"Why does the Wall Street regulation overhaul give FTC authority over the Internet?"


That's the question Ed Morrissey asks at Hot Air. Commenting on an under-publicized portion of the House version of financial reg legislation that would, in the Wash Post's summary, "allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers," Morrissey raises a series of disturbing queries:

Neither the FTC nor the Internet had anything to do with the Wall Street meltdown in 2008.  If this financial-regulation bill is so desperately needed, why did House Democrats lard it up with this power grab at the FTC?  Why does the FTC need any further authority over the Internet, where fraud and abuse regulations apply already?   The Internet economy has been one of the bright spots throughout a dismal period of recent history.  Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?

More here.

NEXT: How Did GM Pay Back Its Bailout So Fast? Well, It Didn't...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Interesting.
    Oh, I was just reading a fascinating book by Hot Air founder Michelle Malkin called “In Defense of Internment”
    Have you heard of it?


    1. ^^^ I can’t tell if this bot is pro- or anti-Malkin.

      1. Pretty sure that is anti-Malkin.

        1. Ah-ha! So it’s racist.

    2. So have you actually read it, and wish to counter its arguments, or are you just being snarky and off-topic?

      1. being a decent human being.

        1. You mean a person who is fascinated by the defense of concentration camps because he *likes* the idea is a decent human being?

          How depraved!

          1. sarcasm meet tarran, tarran say hi to sarcasm

            1. That wasn’t sarcasm, it was a textbook example of an ad hominem.

              But hey, whatever makes your saturday night more fun. 😉

              1. I’m still not sure what Jay’s going for.

                1. Jay has commented on Malkin before and he doesn’t like her or her politics.

                  We Lawn Gnomes don’t favor internment since we don’t make war. But we do like short, attractive women that can argue. Michelle would look great in a Gnome Hat. Hubba hubba!

                  1. Wait a minute. Is stuff supposed to get done here?

                    1. Anyhow, did anyone here witness that dud of a bomb last night that nearly killed hundreds? Jay Leno never looked worse.

                    2. In order for humor to work, people can’t take the subject too seriously. That makes it very hard for a liberal, in front of a liberal audience, to make fun of a liberal president who is in trouble in the polls.

                    3. that’s true for any party.

                    4. Well, indeed. I was just offering an explanation for Leno bombing at the dinner.

                    5. Leno could have tried this one on Obama….
                      FOX NEWS CAVES IN TO PRESSURE:

                      In response to President Obama’s complaint that FOX News doesn’t show enough Black and Hispanic people on their network, FOX has announced that they will air “America’s Most Wanted” TWICE a week from now on.

                    6. Since when did libertarians stop arguing and actually get stuff done?

    3. Cheesy ad hominem, meet Jay. Jay, meet cheesy ad hominem. Nice commentary on the FTC gaining internet authority, Jay.

  2. Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.

    Don’t you guys pay attention?

    1. I see you’ve read my book!

    2. I see you’ve ready my book

    3. I see you’ve read my book

      1. He certainly reads my column.

  3. We’re learning.

  4. I see you’ve read my book!!

  5. Why would we want to know what’s in the Bill before it passes?

    1. Are you serious?

    2. Are you se- oh, wait…

  6. Why do you distrust government? Is it because Obama is a black man? That must be it! There can’t be any other explanation!

    1. The science is settled!

    2. Your right, it is the only explanation. I never realized it but your logic is flawless – I must be a racist. I am sorry.

    3. Not true. We would also distrust him if he were a Mexican.

      1. We are all racist now.

    4. There you go again, claiming that any criticism of The One is racism. Then anybody who criticized Bush must have been a black racist too. QED. I despise BHO because he is a socialist who hates America and is doing all he can as fast as he can to destroy it. Friedman is the dumbest lying liberal on the NYT and not worth reading.

    5. Race has nothing to do with it, Obama is just an empty suit. We have a term for it….”educated idiot”. God knows if he had any intelligence and common sense he wouldn’t be the “left’s” water boy.

      1. I prefer the term “Fence Turtle”

    6. Someone said Nobaba is half white and I don’t like that part either. He and the socialists are destroying a once great nation. Buying homes and health care for all ‘bred on welfare’ and illegal demos is way too much. There’s .

  7. *sigh*

    1. Get off my fucking lawn or I’ll fucking shoot you.

      1. If I was you, Mister Tenth, I’d do exactly what he says. Just walk away, nice and slow, no sudden moves, an’ nobody gets hurt. Maybe.

        1. Watch out! He’s got a penis in his hand!

          1. It has a red band on the end 😉

            1. I am not taking any chances

              1. Yeah, we noticed.

                1. I thought all SWAT personnel were busy guarding Louisiana from the Great Crude Oil Invasion of The Beaches of Normandy-Style Encroachment Crisis…

                  1. We here at Homeland Scrutiny *had* to get involved. General Gore alerted us to this latest man-made disaster, based on his divine vision of this being much more than a huge-assed oil slick.

                    1. I’m still a little miffed that I wasn’t invited.
                      I am a general. That’s my friggin’ title!

                2. Canine America, papers please.

  8. It’s hard to believe that in the United States of America somebody would add something like this to such an important bill.

    All kidding aside, stuff like this really does help reaffirm my default position–that politicians really can’t be trusted with the responsibility of making decisions on our behalf…

    They really should just leave our best interests to the experts–the experts on our best interests being us, of course.

    …but I can’t remember the last time they voted to do that.

    1. 1806, I believe.


        Even with FTC regulation of the internet things are better now than they were in 1806. Married women couldn’t own property then you patriarchal-oppressor RAPE-APOLOGIST!

        1. Still, it’s been a long time since they voted to leave us to figure out what’s in our best interests ourselves, hasn’t it?

          See, just because somebody answers a question, it can still be a good answer even if it isn’t the answer to every question that’s ever been asked.

          So, for instance, if I ask “When’s the last time we didn’t have to pay income taxes?”, the correct answer isn’t necessarily “Jim Crow”.

          Actually, “Jim Crow” doesn’t really answer that question at all.

            1. See? That’s an answer.

              It isn’t a racist answer. It’s just an answer. It’s actually a pretty good answer!

              …’cause the answer to one question isn’t necessarily the answer to every question. It just isn’t.

              Some people have a hard time with that. I don’t know why.

              1. I really wish I could collect royalties and residuals on the rhetorical technique bearing my name, but then what would the FTC do?

                1. Hyperbole, thy name is me.

          1. He’s parodizing a recent article that appeared in Reason Magazine. It’s by David Boaz, hence Catotarian.

            1. It’s an inane parody and a terrible failure at insight.

              1. You know the thing is…

                I’ve seen so many kooks show up here over the years… I’ve seen torture apologists show up in droves and defend the Abu Ghraib photos… I once saw a well educated person argue that Chairman Mao will always be remembered by the Chinese people for his fine poetry… I’ve seen people argue some really crazy things!

                And that’s not even counting Urkobold and his minions.

                “NEO-ConFEDERATE!” passes for civil discourse in a lot of places. You’d be surprised.

                1. Works for me!

            2. 2 Cato parodies in one!

              1 sentence Boaz
              2 radical feminist market-socialist Wilkinson

              1. Gosh, if you’d a only mentioned state’s rights, that woulda been perfect. Meanwhile, if you wanna know what real liberty means, come talk to me. If I ain’t busy keepin’ the darkies or Mexis in line, I’ll be happy to fill you in.

        2. LOL and you think Goverment had anything to do with that??? The reason the Women can own property and Blacks are no long beholden to the plantations is simple. WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE stood up and made our voices heard. This was not done via the executive branch but our Representatives in Congress…. Back when WE actually HAD represention in Congress. Instead we are now on the path foretold by Karl Marx the all Governments flow from Totalitarian, though “Democracy” and into Communism.
          Actually Communism itself isn’t a bad idea. Its the fact the when the Powers of the Government are contained in one branch or by one party, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are well on that path.

        3. Catch a clue Catotarian. There is still plenty of slavery in the world and most of it due to Muslim teachings. We not only don’t need emotional women to vote but would really benefit if all persons on the public dole were denied the vote (just kidding about the women. I have had a pretty great one as my partner for the last 44 years).

        4. Good thing we had the Republican party to sponsor and pass EVERY LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GOING BACK TO THE EMANICPATION PROCLAMATION, huh? You silly libtards always like to co-op this in your struggle to keep the race and class wars alive. You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts. Democrats have OPPOSED evry landmark piece of Civil rights legislation in the history of the Country. BTW, did you know that Martin Luther King was a Republican? Did you know that Abe Lincoln was a Republican?
          Only member of the Senate ever to have belonged to the KKK was a dem?
          Study hard libtards and stay away from the kool-aid.

    2. No politician, in any country, has ever made decisions on “our” behalf.  They are only capable of thinking about “their” behalf.

      In the immortal words of Yip Harburg:

      Should I Write a Letter to My Congressman?
      Each Congressman has got two ends,
      a sitting and a thinking end,
      But since his whole success depends upon his seat,
      Why bother friend?

    3. Riffing on the same theme, I’m sure our politicians…*cough* Barak Obama…,excuse me, have excellent reasons why they didn’t even bother to begin responding to a mammoth oil spill that’s about to devastate our coastlines for eight freaking days

      …but I suppose that’s a lot better than them taking three years to put together an “emergency” regulatory response to Wall Street.

      Just based on those response times, the federal government might be the last bunch you want to call in a real emergency.

      1. Ken, FEMA is still not involved with the ecological disaster in the gulf.

        1. Well, maybe in three years, if Obama or our next president gets around to it, maybe Congress will argue about whether we need a new Energy Consumer Protection Agency to help protect average consumers since three years prior this oil well was too big to fail?

          Seriously. Post Katrina, that kind of lag time is inexcusable. I understand that we’re mostly talking about natural beauty and wildlife–and not dying, starving people like we were in Katrina. But that’s inexcusable.

          I’m sure the President will go down there for a photo-op, make a speech, promise a big chunk of change for the clean-up in no time flat…

          But that’s what you do after the incompetence. If it takes the Federal government 8 days, and they still haven’t showed up? That’s gonna have to be a really good speech the president gives. A really good speech.

          I bet the rock stars react faster than that. I bet they have their agents looking for the benefit concert venue already. I bet Sean Penn’s already on his way with a roll of paper towels…

          1. It’s much worse than a “spill”: it’s an oil geyser 5000 feet down on the ocean floor. Not something even Red Adair would want to tackle.

            One of the conspiracy theories about it: North Korea did it.

            1. I’ve become cynical enough to think that this was too convenient of an accident.

              Not trying to put on a tin foil hat, but the timing of our ever-so-honest-and-forthcoming president to make a public statement about opening up off shore drilling again and this massive clusterfuck just makes my bullshit detector ping a bit too much.

              If I were *really* cynical, I might suggest that it almost seems like he wants to cow-tow to the “energy independence” fucktards and at same time of seeking cover to give the eco-nazis a reach around. “See? I tried to do the right thing, but this is what happens when the government doesn’t provide enough oversight into the operations of the big oil companies, who are more concerned with making a quick profit than safeguarding our environment.”

              1. I just think anything that can be interpreted as incompetence on the President’s part is too risky to make happen on purpose.

                And even if it were eco-terrorists trying to bring a stop to offshore drilling so we’ll all embrace a greener, cooler tomorrow?

                I think it makes the president look bad for not requiring whatever was necessary to guard against eco-terrorists too.

                The president advocated for and allowed precisely this kind of drilling, and the very thing he advocated is gushing egg all over his face right now. …any way you slice it.

                1. And even if it were eco-terrorists trying to bring a stop to offshore drilling so we’ll all embrace a greener, cooler tomorrow?

                  No, but it’s not a huge politically calculation to make a reasonable assumption that this could have been done as a precursor to yet another expansion of govt power and put the oil companies on the defensive. Cap’n Trade anyone?

                  Considering his and the house Dems record so far on gummint expansion and intruding into even more areas of personal and economic liberties, I don’t think this is a big strech.

                2. I just think anything that can be interpreted as incompetence on the President’s part is too risky to make happen on purpose.

                  Yes, yes…never attribute…

                  Which of course, it doesn’t hold that it can *never* be malice.

                  1. JW, your order is ready, including the bullshit detector attachment. Due to manufacturing delays, your reach around option will be forwarded in the near future.

                3. Please allow me to enlighten this conversation with a quote of Krauthammer’s razor:

                  In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.

                4. Please allow me to enlighten this conversation with a quote of Krauthammer’s razor:

                  In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.

                5. Please allow me to enlighten this conversation with a quote of Krauthammer’s razor:

                  In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.

              2. You environmental nuts make me ill.

              3. *cynism*I feel the same concerning a series of bomb events in which the bomber is too incompetent to do anything but make it smoke. I think with two lamps I could do better, with no experience, by finding my information on the internet. Can you say false flag terrorism? Shall we lay down our arms and call on the government to tighten controls to make a nice warm security blanket around us?*cynism*

                The Liberals are coming! The Liberals are coming!

            2. All these oil spills, coal mine explosions, train derailments, etc lead me to one conclusion: shit happens. One flunky fucked up, a flawless regulator got stuck, or a bird got caught in an electrical transformer. Government bureaucrats breathing over every single industrial operation won’t prevent freak fuckups. Yet every accident is blamed on the corporashuns not following regulations, like its even possible to know what happened.

            3. Where the hell have you been papayaSF?
              Don’t you know Bush caused it?

        2. FEMA is still not involved with the ecological disaster in the gulf.

          Thanks for pointing that out. That’s pretty infuriating, even though I’m not absolutely convinced of FEMA’s competence. I live on the Gulf Coast and plan to volunteer for the cleanup (only on my day off though…).

          1. I’ve seen drives for this kind of thing all over the internet…

            And not to use you as an example to score some political points or anything, but doesn’t this kinda go to show that people are more responsive to this sort of thing than government ever can be?

            And if they didn’t have this kind of thing ready to go for just such an eventuality–’cause you know, there are hurricanes and terrorists out there…

            If they can’t even respond to something they should have been ready for a long time ago, then how can these people possibly expect to make the right call on something as complicated as Wall Street, the home loan markets, derivatives, etc.?

            This was just from a month ago, on April 1…

            “WASHINGTON ? Shaking up years of energy policy and his own environmental backers, President Barack Obama threw open a huge swath of East Coast waters and other protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to drilling Wednesday, widening the politically explosive hunt for more homegrown oil and gas.

            Obama’s move allows drilling from Delaware to central Florida, plus the northern waters of Alaska, and exploration could begin 50 miles off the coast of Virginia by 2012. He also wants Congress to lift a drilling ban in the oil-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico, 125 miles from Florida beaches.”


            In my work, I’m sometimes required to make assessments of people, companies and their capabilities, and whether you agree with drilling or you’re an environmentalist, either way? I don’t think I trust the government to do a good job of this.

            And I’m not sure it’s Obama’s fault, but I’m not sure that matters. I was one of the first people I knew to call Bush the Lesser “incompetent”–I did it here at Hit & Run, actually, when even his opponents seemed to think he was the genius head of a neocon brain trust… So when Katrina happened, and middle of the road people started questioning Bush’s competence? Again, I wasn’t entirely sure that was Bush’s fault, but as long as the wind was blowin’ in the right direction, I wasn’t about to argue with them.

            And I think we may see some of that here.. I’m not sure this is Obama’s fault, but if that’s the way it plays–I guess I’m okay with that.

            ; )

            1. Ken, have you considered switching to de-caf? They still make Sanka!

              1. I don’t drink coffee.

                1. But like I said, following the president’s logic, we many need an Energy Consumer Protection Agency to protect consumers from buying more energy than they can afford–especially now that the government may have to step in and help bail everyone out now.

                  1. Charles “The Hammer” of the Krauts, has seriously advocated for this, in the form of $1.00 to $1.50 tax on every gallon of gasoline as to reduce the damand so alternative energies will be seen more favorably. He was on Wasshington Insider when he made this statement, and I thought Mark Shields and Nina Totenberg were going to bend over for him right there on the spot.

          2. But… but… we sent SWAT teams!

        3. But… but… the SWAT teams I sent should be sufficient…

        4. Would the private company that ran the oil rig do a better job of clean up than the government?

      2. P.J. O’Rourke once said that writing to your government when you have a problem is like mailing a post card to the fire department when your house is on fire.

      3. In this economy, why are people complaining about FREE oil?

  9. Happy May Day Comrade!!!!!!!!!

    1. Hail Fellow Well-Met!

  10. If this financial-regulation bill is so desperately needed, why did House Democrats lard it up with this power grab at the FTC?

    1) Because they can say, “We need this bill!” instead of defending the even worse legislation included.
    2) Because in October they can say, “Who, me? I didn’t vote to regulate the Internet.”

    Why does the FTC need any further authority over the Internet, where fraud and abuse regulations apply already?

    If, in any session of Congress, Democrats don’t write additional regulation of an industry, that industry has been “deregulated.”

    The Internet economy has been one of the bright spots throughout a dismal period of recent history. Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?

    These businesses are making obscene profits, obviously requiring more regulation and taxation to protect the consumer.

    How is any of this a surprise?

    1. LarryA|5.1.10 @ 5:29PM|#

      If this financial-regulation bill is so desperately needed, why did House Democrats lard tard it up with this power grab at the FTC?

      Amount due: $0.00

  11. “”Why does the Wall Street regulation overhaul give FTC authority over the Internet?”

    Er, because Wall Street-like financial transactions occur on the internet?

    1. I hope that is an attempt at humor, because if it was meant to be serious I’m going to have to label you retarded.

      1. Teh E*Trade!

    2. Obviously this is why the FTC also must be given control over the telephone system, the US Mail and Fedex, and the entire island of Manhattan. Because, you know, Wall Street financial transactions occur there.

      1. Can we get the FTC to control MNG’s internet postings?

        1. +? *

          *(Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.)

        2. Quothe me:

          Me today, you tomorrow.

          Be careful what you ask for. I don’t like MNG either, as he forgets the Iron Law, but he has a purpose here.

          1. His credibility has dropped a considerable amount with me in the last week. He’s becoming as bad as Alan “Herpes” Vanneman.

            1. We love him!

              1. Ha ha, “ouch” to the Alan Vanneman comparison. MNG has feelings, you know.

                1. When a rabid spider monkey is in full assault mode, and I have to put him down, the monkey’s feelings are low on my list of priorities. Heartless? Maybe. Brainless? Definitely not.

                  1. Racist analogy FAIL

                    MNG is a person of pallor

    3. Actually, the regulation would be far broader than that. In every other country on the planet, increased internet regulation has meant increasing government surveillance of the internet and limits on speech. Expect the same in the U.S. if the Feds get their hands more firmly on the internet.

    4. Wow. Is there *never* a time you don’t see a reason for government to meddle, MNG?

    5. MNG|5.1.10 @ 5:35PM|#
      “”Why does the Wall Street regulation overhaul give FTC authority over the Internet?”
      Er, because Wall Street-like financial transactions occur on the internet?”

      And what’s more is they *talk* about financial transactions, so that means we can regulate their speech.
      And even if they *don’t* talk about them, that means they’re impeding financial transactions, so there’s another reason.
      Oh, and they sit on chairs while they’re doing or not doing those things, so, why chairs need some regs.
      Not to mention coffee.

    6. Jesus christ, MNG, you are a god-almighty idiot! No one can be that stupid without faking it just a little.

  12. Here we go.

  13. They also stuck in something that would let the FDA treat nutritional supplements like drugs which would kill that business. Another hand out for Big Pharma.

    1. No, my understanding is that it would give FTC (not FDA) general rulemaking authority over dietary supplements, which could lead to their being treated more like drugs.

      1. Still big win for Big Pharma.

  14. Ron Paul’s “audit the FED” bill is included in this piece of legislation as well.

    1. Honest question: A watered down version that not even Paul supports or his bill?

      1. His bill. I saw him on FreedomWatch discussing it with the Judge.

  15. What we really need to do is get leather-garbed fudge-packers like Nick Gillespie to stop sucking Ron Paul’s cock.

    1. Jealous?

      1. I assume Edward/Max/Morris’ life is sad and empty.

        1. Don’t forget me!

          1. How can we? Running him off with a cast of 1000 imitators was awesome.

            1. [wipes away tear]
              Good times…

        2. You’re very wrong.

          1. The fact that the anonymity-bot has surpassed you in both wit and relevance argues otherwise.

            1. Ha ha, true. The anon bots are better commenters than Edward Lefiti Max Morris. Ouch.

      2. One to a customer…

      3. “”Jealous?””

        He’s complaining because the line isn’t moving.

    2. Beats sucking Paul Krugman’s, I would reckon.

      1. Paul Krugman has a cock? Learn something new every day.

      2. Paul Who?

    3. Good grief … not again.

  16. And also, fuck congress, the President, and the FTC.

  17. The Internet economy has been one of the bright spots throughout a dismal period of recent history. Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?

    Politicians feel threatened by any glowing success that shines a light of contrast on their own failings.

  18. The Democrats are really a bunch of airheads, aren’t they?

    Net neutrality just means that ISPs have to treat people bootlegging content on bittorrent the same as legit content distributors.

    If you really want to abolish copyrights, that’s fine, but I don’t think the D’s realize that they’re enabling video piracy.

    1. Actually, Hazel, I don’t think they are promoting copyright “piracy”, so much as fighting.

      Imagine an unregulated market for ISP’s. In such a case, there would be several different ISP’s in densely populated areas* serving different market segments. Some people would want Comcast or Time Warner which meddle in traffic, block TOR packets and throttle bittorrent etc. Other boutiques ISP’s would cater to people who used bittorrent or desired anonymity or whateverer.

      The problem is that in such a wild west scenario, the Internet would actually be beyond control. An ISP which behaves like an early 20th century Swiss Bank would prevent state enforcement of no copyring rules.

      The secret to imposing intellectual property law is precisely the sort of action proposed by the Net Neutrality law: it establishes regulatory oversight of the IP traffic traveling through an ISP. t also kills the boutique ISP’s: they lose some of the capability to diffrentiate themselves from the big boys. And, if Time Warner can lobby later to have the law modified so that ISP’s are required to free up bandwith for “legitimate” traffic by examining packets and not carrying ones that appear to be facilitating some form of copyright infringement (like using a blacklist of Bittorrent seed’s such as pirate bay).

      It’s like anti-trust law. Ostensibly the law protects the consumer from big business… Funny how it almost always is used by large esablished businesses losing market share to newer businesses that do a better job of pleasing their customers.

      * and likely in rural ones too after a while but that’s a different debate

      1. Imagine an unregulated market for ISP’s. In such a case, there would be several different ISP’s in densely populated areas* serving different market segments.

        How did these hypothetical ISPs manage to get right-of-way for the last mile? “Bribe the city council for easements” is a lousy way to get things done, but “individually negotiate with everyone whose property is in the path of your coax/twisted/fiber cable” has some even more severe problems.

        1. Hopefully, a year from now, the answer to that question will be via WiMAX.

          1. It’s already the answer in some locations.

        2. Problems for the carriers to work out on their own, you know, since they’re not entitled to use any private property.

          As long as they get easements in public right of ways, the right of way should be available to any competing carriers as well until it runs out of room, first come first serve.

      2. Well, there is the general fact that once the FCC has regulatory authority they can certainly move in to clamp down on piracy. But they are selling it as “net neutrality”, which sends exactly the opposite message.

        In any case, it appears the market was doing a fine job of figuring out a way to favor content creators over pirates (by throttling bittorrent). Then the FCC steps in to stop them on the grounds that “all bits are equal” (which is false, if you believe in copyright law, then “original” bits are more equal), only to reimpose some OTHER anti-piracy regulatory system? Doesn’t make sense to me…

        …Other than as a pure power grab, which is entirely possible, but lets avoid the cynicism for a second.

        I don’t think the state is quite clever enough to come up with such a macination – sell FCC control on net neutrality grounds and then turn around and stab their techie supporters in the backs.

        I actually believe that the Democrats are simply pandering to a lefty tech constituency by promising “information will be free and equal”, without actually thinking through the logic of what they are doing. Politicians are much more likely to be bumbling incompetents then criminal masterminds.

    2. It troubles me when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad . . . For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us.

      In other words, Hazel, why do you hate America? That’s all I’m asking.

      1. No, clearly in a modern democracy government is mostly bureucrats of some sort of another.

      2. Not intended to be an insult to Hazel, just pointing out that underneath the president’s urbane facade beats the heart of a low rent redneck.

        Content wise, the little talk he gave today is no different in substance than the worst ‘patriotic’ vitriol.

        1. A redneck has at least done honest labor at sometime in his life. Obama would never soil his hands with toil.

          1. I qualified that with ‘low rent’, meaning the moochie brother-in-law, and not the hard working guy who only asks to be left alone.

      3. How is out government “us” when 2/3rds of the public is against something like the TARP, the Omnibus, and Health Care, but they still do it anyway?

        1. You see, TheOtherSomeGuy, you are confusing what people say in polls with the Will of The People. Individuals express many petty opinions, and often a majority of individuals, people, if you will, will hold opinions that are not reflective of their higher aspirations, that is the Will of The People, the Demos in Democracy, if you will. We here in Washington are like philosopher kings of ancient Greece, in a sense that we are highly attuned to the Will of The People, and understand their true intent better than they do. In pragmatic terms we know how to filter out the noise and get the real signal coming through that people in their mere everyday lives lack. If we actually followed the polls there would be total chaos, Anarchy, if you will. But, we, the ever vigilant civil servants of Washington, DC, are the unappreciated saviors of civilization that prevent that from happening.

          Hence, what we do always expresses the Will of The People especially when they say otherwise.

          1. No wonder you have a law degree Mr. President.

          2. So, “No” really does mean “Yes”….Thank you Mr. President, I’ve work to do in Your Name!




              1. Egads. To quote Paul Simon, he’s “still crazy after all these years.” At least he’s consistently irrelevant. He got trashed by a few of the posters there too, albeit in a benign way.

                1. Stupid threaded comments. That was in response to Nick.

                  1. You blame the threaded comments, but I suspect human error in this case.

                    1. Most likely true. However, I specifically remember clicking “reply to this” under Nick’s post. C’est la Vie.

      4. I know, I said a couple of years ago that I have never been prouder to be an American… but what my husband said above, THAT makes me even prouder.

        1. MO you are simply an arrogant, ugly airhead. Go away.

  19. Wow, thats scary. The FTC is about as useless as the TSA!


    1. Thanks, Lou. That wuz deep.

      1. See? More relevant than the commenter formerly known as Ed Weirdo.

  20. Democrats refuse to use the legislative path to pass regulation ? mainly because the regulations they want are too radical to pass.

    You may find this amusing.

    1. That was good. The folks who drew up the chart and Obama haters may be missing the important point though. That point is cowardly Congresses relinquising their constitutional authority to the executive because if he agrees with you it’s politically easier than going on record with a roll call vote.

      That the next POTUS will also have this congressionally granted (by both action and inaction) authority never seems to cross congresscritters’ feeble minds.

      Once congress gives POTUS authority with a 50% + 1 vote, it takes a 2/3 majority in both houses to take it back.

  21. off topic…
    Micheal Moore is fellating Larry King on CNN tonight.

    get that image out of your mind, I dare you!

    1. I told you, NEVER cross the streams!

    2. I wish he’d suck MY cock on MY T.V. show… on MSNBC! Watch it, please, I beg you! I know, I’m on in a shitty time slot, but it’s worth it! I’m the Anti-Rush!

      1. Who are you again?

        1. He’s my doppleganger. But I make shitloads more cash, and his audience could fit in any Denny’s in the U.S., so he’s just a whiny liberal douche.

          As opposed to me, a whiny conservative douche. With lotsa money.

  22. Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to this bill – thirty million dollars of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

    1. I resemble that… hey, deja vu.

      1. Bollocks – forgot to change my name again. Pseudonyms are hard!

        1. Only after dinner and a movie. The mood is set with Fernando playing in the background. I like my ears nibbled too, cherie. Works every time.

      2. I’m ready. If you can find my dick, that is. I haven’t seen it since 1972.

        1. We’ll play Find the Man in the Boat with you, Mr. Moore!

        2. You’re a disgusting, fat, lying hypocrite. So, what’re you doin’ later?

          1. Nuffin’ much. Thought I’d eat a lard sandwich and 2 or 3 pies, then watch some new Yugoslavian snuff films I just got in.

            Wanna come over? You could pop some zits on my back while we watch. There are a couple of really ripe ones just callin’ your name.

            1. Ha ha…that was almost as good as SugarFree.

              1. I’ll toss my hat in that ring!

              2. I’m not even going to make the attempt to reach that level of depravity. But, oh, what he could do with such rich material.

  23. Hey Nance, now that we’re talkin’ Internets and finance and stuff…. None of my subjects seem willing to “contribute” their share of taxes on Internet purchases come tax day. Lots of merchants aren’t doing their part to help the children. Can you throw a “fix” in this bill while you’re at it? Thankz!

  24. Wow, Dems are really pissed off about the Net Neutrality ruling. Looks like they’re gonna regulate, control and monitor the internet even if it kills them.

  25. “Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?”

    Since ares of the economy that grow on their own offer government officials little opportunity for graft and corruption, yes we do need to attack such an area.

  26. I found LoneWacko. First post here:…../comments/

    1. Sorry. Second post.

      1. Egads. To quote Paul Simon, he’s “still crazy after all these years.” At least he’s consistently irrelevant. He got trashed by a few of the posters there too, albeit in a benign way.

      2. Yecch – good riddance. I suspect he only left us after months of obsessive poring over his blog stats revealed that none of us were clicking on his stupid links. Maybe he’ll find more suckers at the Times.

  27. A student at Sandstone Elementary in the Heights has filed a complaint with the state after he said he was told on Thursday by his teacher to vote for Billings School District 2 mill levies.

    “The teacher gave us some ‘vote’ stickers,” said Austin Aisenbrey, a sixth-grader at the school. “My teacher told us, ‘If your parents ask what they’re supposed to vote for tell them to vote for the mill levies.’ ”

    Austin said he didn’t think it was right for his teacher to campaign for the levies in class, so, on Friday, he came to school with a t-shirt that read, “Vote against mill levies, it makes your tax rise.”

    The principal asked him to turn his T-shirt inside out.

    On Monday, Austin wore a t-shirt with the message printed outside and inside the shirt. He was asked to wear a sweatshirt.

    “If they can campaign for it, then he can campaign against,” said Austin’s mom, Yvonne Aisenbrey.

    Superintendent Jack Copps said Austin was asked to remove the shirt because there can be no campaigning for or against the levies in school. If campaigning was going on in the classroom, the district could get in trouble with the state, he said.

    Billings Gazette

    The child must be lying. Teachers would never use their positions of power and influence over their students to improperly advance their own interests. That’s unimagineable.

    1. Superintendent Jack Copps said Austin was asked to remove the shirt because there can be no campaigning for or against the levies in school. If campaigning was going on in the classroom, the district could get in trouble with the state, he said.

      So has is this teacher being investigated since the district would face possible disciplinary action from the state?

      Copps said it was his understanding that the teachers were using the upcoming elections to talk about the democratic process and passing out the “vote” stickers to remind parents simply to vote.

      “They didn’t say anything about which way to vote,” he said.

      Riiiiiight. A superintendent would also never turn a blind eye to teachers and principals shilling for government school expansion under the guise of an “object lesson”. And would school officials really present both sides of the issue in teaching this object lesson of voting? I remember when I was in grammar school and even in JHS and HS, teachers routinely shilled for bond issues and millage votes, saying “We need computers, we need this, we need that…”

    2. You’re anti-union. Your opinion doesn’t count.

    3. Did things change between my school years in the mid-70’s to late-80’s and now? There was nothing like this back then. The biggest political uprising was in my junior year, circa 1986–when the student body agitated for–and won–the right to wear short pants when it got warm out.

  28. Wrap your earballs around this:…..ophant.swf

    Yeah, that’s Waylon Jennings’ kid. No, he’s not just country (though I also recommend his album Putting the “O” Back in Country for its sheer fuck-Garth-Brooksedness).

    Think Queensryche’s Operation Mindcrime, but with the occasional dobro overtones.

  29. As far as I know sane humans still don’t expend effort without motivation, nor great effort without great motivation. And while politicians are only technically human they (primarily Democrats and some Republicans) have been trying to tax, control the Internet for some time now. And who can blame them, Democrats invested a lot of time and effort before they were able to render our First Amendment rights meaningless via control of the information media and they will not have it all go to waste over a damn Internet.

    Besides, the rest of the world’s authoritarian rulers get to control their subject’s Internet, it’s not fair ours can’t to do the same. That’s a hella lot of motivation without even considering the heinous crime of a lot of money changing hands without them getting their just and royal slice of the pie. Especially considering it was one of their very own who invented it.

    Fortunately for us some patriot figured out that allowing the government the power to create government agencies with the power to do what the government is forbidden by the highest law in the land from doing themselves is the perfect way to get that damn antiquated US Constitution out of the way so the politicians are able to protect us. Easy too, just throw some letters together, ABC, FTC, DEA, FBI, whatever, and Viola! No more annoying Constitution standing between us and valiant pols fighting to defend us from ourselves.

    Thank you America’s “greatest generation” handing the government unrestricted power in exchange for a little temporary security for yourselves was brilliant and took a lot of courage! The ball really didn’t start rolling until you gave a good hard kick.

    No child should ever be deprived the opportunity to experience tyranny, now they won’t be.

    1. What-? I saw “greatest generation” and was ready to get all ranty, but I couldn’t parse any of the rest and now I just can’t be bothered.

      1. Ranty or randy? Randy is always welcome.

        Sorry to read about your inability to translate my complex text. It can be difficult, but I’m something of an expert when it comes to the esoteric language it’s written in and most likely would’ve been willing to help you parse if only you had been a bit more of a masochist.

        I was merely pointing out, as several members of the “greatest generation have pointed out to me, they took part in making possible the greatest power grab by the government in US history.

        As Chuck Yeager once stated people who coin titles like “greatest generation” are sexual intellectuals who weren’t even there themselves. In other words they are fucking know-it-alls without a clue.

        The adjective “greatest” if used sincerely, will always depend on perspective for validity.

        For example: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

        Sounds reasonable. But what if the one expressing the greatest love completely shafted his friends by trading off their freedoms for personal gain first? Is it still the greatest love, or more like a “See ya! Wouldn’t want to be ya!”

        FDR was so impressed he extended the depression by nearly a decade, as was mentioned in at least one article here on Reason.

        Americans are always at their “greatest” when faced with challenges that encourage them to throw away real security for empty promises of security. It’s all just a matter of perspective. From the perspective of progressives like FDR they were great.

  30. The following quote from John Adams in an address to military leaders explains why obama and his gang of left wing radical Marxists don’t like the Constitution and why they find it impossible to operate within its boundries.

    President John Adams:
    ‘We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’

    Yet the wholly inadequate ones are the ones at the helm of our ship. It’s time for mutiny at the polls. Vote the Marxists out in November.

  31. I’ll go to the internment camps; it certainly can’t be worse than living in California!

  32. Has Hit & Run ever been linked to on Drudge before?

    1. First time I’ve seen it.

  33. Barak Hussein Obama is foolish, na?ve, weak and incompetent and his drand plan for having Marxist/Socialist “Government Control” over US will fail.

  34. mmmm mmmm mmmm, that is what I hate about congress! Putting all types of different legislation in a totally unrelated bill. One side votes against the bill such as funding for the Troops or a Bailout due to some totally ridiculous added provison in the bill such as an immediate tax in crease for everyone of 80%. Then the other side says, you opposed the Bailout or more funds for the troops. Washington is the land of “half Truths” They need to limit the Bills to the issue in question!

  35. One fatal error made by our founding fathers was to give the executive branch the power to name judges to the legislative branch. They are no longer placed there because they have an interest in adhering to or interpreting properly the Consitution. They will reinvent that wheel and make us all follow.
    Can’t the executive branch just go back to their old job of protecting the country? Close our porous borders, stop admitting terrorists into our country, build up our military instead of breaking it down, help us reach energy independence. Leave the rest up to the people.

    1. The power is not exclusively in the hands of the executive branch. The legislature needs to confirm the selection. The thought was if the executive wants to appoint someone and if the will of the people (represented by congress) agrees, it must be a sound selection.

      The founding fathers have a good plan, we have corrupted it. Congress no longer challenges appointments based on merit, but applies a transparent political litmus test no matter who is in power. We the people should not accept this and demand better of our congress, but we haven’t really done this.

      Each party is treating this like a sporting event and cheering on their team – blindly in many cases. This isn’t an error in the structure or mechanics of the Constitution. It is a failure of leadership and a collapse of the will of the people to do the right thing for the nation.

      Instead we’re a bunch of ignorant cheerleaders. Goooooo team! It’s disgusting, really.

  36. I want to become a Libertarian. Where can I get my own planet?

  37. If stock trades were made using smoke signals, could the FTC regulate fire?

  38. After watching the Comedy Hour headligned by Levin and Fellow Lemmings it struck me that the Real culprits of the Home Loan Disaster are really members of Congress which include Rinos, Dinos and Progressive Inepts who arte Growing the size of Governamnt to Exceeds the Term “TOO BIG TO FAIL” .. We are already too big and FAILING so time to Relocate all Rinos, Dinos, and Preogressive INepts to Private life living on SS and Medicare… that would help reduce the Deficit!!!!

  39. “Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?”

    Yes, if you are a socialist, you need for the private sector to fail. You will do everything you can to prevent private citizens from gaining economic power. To do this, you must first appease those who have power. You would support the majority of large corporations and financial institutions while making an example out of one or two to keep the others in line. Then you would progressively clamp down on freedoms of individuals, always in the name of the greater good. You would pit one group of people against another, particularly where you can be the arbiter of justice. This way, all will fear your authority and pay tribute as you work to accumulate more and more power.

    But you’d only do this if you were some sort of national socialistic tyrant. Thankfully, we don’t have one of those and so none of this is happening. It’s all a dream.

  40. What you people are witnessing before you is the total government takeover of all thing deemed “Too Large To Fail”. Please wake up and form your local people and exercise your rights as given to you in the Constitution of the United States of America. Do it now or don’t gripe about being controlled later.

  41. What the marxists want control over internet & talk radio, i.e. only free press left? The Socialist vs Freedom Scorecard looks bleak already, see @ http://www.laissez-fairerepubl…..lanks.html

  42. This needs to be STOPPED … WE AMERICANS DONT WANT ANY CONTROL on the INTERNET… or TALK RADIO..WE dont want to live in a society where there is only one station..FULL OF LIBERAL LIES one station like obama’s looping of his campaign speeches like he did during the campaign. GOVT NEEDS TO BE taken apart and built again… This time following what the people vote for..NOT IGNORNING US like they are doing now!

  43. Surely You dont think the Obama’s would sneak an FCC Internet takeover provision into a tasteless multi thousand page bill designed to take over Wall St do you?
    and don’t call me surely

  44. Any one out there who can read and has an attention span longer than a two year old go to and see why MSM did not vet BO.

  45. Does the Government & Propaganda Media lie to you?
    the truth about the gulf oil catastrophe
    future of a nation with no trust
    the official 9/11 pack of lies
    banker bodyguards
    lying to the public
    government liars
    corporate liars
    financial theft
    media liars

  46. This is another Greedy Gauntlet of Government Power: the gluttonous gobbling up of any broad cast media opposed to the Regime, government gorging itself on another sector of the national economy, and bloated Government obscenely obese.

  47. Take your ritalin and focus, the topic is: “Why does the Wall Street regulation overhaul give FTC authority over the Internet?”

  48. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
    You people are just so FN stupid. Any control over the internet is a ploy, duh? I have control over the internet, settled.

  49. The organized left-wing is trying to hurriedly push through everything the far left wants. It will destroy the USA. We will be just another 3rd world country led by a bureaucratic dictatorship

  50. WE really need an amendment stopping congress from adding to a bill anything that has nothing to do with the original bill. In other words, s bill must be about only one thing.

  51. Wholesale football jersey,soccer jersey,world cup jersey,world cup england,world cup italy,world cup Spain,world cup Portugal,world cup France,World cup south africa,world cup algeria…2010-11 World Cup football jersey,world cup soccer jersey.
    w w w brand-area c o m…..ersey.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.