Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 10:03 In article <505e4$456c7203$4fe7665$9834(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fd57546bd40b365989d18(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> [....] >> >>>>And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that >>>>starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from >>>>that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear. >>> >>>...and you better believe the USG will take over control of that >>>pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even >>>guarantying entire states, if need be. >>> >>>At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles >>>aren't. >> >> >> That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has >> absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely >> unconstitutional. >> > >And the FTC? Yes, and lets get the FAA, the SEC and many others in there too. The same logic that lets the federal government regulate in those areas can also apply to the NHS. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 10:05 In article <MPG.1fd646442eba143e989d23(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: [....] >> That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has >> absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely >> unconstitutional. > >So you expect to map all possible interference patterns and let the >states regulate those the can=3Ft, maybe... Please grow up! No, I expect people to stop making the same bogus argument about the NHS. > >The FCC was formed when all radio transmission was interstate in >nature. Also given the treaty implications radio transmission >*must* be federally controlled. How does KALW's content get regulated by treaty? The Federal government claims that it has the right to regulate not just the technical details but also the content of broadcasts. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 10:07 In article <C191E09E.4F0CF%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/28/06 7:10 AM, in article ekhjge$pkt$8(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" ><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fd57546bd40b365989d18(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> [....] >>>> And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that >>>> starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from >>>> that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear. >>> >>> ...and you better believe the USG will take over control of that >>> pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even >>> guarantying entire states, if need be. >>> >>> At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles >>> aren't. >> >> That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has >> absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely >> unconstitutional. > >You keep saying it, but that does not make it true. You keep saying it, but that does not make it false. Come up with one argument that lets the FCC regulate the content on KALW that does not also allow them to run a NHS. > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 10:10 In article <9c9be$456c7248$4fe7665$9834(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ekhdvu$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <ekcs4f$g1o$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <slrnemhs15.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, >>>>Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>{... radio FCC and interstate commerce ...] >>>> >>>> >>>>> In addition, the US has this "Communications Act of 1934" IIRC. IIRC, >>>>>this one established the FCC and gave it power to regulate radio >>>>>transmissions. >>>> >>>>The question I was posing was: "Is this law constutional because it >>>>regulates things that are not interstate commerce". Some people would >>>>argue that it is. >>> >>>All of this is going to have to go through a long debate with the >>>invention and now-common use of new comm technology. >> >> >> No debate is needed. It is either constitutional or it isn't. > >Those are the most complex arguments of all. You are absolutely right. There is a huge difference between "argument" and "debate". I expect a long complex argument[1] on the subject, but there really should be no debate at all. [1] How else can we get to 100,000,000 posts in a thread? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 10:13
In article <ekjvtc$8ss_003(a)s875.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ekhjnf$pkt$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ekhdvu$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, [... FCC ...] >>No debate is needed. It is either constitutional or it isn't. > >All new technology requires vigorous, and usually public, debate. >That's how democracries work. This is true, only if you plan on changing the constitution. The FCC is either covered or it is not. No debate is needed just logical arguments. We are not talking about whether it is a good idea or a bad one we are talking about whether it is allowed or not by the contitution. >>>All of a sudden, you have the FCC, the FTC and all kinds of >>>other regulatory entities claiming their piece of the grocery >>>store territory. >> >>We already have that so nothing much will have changed. Both regulate >>that which can be sold in the stores. > >I'm talking about transport. I'm not. I'm still talking about NHS. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |