White House supports cell-phone petition

|
(5)

A petition calling for legislation to legalize unlocking cell phones has passed the magic 100,000 mark, mandating a White House response -- and guess what? The Obama administration says it agrees that consumers should have the right to reprogram their phones to work on any carrier's network.

Sina Khanifar, a San Francisco entrepreneur, started this whole movement, and it's picked up steam quickly. Now, with the Obama administration on board, he just needs a member of Congress to introduce a bill overruling the Library of Congress and freeing the cell phones.

Rep. Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, would be an excellent choice to carry the legislation, no?

Comments

"Rep. Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, would be an excellent choice to carry the legislation, no?"

Re-written to reflect the reality:

"Rep. [sic] Pelosi, who represents her corporate owners and who is the congressperson from San Francisco---because the Dem sheeple keep voting for her based on name-recognition---would be one corporatist to carry the legislation, no?"

I'm not surprised by this. I'm not surprised that the corporatist Obama regime would not care which corporate network the sheeple are using as long as it's corporate.

In other news, in the past 24 hours: Biden warned that the U.S. will use military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the U.S. can have any and all nuclear weapons it chooses to have and use them. I believe this posture is called Hypocrisy....once again. Do as I say; not as I do.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

How tired, yet, another boring SFBG "progressive" rant by one who is too ignorant to realize he is just a different breed of "sheeple" than those he criticizes.

First, "sheeple" is a word that should only be used by bored teenagers in all-black clothes who demonstrate how "anti-conformist" they are by dressing, speaking, and thinking just like all their other "anti-conformist" friends.

Second, what do cell phones have to do with nuclear weapons? Answer: Nothing.

Third, you can be quite certain that while there are many lovely Iranian people, the fundamentalist theocratic Iranian government would be more than glad to vaporize your non-conformist progressive ass if it ever got its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Fourth, look up the definition of "hypocrisy." The U.S. government has never said no country should own nuclear weapons, rather it supports (and is a party to a treaty) limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it also supports (and is a party to a treaty) to reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile and restricting nuclear testing. This policy may reflect self-interests, but it is not hypocritical.

Posted by Chris on Mar. 06, 2013 @ 2:34 am
Posted by fille rebelle on Mar. 05, 2013 @ 3:55 pm

I wrote the post on Mar. 05, 2013 @ 3:26 pm. that you responded to.

Thought you might be interested in this:

Sequester cuts boost corporate assault on American workers
"The media presentation of the sequester as a symptom of “gridlock” and bitter policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans is a cynical fraud."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/05/sequ-m05.html

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2013 @ 3:09 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2013 @ 4:01 pm