SIR_Sergeant

This is true, but Pavelow isn't wrong.

The two dissenting Republicans have yet to submit information that the Commission requires in order to fully publish the order. Once these two submit the necessary information, the order will come public. Rather ironic that the two people complaining about public access to the order are the ones holding up the process. https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150226/07234230148/fccs-historic-day-voting-yes-net-neutrality-voting-no-protectionist-state-telecom-law.shtml

My first comment in this thread answers your question. I'm also not seeing where you derived this response from my comment. I'm just stating facts. This legislation does not restrict individuals in any way, only businesses. I've already stated that I'm aware the potential gateway exists, and I've stated that I was wary of this. Are you arguing that there should be no regulation whatsoever on business? The federal government does have the Constitutional authority to regulate business. I'm not going to make a blanket statement on whether regulation is good or bad, because it depends entirely on the specific regulation. In terms of a good like the internet, "leaving if they want" isn't as easy as it sounds. All ISPs have an interest in throttling certain sites. So if I were to switch my service from Comcast to Verizon, my experience would largely be the same. While not a public utility (and I don't think it should be), the internet operates exactly like a public good, so I do think this requires some special consideration.

I like Cenk Uygar but I don't think this particular video did much more than what the Guardian article provided, although it was a decent brief summary of the piece.

This may or not be a gateway to greater government control over the internet, but can we at least be honest about our criticisms? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government restricting individuals in their use of the internet. If anything, it does the opposite. This is just a restriction on ISP business practices. Also, just because I think willful ignorance should be called out when it exists, there are no Communists in Washington. Communists wouldn't be in bed with corporations the way our elected officials are. And as it has come up repeatedly on these forums, ad hominem attacks are childish and cowardly. It if you're going to criticize someone, actually present argument other than they're brown and one of them Mooz-lims.

It's a hot topic, people will dig. Will anything come of it, we'll just have to wait and see.

I suspect we'll see some more in the way of details come out in the next few weeks/months.

I'm highly supportive of the concept of net neutrality. I don't think it's right for ISPs to choose what sites get faster or slower service. However, I have concerns about allowing the government to play a greater role in the functioning of the internet. I don't know the finer details of these rules, but I suspect there may be more to them than whatever the face value may be.

I'll grant you that the article uses loaded terminology, but that's journalism now. That's not a proper excuse, but it is a reality. Media companies have one job: to sell news. It doesn't matter if they're "leftists and liberals" or "rightists and conservatives." This kind of writing sells, but that doesn't make it inherently false. Again, I'll use the Snowden and Greenwald example. When Snowden began leaking documents to Greenwald who then wrote for the Guardian, I found his writing to be very professional. I can say the same thing you've said about the Guardian about media outlets on any side of the aisle. Fox, MSNBC, Breitbart, Mother Jones, etc...

Part of the reason I'm confident this story is true is because the Guardian is the source that broke it. Taking the gamble of publishing the information Edward Snowden leaked via Glenn Greenwald earned the Guardian a lot of respect in my eyes. With the increased bullying of the media, especially by the Obama Administration, this kind of action can be risky.

How is what he shared research? It's nothing more than a statement from the Chicago Police Department that disproves nothing. Other people have been taken here, this is just the first time it's been taken up as a big story.

Then why take people you've arrested to such a sensitive site and not a proper police station?

Well, he certainly isn't opposed to these kind of operations if his signing of the NDAA makes any kind of statement. I also doubt the DNC would look favorably upon the President going after something in a city in which the mayor (Rahm Emanuel) is a major Democratic political figure.

Probably 20 something hours. Getting up around 7 for class and having an all-nighter with the squad on Skype and whatever games will do it. Civ 5 is a good one for all-nighters.

You'd think so.

"Lawyers who seek access to Homan Square are typically turned away." At 2:15 in the video the guy who was taken here discusses what happened when he asked to contact a lawyer.

These sits are operating completely beyond the reach of the law. People are not allowed to speak to lawyers, they're detained for long periods of time without being charged, I don't see how you don't recognize a problem.

I can already see the impending circlejerk, so I'll make my remarks and take a seat on the sidelines. This is harmless. If the bird was named in an obviously racist way, what harm is there in changing the name? It's a name. It serves no purpose other than to designate the animal in a common way, rather than the Latin name.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-homan-square-black-site Saw this article posted on Reddit earlier today and I was horrified to know this kind of operation actually exists. I'm honestly not surprised something like this exists, but to actually get some details on it is astounding. This is CIA type activity. The war really has come home. I hope some kind of federal investigation is launched and heads roll for this one. This is absolutely criminal. I can't wait to see the Chicago Police try to justify this with the same bullshit "fighting terrorsim" line that's been spouted since 9/11.

Opponents of this are just equivocating on "close your eyes." This concept doesn't mean stand there with your eyes closed. It just means to take a moment and try to think about what is going on and what you're going to do, given the opportunity to do so. Even a moment of thought can prevent a poor decision, something NYPD officers are quite familiar with doing.

Depends on the circumstances. If the situation legitimately calls for it, then yes. If I could handle it without hitting the person (man or woman), then I'd prefer to do it that way. I think the "never hit a woman" white knight bullshit is rather demeaning towards women. It implies that they're lesser in some capacity.

I go to school in the DC suburbs. Need I say more?

As a kid I wanted to be either a race car driver or a construction worker (the ones that use the big machinery). Now I don't have a specific career in mind but I'd like to do something tied to economics/politics in either Washington, Annapolis, or Baltimore.

Why? No one flamed or started petty fights.

The officer who put Garner in the chokehold should have been fired and charged. We have a perfect video of the entire incident. This to me is a no-brainer. So if an officer is going to be charged with murder he should only be suspended and not fired? Explain this to me.