSL or cable.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10317118-38.html

[Progniusis]

I don't believe it is the purview of government to supply means of communication, since they are supposed to be regulating it. Conflict of interest.

That said, I think local governments should be permitted to fund anything they like so long as it is done with the knowledge and agreement of the electorate, and doesn't violate the Constitution.

edit: yes, I know, the post office. That's a special case.

[UrUROFlS]

I don't believe it is the purview of government to supply means of communication, since they are supposed to be regulating it. Conflict of interest.

That said, I think local governments should be permitted to fund anything they like so long as it is done with the knowledge and agreement of the electorate, and doesn't violate the Constitution.

edit: yes, I know, the post office. That's a special case.

Why is the post office a special case?

If the elected officials of the local government want to do something, then they should be able to do as they please. The NC state republicans are obviously fascists.

[Bvghbopz]

Why is the post office a special case?

If the elected officials of the local government want to do something, then they should be able to do as they please. The NC state republicans are obviously fascists.

The post office is a special case because it is explicitly defined as a federal power in the Constitution.

[MicoSiru]

Someone mentioned the post office.

[Drugmachine]

The post office is a special case because it is explicitly defined as a federal power in the Constitution.

So it's a special case because they thought to include it when writing the constitution centuries ago. I wonder why it never occurred to them to provide the same to internet connections? Both are methods of disseminating information.

[yazetaw]

So what you're saying is the NC Republicans are retards.

[WaydayNef]

Is it the purview of government to put out fires? Why don't they just use their commerce regulation powers and require that anyone who buys a home or other property also contracts someone to put out any fires?

What is so evil about a government providing a service citizens want?

[TepSteade]

If it's like the post office or a municipal ISP, then it's funded by the people who use it, right? And with county governments, you can easily move if you don't like the one you currently have. There's thousands of alternatives.

[boffincash]

So it's a special case because they thought to include it when writing the constitution centuries ago. I wonder why it never occurred to them to provide the same to internet connections? Both are methods of disseminating information.

The Post Office predates the Constitution. It was grandfathered in.

[ehib8yPc]

Uh, yes? Did you not notice that whole healthcare thing?

[beneitpedro]

"part" of their base

[natahololll]

No, I think the majority are. Which makes "part" misleading.

[artkolkovk]

Homophobes have enough influence in the GOP that the entity can be considered a homophobic one. I wouldn't be surprised if MrFun thinks his dignity as a human being matters more than whether taxes are a couple percentage points higher or lower.

[CaseyFan]

I don't even think that is true, Asher, and if it is, that majority is declining by the day.

So you think if Republicans had a vote on if gays and straights should have equal rights, a majority would think equal rights should exist?

[Extinimot]

Way to completely miss the point, gribbler.

What point? Any Republican representative with a brain is going to vote against equal rights for gays, because homophobes are a major part of their base.

[bUqLfXRI]

Your definition of equal rights might vary. I know that sounds strange, but for instance, they might not see gay marriage as a "right" but would say yes, they have equal rights to not be discriminated against in the military or in the workplace or at school. Even Bush said in a debate with Kerry that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity regardless of sexual orientation.

Anyone who thinks homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is a homophobe. Period.

Just like anyone who thinks blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry, but can have civil unions, is a racist.

Majority of Republicans are homophobes. Period.