top of page

Grupo Agrocrecimiento

Público·107 miembros
Luke Williams
Luke Williams

Bill Ward Bdsm


BDSM ARTWORKDiscover new fascinating bdsm fantasies of professional artists with full emotional scale reproduced in devastatingly exciting porn art with violence scene showing the way the helpless charming ladies are treated in slavery and casual bdsm relationships. Join now and become a real witness of undisguised beauty of female naked bodies exploited by their masters for their private perverted sexual fantasies. TAKE FREE TOUR NOW! tags: bill ward




bill ward bdsm


Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Furluso.com%2F2udJrG&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw1guOcvUVnttlWauzeWcH1Q



This is the worklist page for the Military history project's April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive. Throughout the drive, each participant should keep track of their progress by listing articles in their own section below. At the end of the drive, a project co-ordinator will conduct a spot check of the claimed articles, and update the points tally for each person, which will be used to determine place-getters and other awards.


This technological revolution keeps turning because the Internet is an unrestricted free marketplace of ideas where innovators rise and fall on their merits. How is it possible that a small group of bloggers, many without a single journalism class, have a combined audience larger than the readership of the New York Times? How is it possible that a company like YouTube could reach so many millions of viewers in 18 months that Google buys them for $1.6 billion? These success stories will only happen on an Internet that is neutral.


Those worried about losing a voice only need to worry about the lack of bandwith capacity if there is no broadband to carry things like the telemedicine applications we saw at the beginning. That won't happen unless telcomms invest billions in upgrading their pipes. How do we propose to pay for that? Someone must. If you argue that the public needs a critical infrastructure like a high-speed internet, then have the courage to say it should be a public good, public built and regulated like a utility. That's what this program argues. Who on Bill Moyers' team is willing to stand up and put a public price and a revenue solution to that argument?--Mike McCurry


In response to Mr. McCurry's call out I respond as thus. It has been argued that a fee will be imposed, yes. But what is to stop the controllers, (AT&T, etc.) to impose larger fees on sites whose content is unfavorable to them? That is why legislation must be passed allowing for net neutrality. If we all must pay the burden, let us pay it equally, with no bias toward those with deep pockets.


As mentioned in the program, Sen. Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and the principal author of the Senate telecommunicatiions bill that lacks Net Neutrality protections, has stated that he will get this telecom bill passed in Lame Duck session, which will likely begin around Novemer 13. It is EXTREMELY important to contact your U.S. Senators to inform them that you OPPOSE passage of this telecom bill (formerly S.2686, currently designated as H.R.5252, since it is being offered as an amendment to the House telecom bill), if you agree that Net Neutrality is in the country's best interests.


All right, I watched the show. All I got is that because the previous regulation-heavy telecom market in the 80s and 90s didn't get it done, now we should be afraid that... AT&T is going to make me read FoxNews.com instead of Daily Kos! I should be so lucky! And what the hell, I can still rewind and fast-forward my TV now.


Basically this whole program falls apart the way most Moyers consumer reports episodes do. If you don't take it as a given that the telcos are trying to screw you. I repeat: I can re-wind and fast-forward (up to a point) live programming. I'm supposed to be worried that in a few years I can get that on my laptop?


The ablility to share ideas and data Globably must be preserved. I don't think I could tolerate a provider sying to me (via denial of I.P. routing) that www.bbc.co.uk for example was inaporiate material for us in the U.S. This is what the bill will ultimantly give them the power to do. If they dissagree with content (no matter what it is) they WILL BLOCK ACCESS. This is not what I believe the spirit behind the Constitution had in mind. Without the proper language reguarding policy and ethics this bill must be blocked.


When is someone going to expose what I see at nearly every session on the House floor. With few exceptions the Republicans present a bill under a closed rule (no ammendments allowed). The Democrats get to see it roughly an hour before the house votes on it. With no ammendments allowed the best they can do is complain about it - to no avail.


My worry is the spin that some put on words. I worry that I will tell my congressperson to vote on the wrong bill because lobbiests know how to word a request that makes me think I am voting for neutral internet when maybe I'm not. I think we need a code word to KNOW which is for the people and which is for monopolies.


I'm someone who recalls the "big chill" that came over TV during the Reagan era, from the standpoint of having delivered two on-air editorial replies on CBS-TV-2 New York City, during my grad school years in the late 70s. As infrequent as these opportunities for ordinary citizens to talk back had been, at least such outlets once existed. Then Reagan's FCC "reformed" media by doing away with decades-old concepts of the equal time rule both in campaigns and for controversial messages, and the whole concept of editorial reply. The result has been a new "iron curtain" drawn against any grass-roots voices on TV, UNLESS of course their managers, the monopoly gate-keepers of their broadcast frequencies, decide they like the message you have to delivery. The result has also been a general dumbing down of public understanding about the roots of broadcast regulation in the 1930s, and the fundamental concept that the airwaves ARE INDEED, public property. So long as the average citizen - even well-educated, white-collar professionals, I've found -have little idea that broadcast frequencies are by their nature, beyond private ownership, then citizens continue to be duped into believing that the "unfettered right of the broadcaster to say what HE wants," is somehow, an issue of "First Amendment FREE SPEECH!" Lost is the understanding that a broadcast license granted by the FCC is a public trust, that was MEANT to come with heavy obligations to serve the public interest. Instead, today, we see the travesty of Clear Channel taking control of 1000's of FCC licenses, not only for their profit, but in service to their particular political agenda. It seems clear to me that -had broadcast technology existed during the founding of America - the control of media would have been treated as another branch of government, with the power to control access to it distributed as widely as the elective franchise, and with any for-profit commercial exploitation of it treated as an occasion to charge a reasonable fee for usage by these commercial interests. Instead, today broadcasters pay NOTHING for the fair value of the licenses given them by the FCC, but reap billions in advertising revenue from this public resource. The greatest atrocity is that the FCC licensees have arrogated to themselves the right to charge candidates for public office billions each year, for the "privilege" of participating in election-year debates by those who would serve as representatives of the very government ... that just gave away these airwaves to the broadcast campaign profiteers ... FOR FREE! The lesson here is not only that we must re-take public interest control of BROADCAST media from the handful of profit-making conglomerates that now control so much of this resource, but also that we must not allow the common carrier principle that once ruled broadcasting, to slowly drain away from the INTERNET, as it has been leeched out of FCC policy since the FDR era!We must think long term, and we must think first and foremost about what is in the best interest of our children and grandchildren, to re-establish and preserve a vibrant, functioning and sustainable democracy!


One thing which is frequently lost sight of is that the telcos claims about needing the revenue from tiered pricing for deployment are a function of their own rapacity. Deregulation has provided them with a windfall of tens of billions of dollars, extracted from the public, which they promised to use to fund fibre deployment and then pocketed as profits. A just policy would insist that the telcos deploy highspeed fibre as a condition of even permitting consideration of modifying the net neutrality rules. A government the regulatory agencies and legislature of which had not been captured by these special interests would insist on deployment before entertaining proposed rules changes. The telcos have already been paid to deployment the necessary infrastructure. Let them cough up the money and deploy. Then we can see if there's any need to modify the rules,


Oh and I forgot to mention that the bills are usually over 1000 pages with an hour to look at them and the "poison pills" hidden by the Republicans within a bill whose intent purports to be the opposite of what it actually is. And the media will never expose them for doing it.


The problem with your argument, Mr. McCurry, is that the interests you represent have ALREADY shirked thier responsibilities. The telecommunications sector is among the most profitable in the world, and that profit margin has largely been built in the past 20 years. As a PUBLIC UTILITY, which is what they are, whether they like it or not, they have a responsibility to provide the best service they possibly can, to use those massive profits to improve thier network infrastructure. Instead of being responsible corporate citizens, they have chosen to use those profits to fill their own pockets, and to hire expensive Lobbyists( much like yourself) to short circuit the legislative process and keep the profits rolling in.So what's the solution? Should'nt these companies be forced to foot the bill for improved service, since they effectively promised it to us more than a decade ago? I'm not for increased regulation, but is'nt it the governments JOB to protect from this sort of predatory behavior on the part of Big Business? 041b061a72


Acerca de

¡Te damos la bienvenida al grupo! Puedes conectarte con otro...

Miembros

bottom of page