Search Results: people change quotes

link - the actual bill to read yourself if you want.

link - small thing about it

Basically (quoting another person on another forum), if you want to make any laws, rules, or regulations regarding governing the internet, you first have wait 90 days from the time this bill passed. If your legislation passes, you have to wait TWO YEARS before making any additional changes to it (unless the President detects an "existential threat" to the Internet). If they want to make any changes to it, the FCC, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, AND the Department of Justice have to publish studies about how effective said Internet rules from your legislation are (within their jurisdiction) and they have to submit them 90 days before the 2-year waiting period expires.

Seems possibly good for us. But I need to learn more about it and think on the possibilities that could come. But what do you guys think?

And remember: write your representatives if you support it or don't support it. Tell them why you do or do not support it so that they can take that to heart. Sure our politicians suck in general and are corporate whores, but still very important to be active people about it.

Note: This bit is a quote from an interview with my brother (source link ):

Interviewer: "How can the American political system be improved?"

Brother: "By changing the way we license television. The broadcast spectrum is owned by every American tax payer. The FCC licenses out the use of that spectrum to corporations on our behalf. Those same corporations charge our political candidates an arm and a leg come election time to access that same spectrum. An informed electorate is best for democracy. The problem with our current system is that to inform the electorate, a political candidate must either be personally very wealthy or very, very good at fundraising.

The problem is that personal wealth and proficient fundraising does not equal good governance; it just equals good money accessing abilities. Having been a candidate for federal office, I can tell you that too much of our representatives’ time is spent having to raise money in order to buy campaign ads come election time. Thus, the FCC should grant free access to all candidates who have received the requisite number of signatures to get on the ballot as a condition of the licensing agreement to air television. This simple change would dramatically lower the monetary bar to run for elected office, and would increase the likelihood that the people with the best ideas would be elected, rather than the people with the most money. We also need a constitutional amendment that states that inalienable rights recognized under the constitution belong to human beings only, not to entities such as corporations."

So what do you guys think? I personally love the idea. Sure it's my brother so I might seem biased, but I really love the idea of making it easier for anyone, not just the rich, to run for government. That was how our government was supposed to be from the start anyways. Anyone had a right to run. While people can still run, they have no chance to win due to unfair advantages like money. And having money does not mean you're going to be a good legislator.

Hell, this kinda thing is already done in many other first world nations.

So I wonder what other people think.

I used quotes on "weight-loss", because I'm talking about not just weight loss, but bettering of your health and fitness overall (and I HATE the word 'dieting' lol):

-weight-loss

-detox / cleanse diet

-vegetarianism (all varieties)

-veganism

-training to better yourself in a sport

If you were on a regimen or lifestyle of change to better your health, which group of people do you think would be the most detrimental to your success?

Vote and reply as much as you like.

Thanks for answering. :)