Ted, you're spending WAY too much time with Sherrod
Submitted by Tim Russo on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 6:40am.
I realize Sherrod Brown has all the incentive in the world to destroy net nuetrality, but Ted Strickland? Ted, do you need some blogger balm, too? George, who like me has sat with Ted Strickland in one interview and one debate, and asked him about technology each time...is pissed. I can't blame him.
Is it all just lip service, Ted? Do you tell us what we want to hear at Talkies, and then when you have to cast a vote, you do something else? And please spare us the "I voted for the amendment to fix a flawed bill, but voted for the bill anyway" bullcrap. I'd really like to know how this bill accomplishes what you've told us twice at MTB you'd like to do in Ohio, which is to extend broadband into rural areas that you currently represent in Congress, let alone the dirt poor urban ones you want to represent as governor.
Is it all just lip service, Ted? Do you tell us what we want to hear at Talkies, and then when you have to cast a vote, you do something else? And please spare us the "I voted for the amendment to fix a flawed bill, but voted for the bill anyway" bullcrap. I'd really like to know how this bill accomplishes what you've told us twice at MTB you'd like to do in Ohio, which is to extend broadband into rural areas that you currently represent in Congress, let alone the dirt poor urban ones you want to represent as governor.
You guys sound ridiculous.....
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:00am.
You sound absolutely hysterical over a markup in a House subcommittee. This doesn't make it the final version of the bill. The amendment, which Strickland supported, can be offered again and again, and it still needs to go through the Senate and conference.
You act like this thing is written in stone. Maybe Ted simply disagrees with you about it's impact on consumers. I don't really see anything in the bill that prevents Strickland for enacting his broadband access plan. Calm down.
Imagine that.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:06am.
Bloggers acting hysterical and jumping to conclusions.
Never thought I'd see the day.
wrong
Submitted by Tim Russo on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:16am.
this is not hysterical and jumping to conclusions.
this is a publicly recorded vote, which itself conflicts with Ted's previous vote in the subcommittee, and his own words in two MTB appearances.
that is worth pointing out.
this is a publicly recorded vote, which itself conflicts with Ted's previous vote in the subcommittee, and his own words in two MTB appearances.
that is worth pointing out.
Russo, don't act so naive
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:29am.
You know better.
Ted can support the amendment and support the bill being sent to the House without it, they aren't mutually exclusive contradictory things.
Where in any appearance did Strickland say that if the net neutrality amendment failed he'd vote against the bill?
Where?
Bull
Submitted by staff on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:12am.
first off it's not a sub committee its the full committee - so this "mark up" is headed to the house floor for a full vote.
Second we have seen time and time again good amendments on the full house floor not get any consideration.
Obviously Ted does disagree, which last I checked it reason for voters not to support a person.
Ditto goes for sherrod and now you;re right - it's up to the Senate to do the right thing - and there is no way in hell I would want Sherrod in the Senate if this is how he votes. No way.
What??
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:26am.
Ted VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT.
Just because he voted for the bill after the amendment failed doesn't mean that he still doesn't support it. He doesn't disagree with you, he voted for the amendment.
And if it's offered in on the House floor he is going to support it.
And when the Senate bill comes back and has the amendment, he'll support it.
His vote in the committee is nothing more than procedurally sending this to the House, which, without his vote and the Democrats, was going to happen anyways.
Tempest in a teapot.
oh just stop
Submitted by staff on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:31am.
your spinning like a TOP.
Ted doesnt work in the Senate. Let's put that aside.
So what if it still gets out of committee ? why not vote against it then signaling your opposition to it without the amendment ? That would have made it easier to get the amendment in.
Ted wants it both ways along with Sherrod - and you want to enable them.
staff,
Submitted by RMC2000 on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 12:44pm.
why don't you support this bill without the amendment?
let me list the ways
Submitted by staff on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 1:50pm.
it doesnt have strong net neutrality protections in place.
it doesnt create anything to mandate rural expansion - in fact it forgoes it completely
it damages local broadcasting and takes the ability away from localities to locally franchise
this is akin to the 1996 telecom act that led to consolidation of media. This act would place the internet at the whim of ATT, Sprint, Verizon, Comcast and everyone else has to pay the piper and bow down - unless these guys decide to just offer their own services and cut others off completely.
When They Do Right
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:12am.
I will sing their praises. When they do wrong, I will decry their actions.
I don't trust any politician further than I can thrown them. There are no saints. We did too little too late on the bankruptcy bull and Strickland sided with the corporations. Not this time.
I don't trust any politician further than I can thrown them. There are no saints. We did too little too late on the bankruptcy bull and Strickland sided with the corporations. Not this time.
I don't think