May 25, 2006 11:36 AM PDT

House panel votes for Net neutrality

WASHINGTON--A bill that seeks to prevent broadband providers from offering an exclusive high-speed lane for video and other services has taken a step closer to becoming law.

By a 20-13 vote Thursday that partially followed party lines, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would require broadband providers to abide by strict Net neutrality principles, meaning that their networks must be operated in a "nondiscriminatory" manner.

All 14 Democrats on the committee (joined by six Republicans) supported the measure, while 13 Republicans opposed it.

Senate Net neutrality

That vote is a surprise victory for Internet companies such as Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo that had lobbied fiercely in the last few months for stricter laws to ensure that Verizon, AT&T and other broadband providers could not create a "fast lane" reserved for video or other high-priority content of their choice.

"The lack of competition in the broadband marketplace presents a clear incentive for providers to leverage dominant market power over the broadband bottleneck, to preselect, favor or prioritize Internet content," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who heads the committee.

In an unusual twist, many members of the committee said they were voting for the legislation not because of strong concerns over Net neutrality--but instead because of a turf battle. They said they were worried that a competing proposal already approved by a different committee last month would diminish their own influence in the future.

That other bill, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement, or COPE, Act, says the Federal Communications Commission "shall have exclusive authority" to investigate violations of Net neutrality principles. It's backed by Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and does not include strict Net neutrality mandates.

Because the FCC is overseen by Barton's committee, that proposal would effectively cut off Judiciary Committee members from being able to hold hearings on Net neutrality antitrust violations, give speeches about corporate malfeasance and solicit campaign cash from affected companies--the lifeblood of modern Washington politics.

Net neutrality's crowded field

Bill numberLead sponsor(s)What It ProposesStatus
S.2360Wyden (D)No two-tier InternetStill in Senate committee
S.2917Snowe (R) and Dorgan (D)No two-tier InternetJust introduced
HR5417Sensenbrenner (R) and Conyers (D)Antitrust extended to Net neutralityAwaiting House floor vote
HR5273Markey (D)No two-tier InternetStill in House committee *
HR5252Barton (R) and Rush (D)FCC can police complaintsAwaiting House floor vote
S.2686Stevens (R) and Inouye (D)FCC will do a studySenate committee vote expected in June

* Republicans have defeated similar language twice as an amendment to a telecommunications bill

Source: CNET News.com research

That resulted in an unusual situation in which politicians who weren't enthusiastic about the Judiciary bill nevertheless voted for it on Wednesday. "I think the bill is a blunt instrument, and yet I think it does send a message that it's important to attain jurisdiction for the Justice Department and for antitrust issues," said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat.

The most pointed opposition to the Judiciary bill came from Texas Republican Lamar Smith, who said he would prefer "to leave these decisions to the courts to work out on a case-by-case basis under the antitrust law."

The existing bill is far too regulatory and could "put a straitjacket on this important sector of the economy," Smith warned.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat, said he also disagreed with the "regulatory scheme" proposed by the bill's sponsors but wasn't about to let the rival committee's proposal win. "The way the Energy and Commerce bill is written is to deny this committee--and, frankly, citizens--a right to remedy," he said.

AT&T said after the vote that it was disappointed but hoped that the turf war between the two committees could be resolved. "We are optimistic that the majority in Congress will see this legislation as an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist, and will instead focus on bringing choice to consumers by passing video choice legislation," Tim McKone, AT&T executive vice president for federal relations, said in a statement.

Walter McCormick, president of the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), pointed to the pre-vote discussion when saying "the committee members understand that this misguided and reckless legislation could hamper investment and innovation and limit consumer choice." USTelecom is a trade association representing Verizon Communications, BellSouth and AT&T, as well as smaller telecommunications companies.

Also adopted was an amendment that Sensenbrenner and his co-sponsor Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, had offered. It says that broadband providers are allowed to offer consumer protection services such as parental controls; that they can offer special promotional pricing or marketing initiatives; and that they may prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of a particular type as long as they don't impose a surcharge.

Network operators from the telephone and cable industries, now allied with some of the nation's largest hardware makers, have said repeatedly that they have no intention of blocking, degrading or impairing content. They say they're protecting their right to manage their networks as they see fit, which could mean charging extra to heavy bandwidth users, such as video providers, that expect to have their content shuttled at priority speeds.

It's not clear what will happen next in the House. Often the House leadership, in this case the Republicans, will try to meld similar proposals together into one package before a floor vote. Alternatively, the Republican leadership could permit both bills to go to the floor for votes.

See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, broadband provider, committee, Republican, broadband

50 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Thank God for Some Sanity
The explosive growth of the Internet is because of it's neutrality, and allowing Verizon to own it is a ludicrous notion. I'm glad some sanity is carrying the day in congress.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Reply Link Flag
do the same thing with OSes
They should do the same thing with Operating systems.
Posted by rmiecznik (224 comments )
Link Flag
Thank God for Some Sanity
The explosive growth of the Internet is because of it's neutrality, and allowing Verizon to own it is a ludicrous notion. I'm glad some sanity is carrying the day in congress.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Reply Link Flag
do the same thing with OSes
They should do the same thing with Operating systems.
Posted by rmiecznik (224 comments )
Link Flag
Good news - but the battle is far from over...
go to <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and take action. Make sure your representatives know their jobs are at risk if they tamper with the current state of net neutrality.
Posted by MercilessUnicorn (31 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good news - but the battle is far from over...
go to <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and take action. Make sure your representatives know their jobs are at risk if they tamper with the current state of net neutrality.
Posted by MercilessUnicorn (31 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Write your congressman
This battle is FAR from over. Teh phone companies want to control the last bastion of uncensored public discourse for their personal gain. If they had proposed such restraints and controls when creating the phone system, you would be calling who they wanted you to call, and no one else. Welcome to rule by the plutocrats.
Posted by mickmca (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Write your congressman
This battle is FAR from over. Teh phone companies want to control the last bastion of uncensored public discourse for their personal gain. If they had proposed such restraints and controls when creating the phone system, you would be calling who they wanted you to call, and no one else. Welcome to rule by the plutocrats.
Posted by mickmca (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sanity?
This isn't called 'sanity'. This is called 'I want your vote this November, now give it to me so I can help reverse this later and get on to more pressing issues, like reducing your rights and privileges.
Posted by troppp (58 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sanity?
This isn't called 'sanity'. This is called 'I want your vote this November, now give it to me so I can help reverse this later and get on to more pressing issues, like reducing your rights and privileges.
Posted by troppp (58 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I want their names!
Who are the 13 Republicans opposed? Then I will know where to cast my votes.
Posted by Xat Nam (28 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I want their names!
Who are the 13 Republicans opposed? Then I will know where to cast my votes.
Posted by Xat Nam (28 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A different perspective
I am enrolled in an Executive MBA program, and I recently did a project involving research and a presentation around Net Neutrality. The issue isn't as cut and dried as it seems. There are no plans to restrict access, but instead a desire to build FASTER "pipes" to the consumer that will carry preferred content. An example of preferred content might be your ISP's video over IP or a partner's site. The general thought is that this won't come into play until we're looking at the ability to roll out 20meg+ pipes to every house. Based on my research, it doesn't appear that the service providers want to slow down what you already have...they just want to build something even faster that is "off to the side" so they can provide you more products and services. If you're trying to watch a movie on video over IP and someone in another room is trying to download music or watch streaming video from another site, they want to make sure that the media services you are buying don't degrade because someone at the computer feels the need to download the latest pop song. How is this bad?
Posted by Hulshizer (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Open the bottlenecks: Why we need net neutrality
In all due respect, Hulshizer (and I mean that--see below), I
suspect you're thinking about net neutrality as a means of
regulating the relationship between big businesses.

If so, you're probably missing an important element: charging
for content delivery seriously impedes the communication ability
of nonprofit content creators, including universities, open
source programmers, and citizen journalists.

If it's a fight between Verizon and Google, net neutrality is
probably still valuable but not really all that important. But once
you consider the relatively socially desirable content that will be
squelched (including: stuck in the &lt;3Mbps slow lane forever,
while user expectations zoom by) because nonprofits cannot
afford to pay intermediary fees, you see the real cost of failing to
implement net neutrality.

I urge you to read my article on this, which will be published in
2007 by the Federal Communications Law Journal. The current
draft is online at:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902071" target="_newWindow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902071</a>

Hulshizer: I'm genuinely interested in reading your work on this
topic, too. Please post a link.
Posted by ShoutingLoudly (22 comments )
Link Flag
Perhaps the real issue is being obscured
Even with Net neutrality, what would prevent the backbone providers from charging appropriate higher fees for use of newer, faster services? After all, we currently pay different rates for DSL, dial-up, cable, satellite, whatever type of pipe we happen to choose.
The problem I see is that the providers want to charge users different rates for using the same pipe. That is not with out precident in this country, (the US Post Office offers reduced rates to bulk users, the electric &#38; water utilities offer reduced rates to large users, and telcos charge more for business phones than residential service,) but, as is also true of those precidents mentioned, it would be highly unfair and create an artificial &#38; unnecessary communications "class system" that does not currently exist.
As a result, it would be one more step away from Democracy.
Posted by El Kabong (100 comments )
Link Flag
You should have stopped at..
"I am enrolled in an Executive MBA program"

That is all we needed to know, so we can safely ignore your opinion.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
Reality Wins Again
Thanks Hulshizer!

Those who think we'll have a 2nd desktop or a 2nd NIC are just in a different reality. In my sight of more physical pathways, I see the users who've paid for the new pathways demanding that they don't have to switch desktops to do different net actions and that will force the owners of those pathways to provide net neutrality. Others, please check with your Tech. before worrying too much about big business taking over the Internet.
Phil
Posted by (4 comments )
Link Flag
Hype
It's hype. The original AOL is the model for the tiered Internet that these benevolent telcos want to return to, and who wants to return to those days. You are buying into the hype. If you don't remember the bad old days of AOL, let me clue you in. You were fine if you were on "their" network. But if you wanted to go to the Internet, you were restricted. You had to use "their" browser, and could only access sites they allowed. You were deluged with ads and spam.

If telcos want to build faster pipes, build faster pipes and charge for the OVERALL new speed, but DO NOT set up throttles or block sites.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Link Flag
Bleak ... very bleak
That is actually quite ridiculous. The network, is built on a communication backbone supporting a wide array of essentially communications, and connectivity to any modern nation. It is merely an excuse for extortion. Trying to legalize will not make something fundamentally wrong, right. Trying to rationalize it in the manner in which you just did, ignores the basic service that MUST be provided. The network, is NOT something these currenty entities were instrumental in it's development. In fact the spirit in which it was developed, and operated under, is in stark contrast of the desires of these entities.

Lately, too many people think the internet is something to replace cable TV. I hope I do not need to extrapolate how disappointing that is. The good thing though? Better compression algorithms.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
A "Think Different" Perspective
I'm not enrolled for an Executive MBA program.

I've done ACTUAL WORK with an ISP and more work with internet-based service sales. I've surfed everything from a 2400 baud phone modem to a T3 line. I've helped fix (literally) tens of thousands of computer and internet connectivity problems.

How is Net Neutrality bad? Because people forget that it's not about the SPEED of the connection, it's the CONTENT of the connection.

Your example of one person watching a video and the other downloading music; yes, this person need a higher Tier of SPEED for reliable service. ISPs already DO tiered SPEED levels. If you don't like your speed? Pay more! If you want more, pay more. I do it myself, to get a broader bandwidth. It's just and fair. I can think of THREE separate ways off the top of my head to make sure that the people in your example get better speeds without changing the foundation of the internet.

Net neutrality is about preventing tiered CONTENT levels, not SPEED levels. Making things accessible to EVERYONE EQUALLY. The things I can publicly watch should be available to ANYONE at all. What I see, you see. If I want Google, I GET Google. If I want <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.purple.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.purple.com</a> , I don't get blocked when others can surf there. When you understand that it's about the idea of freedom of speech and personal equality, it really IS as cut-and-dried as it seems.

I hope you do well with your MBA. Please don't get into Tech. You'd go "down the tubes".
Posted by FerroMancer (2 comments )
Link Flag
A different perspective
I am enrolled in an Executive MBA program, and I recently did a project involving research and a presentation around Net Neutrality. The issue isn't as cut and dried as it seems. There are no plans to restrict access, but instead a desire to build FASTER "pipes" to the consumer that will carry preferred content. An example of preferred content might be your ISP's video over IP or a partner's site. The general thought is that this won't come into play until we're looking at the ability to roll out 20meg+ pipes to every house. Based on my research, it doesn't appear that the service providers want to slow down what you already have...they just want to build something even faster that is "off to the side" so they can provide you more products and services. If you're trying to watch a movie on video over IP and someone in another room is trying to download music or watch streaming video from another site, they want to make sure that the media services you are buying don't degrade because someone at the computer feels the need to download the latest pop song. How is this bad?
Posted by Hulshizer (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Open the bottlenecks: Why we need net neutrality
In all due respect, Hulshizer (and I mean that--see below), I
suspect you're thinking about net neutrality as a means of
regulating the relationship between big businesses.

If so, you're probably missing an important element: charging
for content delivery seriously impedes the communication ability
of nonprofit content creators, including universities, open
source programmers, and citizen journalists.

If it's a fight between Verizon and Google, net neutrality is
probably still valuable but not really all that important. But once
you consider the relatively socially desirable content that will be
squelched (including: stuck in the &lt;3Mbps slow lane forever,
while user expectations zoom by) because nonprofits cannot
afford to pay intermediary fees, you see the real cost of failing to
implement net neutrality.

I urge you to read my article on this, which will be published in
2007 by the Federal Communications Law Journal. The current
draft is online at:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902071" target="_newWindow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902071</a>

Hulshizer: I'm genuinely interested in reading your work on this
topic, too. Please post a link.
Posted by ShoutingLoudly (22 comments )
Link Flag
Perhaps the real issue is being obscured
Even with Net neutrality, what would prevent the backbone providers from charging appropriate higher fees for use of newer, faster services? After all, we currently pay different rates for DSL, dial-up, cable, satellite, whatever type of pipe we happen to choose.
The problem I see is that the providers want to charge users different rates for using the same pipe. That is not with out precident in this country, (the US Post Office offers reduced rates to bulk users, the electric &#38; water utilities offer reduced rates to large users, and telcos charge more for business phones than residential service,) but, as is also true of those precidents mentioned, it would be highly unfair and create an artificial &#38; unnecessary communications "class system" that does not currently exist.
As a result, it would be one more step away from Democracy.
Posted by El Kabong (100 comments )
Link Flag
You should have stopped at..
"I am enrolled in an Executive MBA program"

That is all we needed to know, so we can safely ignore your opinion.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
Reality Wins Again
Thanks Hulshizer!

Those who think we'll have a 2nd desktop or a 2nd NIC are just in a different reality. In my sight of more physical pathways, I see the users who've paid for the new pathways demanding that they don't have to switch desktops to do different net actions and that will force the owners of those pathways to provide net neutrality. Others, please check with your Tech. before worrying too much about big business taking over the Internet.
Phil
Posted by (4 comments )
Link Flag
Hype
It's hype. The original AOL is the model for the tiered Internet that these benevolent telcos want to return to, and who wants to return to those days. You are buying into the hype. If you don't remember the bad old days of AOL, let me clue you in. You were fine if you were on "their" network. But if you wanted to go to the Internet, you were restricted. You had to use "their" browser, and could only access sites they allowed. You were deluged with ads and spam.

If telcos want to build faster pipes, build faster pipes and charge for the OVERALL new speed, but DO NOT set up throttles or block sites.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Link Flag
Bleak ... very bleak
That is actually quite ridiculous. The network, is built on a communication backbone supporting a wide array of essentially communications, and connectivity to any modern nation. It is merely an excuse for extortion. Trying to legalize will not make something fundamentally wrong, right. Trying to rationalize it in the manner in which you just did, ignores the basic service that MUST be provided. The network, is NOT something these currenty entities were instrumental in it's development. In fact the spirit in which it was developed, and operated under, is in stark contrast of the desires of these entities.

Lately, too many people think the internet is something to replace cable TV. I hope I do not need to extrapolate how disappointing that is. The good thing though? Better compression algorithms.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
A "Think Different" Perspective
I'm not enrolled for an Executive MBA program.

I've done ACTUAL WORK with an ISP and more work with internet-based service sales. I've surfed everything from a 2400 baud phone modem to a T3 line. I've helped fix (literally) tens of thousands of computer and internet connectivity problems.

How is Net Neutrality bad? Because people forget that it's not about the SPEED of the connection, it's the CONTENT of the connection.

Your example of one person watching a video and the other downloading music; yes, this person need a higher Tier of SPEED for reliable service. ISPs already DO tiered SPEED levels. If you don't like your speed? Pay more! If you want more, pay more. I do it myself, to get a broader bandwidth. It's just and fair. I can think of THREE separate ways off the top of my head to make sure that the people in your example get better speeds without changing the foundation of the internet.

Net neutrality is about preventing tiered CONTENT levels, not SPEED levels. Making things accessible to EVERYONE EQUALLY. The things I can publicly watch should be available to ANYONE at all. What I see, you see. If I want Google, I GET Google. If I want <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.purple.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.purple.com</a> , I don't get blocked when others can surf there. When you understand that it's about the idea of freedom of speech and personal equality, it really IS as cut-and-dried as it seems.

I hope you do well with your MBA. Please don't get into Tech. You'd go "down the tubes".
Posted by FerroMancer (2 comments )
Link Flag
How many NICs in your bus?
I think that nobody will lose if they create more network pathways. At first it seems bad, but when the reality of three or four new physical pathways for Net traffic to ride on comes, and few people want to have more than one ethernet card, then we all will win with tremendously higher throughput.
Phil
PBechtel@bechtelnet.com
Posted by (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I can do that now...
What's to stop you from ordering both DSL and Cable modem to your home. There are your 2 pathways, and if you get a decent router you might be able to load balance across them.

The point most are missing, is there is no bandwidth shortage. that's the argument behind the multiple path ways argument. QoS or any sort of traffic discrimination is only needed if you have more traffic than pipe. We have FIOS running at up to 30 Megabits and some cable modems are running right up there with them. So, if the consumer wants to download DVDs while surfing they can do it, right now. (I know its not avilable everywhere).

So someone, is telling a good story about the fabricated need to QoS traffic to the consumer, and thereby create a new revenue stream by taxing...errr charging, the content providers.
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Link Flag
How many NICs in your bus?
I think that nobody will lose if they create more network pathways. At first it seems bad, but when the reality of three or four new physical pathways for Net traffic to ride on comes, and few people want to have more than one ethernet card, then we all will win with tremendously higher throughput.
Phil
PBechtel@bechtelnet.com
Posted by (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I can do that now...
What's to stop you from ordering both DSL and Cable modem to your home. There are your 2 pathways, and if you get a decent router you might be able to load balance across them.

The point most are missing, is there is no bandwidth shortage. that's the argument behind the multiple path ways argument. QoS or any sort of traffic discrimination is only needed if you have more traffic than pipe. We have FIOS running at up to 30 Megabits and some cable modems are running right up there with them. So, if the consumer wants to download DVDs while surfing they can do it, right now. (I know its not avilable everywhere).

So someone, is telling a good story about the fabricated need to QoS traffic to the consumer, and thereby create a new revenue stream by taxing...errr charging, the content providers.
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Link Flag
nop gop
I see no indication in this article that the politicians who voted understand the technology and protocol that determines the practice of measuring out and reserving bandwidth across heterogeneous routers. Why does that matter? They don't know what they've voting on. This isn't being presented as an anti-trust issue and it is clear that IP6 RSVP protocol distributed routing has not played out it's course in terms of internet dynamics. Can somebody give these guys a chart with some laser pointers so they can wrap their heads around it? Otherwise they are arguing about nothing but party graft from corporate interests who never bothering to explain what the money was for- just vote right or left. Duh.
Posted by dipnip (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
nop gop
I see no indication in this article that the politicians who voted understand the technology and protocol that determines the practice of measuring out and reserving bandwidth across heterogeneous routers. Why does that matter? They don't know what they've voting on. This isn't being presented as an anti-trust issue and it is clear that IP6 RSVP protocol distributed routing has not played out it's course in terms of internet dynamics. Can somebody give these guys a chart with some laser pointers so they can wrap their heads around it? Otherwise they are arguing about nothing but party graft from corporate interests who never bothering to explain what the money was for- just vote right or left. Duh.
Posted by dipnip (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
nop gop
I see no indication in this article that the politicians who voted understand the technology and protocol that determines the practice of measuring out and reserving bandwidth across heterogeneous routers. Why does that matter? They don't know what they've voting on. This isn't being presented as an anti-trust issue and it is clear that IP6 RSVP protocol distributed routing has not played out it's course in terms of internet dynamics. Can somebody give these guys a chart with some laser pointers so they can wrap their heads around it? Otherwise they are arguing about nothing but party graft from corporate interests who never bothering to explain what the money was for- just vote right or left. <b>Duh.</b>
Posted by dipnip (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Money Talks in DC.. not you
You know, you hit the nail on the head. There is not ONE politician in the US that gives a rats behind about ANY American Citizen. As a friend of mine once said (a state senator) The only honest politician that cares about the American people is a dead politician. Your vote doesn't count, your voice doesn't count, and most of all, YOU don't count.

People tell me, if you don't like it, leave. you know, I would, but where would I go? Millions of people a year, from hundreds of other countries, plop down here in the good ol' USA. So far, only a hand full of countries will allow a US citizen to gain resident status, and that is AFTER you can speak the language, prove you can support yourself, and prove you are of good moral character. Well, we are Americans, morals are not our priority, our families are broken, our kids are dis-respectful, tatooed, and full of holes.

Blame it all on the Government? Yeah, no doubt about it. While I am ranting along, I wonder if anyone could possibly tell me, since our government is so great, why doesn't EVERYONE have it? And I am not talking about Iraq, the only reason they are seeking democracy is because our good friend Georgie Bush is forcing it on them. Speaking of a dork with a job, George is the poster child.
Posted by 4man1 (2 comments )
Link Flag
nop gop
I see no indication in this article that the politicians who voted understand the technology and protocol that determines the practice of measuring out and reserving bandwidth across heterogeneous routers. Why does that matter? They don't know what they've voting on. This isn't being presented as an anti-trust issue and it is clear that IP6 RSVP protocol distributed routing has not played out it's course in terms of internet dynamics. Can somebody give these guys a chart with some laser pointers so they can wrap their heads around it? Otherwise they are arguing about nothing but party graft from corporate interests who never bothering to explain what the money was for- just vote right or left. <b>Duh.</b>
Posted by dipnip (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Money Talks in DC.. not you
You know, you hit the nail on the head. There is not ONE politician in the US that gives a rats behind about ANY American Citizen. As a friend of mine once said (a state senator) The only honest politician that cares about the American people is a dead politician. Your vote doesn't count, your voice doesn't count, and most of all, YOU don't count.

People tell me, if you don't like it, leave. you know, I would, but where would I go? Millions of people a year, from hundreds of other countries, plop down here in the good ol' USA. So far, only a hand full of countries will allow a US citizen to gain resident status, and that is AFTER you can speak the language, prove you can support yourself, and prove you are of good moral character. Well, we are Americans, morals are not our priority, our families are broken, our kids are dis-respectful, tatooed, and full of holes.

Blame it all on the Government? Yeah, no doubt about it. While I am ranting along, I wonder if anyone could possibly tell me, since our government is so great, why doesn't EVERYONE have it? And I am not talking about Iraq, the only reason they are seeking democracy is because our good friend Georgie Bush is forcing it on them. Speaking of a dork with a job, George is the poster child.
Posted by 4man1 (2 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.