

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Kansas voters... ...now is the time to contact YOUR legislators, and tell them what YOU desire.



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 1 edit 1 recommendation DataRiker Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... The system we have relies on having relatively honest representatives.



No sane individual would ever want this to pass obviously. This should be an easy choice for an honest representative.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 2 recommendations tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by DataRiker: Most people do not have time to invest in every issue.

it is each citizens responsibility to remain informed and

it takes a very few minutes to make a call, write an email or for greater impact pen a polite note/letter about the issues.



If they FAIL it is the voters fault not the rep receiving limited(mostly lobbist) input.

Do it now , don't whine later YES, THEY DO, in fact that is their only constitutional duty, to be an informed electorate, and if you fail to try that's when your rep may stray for the desires you regularly inform them of.it is each citizens responsibility to remain informed andit takes a very few minutes to make a call, write an email or for greater impact pen a polite note/letter about the issues.If they FAIL it is the voters fault not the rep receiving limited(mostly lobbist) input.Do it now , don't whine later



Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode News Guy Re: Kansas voters... Considering how much time the average person spends watching reality TV, I'd have to agree with you.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to tshirt

Member to tshirt

All they need to do is give up Teen Mom's and Honey BooBoo a few nights a week.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... Doesn't even have to be a few nights a week.

Any body can follow the link in Karl's story and read the bills text in a minute (or 5, most important to read and UNDERSTAND) and anyone who posted here has time for an email.

Remembering you can ask for clarification/the intended purpose of the bill from your rep and then write again if you want to give a thumbs up or down on this SPECIFIC bill.

that's 10-15 minutes total to learn about and send 2 emails letting YOUR rep know you have CONTINUING interest in this subject and will be watching the voting results.

10-15 to influence 1 item that can effect your communication cost and home value by $1000's over the years. even with education tax and other issues it shouldn't take more than an hour a week to keep in touch with state and local issues maybe another hour for a basic federal effort and in return regain control over the biggest bill/debt/paycheck you will every see.



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 1 edit DataRiker to tshirt

Premium Member to tshirt

said by tshirt: YES, THEY DO



Letters to your representative are generally filtered by a clerk ( and now computers ), and the vast majority never make it through.



What your advocating is pushing Democracy through a Republic centered system. It doesn't work because it can't ( see statement above ).



Yes, it some cases public outcry pushes a representative one way, but that is usually the media heavily pushing an agenda and a certain representative taking the bluff so to speak. Sorry not buying it, and it voids the whole main purpose of having representatives ( or a Republic for of government )Letters to your representative are generally filtered by a clerk ( and now computers ), and the vast majority never make it through.What your advocating is pushing Democracy through a Republic centered system. It doesn't work because it can't ( see statement above ).Yes, it some cases public outcry pushes a representative one way, but that is usually the media heavily pushing an agenda and a certain representative taking the bluff so to speak.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 1 edit tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by DataRiker: ...

Lobbyist can provide money but ONLY voters can re-elect them.

All of them have staff members dedicated to reading the mail and keeping a tally of their constituent's contacts and all of contacted have responded either directly or through staff.



Of course the requests for info or expressions of opinions need to be clearly worded, polite, and within the framework of reality.

Threats, pointless rants, and conspircy laced manifestos don't do well in convincing anyone to do anything.

and No you won't get your own way all the time, but a Polititian who may get 2-300 mentions (not driven by the timing of web petitions or press, orgainzed groups ) in comments will place much greater weight on those individual comments than thousands of MASS produced poll #'s.

Perhaps you flail away here, because YOU gave up on the system, not because the system knowingly shut you out.

I'm just suggesting that for any Kansas voter that will to give the system a chance, that THIS is the moment when you can be effective, waiting until it's a done deal and then ranting only to each other is really pointless. Politicians value ACTUAL voter contact even more then money.Lobbyist can provide money but ONLY voters can re-elect them.All of them have staff members dedicated to reading the mail and keeping a tally of their constituent's contacts and all of contacted have responded either directly or through staff.Of course the requests for info or expressions of opinions need to be clearly worded, polite, and within the framework of reality.Threats, pointless rants, and conspircy laced manifestos don't do well in convincing anyone to do anything.and No you won't get your own way all the time, but a Polititian who may get 2-300 mentions (not driven by the timing of web petitions or press, orgainzed groups ) in comments will place much greater weight on those individual comments than thousands of MASS produced poll #'s.Perhaps you flail away here, because YOU gave up on the system, not because the system knowingly shut you out.I'm just suggesting that for any Kansas voter that will to give the system a chance, that THIS is the moment when you can be effective, waiting until it's a done deal and then ranting only to each other is really pointless.



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 1 recommendation DataRiker Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by tshirt: said by DataRiker: ... Politicians value ACTUAL voter contact even more then money. Bullshit.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 1 recommendation tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by DataRiker: ... said by DataRiker: Bullshit.

So you have chosen to abdicate your only constitutional responsibility because it takes too much time to exercise, makes you communicate with gov't officials in an identifiable way, or because you don't think YOU should have to bear any cost, work or responsibility for the governing of the country?



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 DataRiker Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by tshirt: said by DataRiker: ... said by DataRiker: Bullshit.

So you have chosen to abdicate your only constitutional responsibility Your responsibility in a Republic is to vote for a representative. You have Republic confused with a Democratic system.



Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode to tshirt

News Guy to tshirt

quote: Politicians value ACTUAL voter contact even more then money. lolwhut lolwhut



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: Kansas voters...



Perhaps power is what politicians value more than money, at least the powerful ones. »www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· nm3L12fA



cb14

join:2013-02-04

Miami Beach, FL ·Localphone

·Zadarma

·Verizon Wireless

·callwithus

·T-Mobile

·AT&T U-Verse

·Callcentric

cb14 to tshirt

Member to tshirt

really? And where does the average voter get the information from?

Most commercial media do not bring this kind of info. And more and more folks work overtime and two jobs and what else just to survive.

The only thing they get is propaganda, at it's usually the big money who can afford a big propaganda. I will not even get into the Putin style electoral system, with artificial districts, often no run offs, manipulation, or , like in our state 500000 voters being permanently kept from voting.

The voters did not catch the scheme on time and now it's too late.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by cb14: And where does the average voter get the information from?



Self imposed ignorance is not an excuse. This proposed bill is about the Internet. That's probably a good place to startSelf imposed ignorance is not an excuse.

wjf58

join:2011-06-21

Chicago, IL wjf58 to tshirt

Member to tshirt

While I agree with your basic argument, let me just toss this in.



The rep also need to do a little homework. How about a healthy dose of skepticism when it come to industry\lobbyist endorsed legislation? Nobody expects a Kansas state rep to become an expert on telecommunications policy, but when AT & T comes knocking on your door, they most likely aren't advocating anything for the greater good.



Mr Guy

@charter.com 6 recommendations Mr Guy to tshirt

Anon to tshirt

said by tshirt: ...now is the time to contact YOUR legislators, and tell them what YOU desire. They are getting what they deserve. They voted these guys in. They vote GOP so they can be protected form abortions and gay marriage and socialism and so that any moron that wants gun can have one even if he is mentally ill or did time in prison. So this is the price they pay for their "freedom"

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: Kansas voters... said by Mr Guy : and so that any moron that wants gun can have one even if he is mentally ill or did time in prison Please, show us the legislative proposal that seeks to remove the prohibition on firearms ownership by the adjudicated mentally ill and convicted felons.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: Kansas voters... It is already law that convicted felons can not own firearms. mentally ill as well. If you have been treated you can not own a firearm legally.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... What is needed is vetting/background checks on every sale/change of ownership and harsher penalties for failing to maintain control of all the weapons you are responsible for/own.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: Kansas voters... said by tshirt: What is needed is vetting/background checks on every sale/change of ownership said by tshirt: harsher penalties for failing to maintain control of all the weapons you are responsible for/own. Agree, the problem is the anti-gun crowd wouldn't settle for that.No. Name me one other object where I'm criminally charged if someone else steals it and does bad things? This is an asinine suggestion. I'll consider it when you suggest applying the same treatment to automobiles. Let's have "safe storage laws" for car keys, so the kids can't go for joyrides and kill themselves. If your car is stolen and used to commit a crime you go to jail. See how absurd that sounds?



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... If you leave the keys from your car or gun safe easily available to ANY minor, you should be responsible.

if you take the reasonable responsibility to lock up dangerous tools of any kind and they are stolen and used in a crime your reasonable precautions would protect you.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: Kansas voters... said by tshirt: if you take the reasonable responsibility to lock up dangerous tools of any kind and they are stolen and used in a crime your reasonable precautions would protect you.



In any event, who gets to define what "reasonable precautions" are? I'm single, I don't have any kids, and I live alone. Do I need a gun safe or is the lock on my front door sufficient? If you're going to mandate a safe, am I further required to bolt it to the floor? How would such a mandate work for those of us who rent?



What about those of us who conceal carry? What's a "reasonable precaution" in the instance of having to leave the firearm behind to enter prohibited building, like the Post Office? Obviously leaving the firearm on the front seat of your unlocked car is unreasonable. Most everybody would agree with that. Is discreetly putting it under a seat in your locked car enough? Or do I need to invest in a vehicle safe? If so, what kind? I've got one that secures to the seat frame with a cable lock, which works in any vehicle (even rented ones) and deters anyone not equipped with bolt cutters. Is that good enough or do I need a professionally installed one?



Safe storage laws are a joke. They're completely unenforceable and accomplish nothing other than to impose one-size-fits-all mandates on gun owners, thereby driving up the cost of gun ownership.



Grossly negligent actions (the firearm on the front seat of the parked car, discharging your firearm into the neighbors house while cleaning it, leaving loaded firearms around small children) are already covered by reckless endangerment laws. Take it up with your DA if they don't bother to use these laws. See, you say that, but the experiences those of us living in anti-gun States have had suggest otherwise.In any event, who gets to define what "reasonable precautions" are? I'm single, I don't have any kids, and I live alone. Do I need a gun safe or is the lock on my front door sufficient? If you're going to mandate a safe, am I further required to bolt it to the floor? How would such a mandate work for those of us who rent?What about those of us who conceal carry? What's a "reasonable precaution" in the instance of having to leave the firearm behind to enter prohibited building, like the Post Office? Obviously leaving the firearm on the front seat of your unlocked car is unreasonable. Most everybody would agree with that. Is discreetly putting it under a seat in your locked car enough? Or do I need to invest in a vehicle safe? If so, what kind? I've got one that secures to the seat frame with a cable lock, which works in any vehicle (even rented ones) and deters anyone not equipped with bolt cutters. Is that good enough or do I need a professionally installed one?Safe storage laws are a joke. They're completely unenforceable and accomplish nothing other than to impose one-size-fits-all mandates on gun owners, thereby driving up the cost of gun ownership.Grossly negligent actions (the firearm on the front seat of the parked car, discharging your firearm into the neighbors house while cleaning it, leaving loaded firearms around small children) are already covered by reckless endangerment laws. Take it up with your DA if they don't bother to use these laws.

Crookshanks Crookshanks to TBBroadband

Member to TBBroadband

said by TBBroadband: mentally ill as well. If you have been treated you can not own a firearm legally.



1) They've been adjudicated mentally ill or unable to manage their own affairs by a court of contempt jurisdiction.



2) They've been involuntarily treated, again, this requires a court order.



You can't lose your gun rights simply for seeking treatment, nor should you. That's incorrect. Federal law bars possession by the mentally ill in one of two instances:1) They've been adjudicated mentally ill or unable to manage their own affairs by a court of contempt jurisdiction.2) They've beentreated, again, this requires a court order.You can't lose your gun rights simply for seeking treatment, nor should you.



Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16

Bronx, NY Eddy120876 to Mr Guy

Member to Mr Guy

Hey is the GOP, If the telcos and corps want to squash the little guy they are on it faster then you can yell Look is a gay couple wanting their constitutional right like us.



cb14

join:2013-02-04

Miami Beach, FL cb14 to Mr Guy

Member to Mr Guy

Freedom in Kansas and many other places has been traditionally the freedom to hold slaves- they fought a bloody war for that "freedom".



jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 to tshirt

Premium Member to tshirt

You will be lucky to get an auto-generated reply filled with pro-Act rhetoric and talking points created by the lobbyists.



I've tried this approach before with online poker, and it seemed like I was "communicating" with an amusement park automaton.



These are very frustrating times for The People.



firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto to tshirt

Premium Member to tshirt

said by tshirt: ...now is the time to contact YOUR legislators, and tell them what YOU desire.



So we have governments still holding debt on thousands of miles of fiber and we have private ISPs using that fiber and only paying the toll. The flip side without this municipal provider ban would most likely be paid for networks generating revenue for the public infrastructure but instead money has to go to profits while serving the public.



Lets look at this another way. Should we budget 100% for a new fire truck or budget 75% for a new fire truck with 25% paid to investors? Both scenarios using the same dollar figure, one gets a less capable fire truck. See the problem? I do, it's pretty clear, yet in my state I am forced to pay my public utility less so I can pay a private company more. Forced, or go without, that's never what is best for the public. In our wonderful state here, as you know and have argued in favor of in the past, was lobbied by what was left over of GTE and called Verizon at the time made sure this same thing happened in Washington with no grandfathering and the government could spend the money on the backbone while every huge and small isp could reap the benefits with no upfront investments.So we have governments still holding debt on thousands of miles of fiber and we have private ISPs using that fiber and only paying the toll. The flip side without this municipal provider ban would most likely be paid for networks generating revenue for the public infrastructure but instead money has to go to profits while serving the public.Lets look at this another way. Should we budget 100% for a new fire truck or budget 75% for a new fire truck with 25% paid to investors? Both scenarios using the same dollar figure, one gets a less capable fire truck. See the problem? I do, it's pretty clear, yet in my state I am forced to pay my public utility less so I can pay a private company more. Forced, or go without, that's never what is best for the public.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by firephoto: our wonderful state here, as you know and have argued in favor of in the past, was lobbied by what was left over of GTE You'll need to be clearer on the specific items you are alluding to, as I'm no sure exactly what you are trying to say.



firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... said by tshirt: said by firephoto: our wonderful state here, as you know and have argued in favor of in the past, was lobbied by what was left over of GTE You'll need to be clearer on the specific items you are alluding to, as I'm no sure exactly what you are trying to say.



It is against the law in the state of Washington for an public government entity to provide end user internet services, aka act as an isp.



This law that was passed was crafted by a telephone company.



Proposals at the time, publicly spoken intent, hand waving, and ignoring the facts doesn't make what actually is the law different.



»Re: Save your breath, Tom...



I'm not here to deceive. Bull.It is against the law in the state of Washington for an public government entity to provide end user internet services, aka act as an isp.This law that was passed was crafted by a telephone company.Proposals at the time, publicly spoken intent, hand waving, and ignoring the facts doesn't make what actually is the law different.I'm not here to deceive.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Kansas voters... Ok that was passed as I explained in a previous thread to prevent the gov't entitiy from being held legally responsible for any costs or effects AND to take the gov't out of the "filtering"/censorship loop.

there isn't anything wrong with the gov't's "hands off anything private industry can do" policies. the for profit industries bring in huge amounts of money to Washington which then circulates thru various largely in state industries.

Having a healthy secondary job market is vital to our economy.



IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member At least here in Massachusetts At least here in Massachusetts we have a referendum process where we can repeal a law through a ballot initiative by gathering the required signatures to force a ballot question on the law and let the voters (aka We the People) decide if a law stays on the books.



They're trying to repeal the casino law through a referendum and they have the required signatures but it's tied up in the courts. If it goes on the ballot I'm voting to repeal the casino law as I don't want casinos here.



I'm sure other states have a similar process that could be used to shoot down anti municipal broadband laws.



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Goah darn good... "Because broadband in Kansas is just so gosh darn good already"



Isn't Kansas home to Google fiber?

AmericanMan

Premium Member

join:2013-12-28

united state AmericanMan Premium Member "Offers service" Are they doing like that one ISP where "offers service" means that as long as one home within the zip code is covered then all homes are considered as being "serviced"?

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Its About Time! The last thing we need is the government running local broadband.



anonomeX

@comcast.net anonomeX Anon Say what? Kansas at&t proposes that at&t can dictate to members of Kansas communities what they can and cannot decide to do with their own finances and services where at&t either does or does not provide service.



So, is the Kansas state legislature full of (1) politicians beholdin' to at&t or (2) representatives for the people who put them in office?



odyss

@mycingular.net 1 recommendation odyss Anon kansas limits community bb Municipal officials are no better decision makers than state or federal ones are. Look at the communities saddled with high electricity costs because 30 years ago they bought into nuclear power. No, communities can be crippled by these decisions and when it happens they'll run to the state for a bailout.



Why just last week this site posted a story about incompetence in w VA.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: kansas limits community bb But it's okay if they take your taxes and install Internet and TV, even if they never pay it off the network. but they'll claim that it will bring jobs to the area and large companies, which none of get to announce they are moving to areas where FTTH is available. Because if that was the case, areas that had FTTH well before TN, NC and before Google thought about doing, it would major companies from all over the world fighting to get in.



odyss

@74.5.120.x odyss Anon Re: kansas limits community bb Detail the "taxes" they intercepted on the way to the federal treasury. I suspect you are one of those "you didn't build that" believers.



My point was that municipalities can and have made really bad bets on new technology that have beggared their communities. You know you can curse the darkness or light a candle, why not start your own commercial ISP if it is that easy, and give away the service because it is obviously possible.