Last edited by 274ina; 01-16-15 at 11:14 AM.
Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why,
you see, you have to understand the mindest:
"He's both a secret Muslin turrist and a radical Black Liberation Theology Christian. He's also a fascist war-monger and a communist wealth re-distributor. He's a pussy who capitulates to foreign governments, and a wannabe Steven Seagal who brutally orders the execution of innocent people. He's a do-nothing empty suit who has single-handedly destroyed the country."
Would need to read more into it to really come down strong either way, but I'd say my initial reaction is tentatively open to this. If people in a local area would like their local government to set up their own broadband then I'm not sure I think the state nor the federal government should be denying them that choice. Much like I'm not exactly fond of someone from California telling me how things need to be to work best in my state of Virginia, I'm not sure I'd want someone up in Ashburn telling someone down in Roanoke how they should REALLY be doing things either. Different locations create a different set of issues and requirements that change the potential answers and pitfalls put before you.
Where I would likely have an issue is if the federal government was offering assistance to these local governments in the form of tax breaks, loans, etc that are not equally offered to private entities attempting to create or maintain broadband in the same locations. I'm fine with local residents urging and getting their local government to try and create broadband infastructure. I'm not fine with the federal government coercing local governments to get into that business by offering them financial boons that are inherently absent for their private sector competition.
Essentially, on first glimpse, I'd be okay with this if it's essentially prohibiting states from barring local governments from organically deciding to start their own local broadband services. I would have issues with it however if it is the federal government attempting to artificially, to any degree, spur the decision to take such action.
Admittedly, part of me is conflicted based on my earlier statements about the diversity of locations and what's best for them. While I'm generally not a fan of states telling the local governments they can't do this...I'm not sure quite how much different that is than the federal government telling the state governments that they can't do what they're seemingly proposing to do.
Definitely would need to read up a bit more on it.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.