OT: Net neutrality

Page 3 of 4  
On 7/18/2014 9:13 AM, Mayayana wrote:

I think the same thing about you libs, and the party line you bleat.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, July 18, 2014 8:48:46 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Labeling someone solves nothing...you're only saying, "my mind is closed"! Limbaugh was a liberal and changed with the tide (and I'm not referring to the detergent).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 9:13 AM, Mayayana wrote:

I think you libs are so full of misinformation about what Constitutional Conservatives believe, that nothing I write will bring any truth to you. Your party line preconceptions and inflammatory rhetoric is so obvious in your writing. You wouldn't be able to see truth about Rush, Tea Party, or conservatives if you tried.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:57:59 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Oh my, now it's the "Scalia cartel". It's a curios thing how so far we;ve heard about Bush, Iraq, Colin Powell, Scalia..... Hell, we heard about the first 3 in her very first post on the subject of net neutrality. That's remarkable. She says she's not partisan, I guess it's just that nothing is going on in the USA today that involves Obama, a Democrat or a lib where there's a smidgeon of anything at all wrong. And Bush and Iraq really are responsible for net neutrality today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 1:00 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I'm astounded how you libs (M, not Trader) only respond to questions by throwing the same old accusations at thinking people. I can't say as I remember ever having an intelligent discussion with one of you libs.
This is beyond my skills, but lets make a list of "Bush did this, Bush did that" and see if we can get you libs all worked up. And then later tell you libs all the items on the list were Obama doctrines.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 7:24:35 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Since she dragged the SC and Scalia into the mix, I wonder what she thinks about the SC's two recent decisions that the Obama administration lost 9-0, ie unanimously? The SC rebuked Obama on his clearly illegal recess appointments, made while Congress was *not* in recess, something no president has ever tried to pull before. And then they handed him another defeat, for arguing that police have a right to search your cell phone, without a warrant, when they detain you. I guess Obama wasn't much of a constitutional law professor either. I can only imagine what we'd find in his cell phone. Maybe some of those IRS emails that mysteriously disappeared are lodged in there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:13:13 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:

e

Maybe you should check the facts. What Stormin is saying, that part of the California crisis was due to *partial* deregulation, is fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
"As the FERC report concluded, market manipulation was only possible as a r esult of the complex market design produced by the process of partial dereg ulation."
"The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy C risis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulat ions, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enro n, and capped retail electricity prices."
"California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of th e blackouts, demand was 28GW. "

That's true, but facts are facts.

Telcos are the medium, always have been. Don't know what this is even about.
(Though Apple,

Despite all your huffing and puffing, I have yet to see any internet company controlling what you can access. And if that is the issue, why do we have a whole laundry list of nonsense that has nothing to do with that? I don't see anyone on the FCC saying that an ISP should be able to control what you can access and what you can't. IF so, now would be a good time to provide the link. Otherwise I call Strawman!

IDK where you see this massive trend. Just about everywhere I look I see more regulation, bigger govt. And people for the most part seem to accept it, otherwise they wouldn't have re-elected Obama and Democrats would not control the Senate.

You may not be able to tell it exactly, but you can get a pretty good idea. If the monthly cell phone plan is $50, then there is typically another few bucks added on. For part of the reason that no one can determine it exactl y, look to govt regulation. Some of those additinal fees, like the universal services fee, can change from month to month, depending on what the govt decides that carriers portion of things like the universal services fee is. That's the fee that's there to provide subsidized phone service to folks that need it, which is somethhing I think libs like.
Likewise with Cable TV. My landline

Seems unusual. AFAIK the traditional landline phone companies are still regulated utilities.

There is plenty online.

It sounds like it was on the contract. If she wanted to take it home and read it before signing, I'm sure they wouldn't stop her.
(I'm thinking something similar to supermarket unit-

Those companies are already subjected to a boatload of regulations. It's in fact some of those fees and regulations that make it impossible to determine the actual total cost of a phone plan. If you want them to post a typical monthly bill, that shows the plan, typical additonal fees, taxes, etc, I have no problem with that and making it a law. It's a good idea. But from their perspective if they show you a typical bill of $50+5.32 and it turns out to actually be $50+6.78, they are still going to have people complaining about that and say that they were mislead.

Again, this is upside down, isn't it? Ma Bell was the epitome of what you libs want. It was highly regulated. In 1920, they gave you a single voice line into your house. In 1980, they gave you a single voice line into your house. To be fair, they did add some features, like touchtone dialing. How's that for a highly regulated, govt controlled business compared to what we've had in 25 years of deregulation? Now I have 15 Mbits, 100 if I want it. I'm happy. I think Stormin is too. That's why we don't see the urgency to throw a monkey wrench into what is obviously working extremely well. Especially a monkey wrench from people who don't understand the basic issues.
You'd

No, but apparently you would, because you favor govt regulation, instead of free markets. It was govt regulation that had you renting a phone at rates for the phone and service set not by Ma Bell, but by utility commissi ons. Compare what the cost of that phone was if you talked from NYC to SF or Japan in 1980 to what it costs today.

No, but it's clearly one of the biggest. And unlike these businesses, there is no way you can escape from it period.
Isn't there some kind

Sure.
It seems to me that society without government

Nonsense. Capitalism today is no where near what it was in the late 1800s, early 20s when most of America was built. Was it perfect? No. Did it get the job done? Yes. Much better than other systems, where the govt tried to make everyone equal.
Is that really what you want?

It didn't fail. It's what built America. Shipping, railroads, oil, steel, cities, autos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Never under estimate Chicago voting techniques.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Typing on a personal computer, and complaining about the failure of capitalism? Hmm.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I think the same thing about you libs, and | the party line you bleat. |
So you have no interest in explaining your views? I thought I delineated some valid issues that you could address. I think they deserve more than a snide retort. Isn't it a reasonable question to ask why you so adamantly side with the self-interests of the rich?
It's clear that trader_4 has no interest in actual discussion, nor any respect for the people he sees himself "in battle" with, but I thought you might be more thoughtful and level-headed.
Is your view only defined in terms of opposition to whatever "you libs" is? Do you really have no thoughts at all about how government should work or about the pros and cons of plutocracy? Do you, like trader_4, just see an us vs them situation of opposites, with no shades of gray in between?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 10:07 AM, Mayayana wrote:

Do you libs want everyone to have green teeth like England? After all, you're all for socialized medicine. Do you want all children raised in Russian orphanages? Why do you libs want to force Hobby Lobby to provide birth control they are morally opposed to, and then want to force Army chaplains not to use the name of Jesus, as their sincere beliefs hold? Why do you libs see conservatives as starving children and throwing granny off a cliff, when it's liberal places like Detroit that have starving children, and homeless seniors? Why is it that so many liberal programs result in suffering, but your only answer is more government control?
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, July 18, 2014 10:07:06 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:

No interest in discussion? I specifically addressed every point you brought up. Yet you focus on the "you libs" which is just a tiny part and chose to ignore the rest. You don't want to focus on the actual discussion, because its obvious you have the facts all wrong so instead you divert into something else. It's a classic lib tactic, like how somehow *you* managed to drag Colin Powell, Bush and Iraq into a discussion on net neutrality.
BTW, if someone said "you conservatives" believe in free markets, less govt, etc I'd have no problem with that. Are you ashamed to be a lib?

Is you view only defined in terms of Bush and Iraq? A little BDS?
Do you really have no

Trader4 gave it to you point by point, many times. Yet here you are, trying to spin away and divert. It's what libs do and it was obvious from the moment you dragged Bush and Iraq into the discussion. And then you claim I'm the partisan one? Good grief!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 12:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I remember having a big lib in my church congregation, years ago. His answer to any discussion was to mention Bush, and accuse the war of being all about oil. Then he'd go on to other accusations. Never stayed on point.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I think you libs are so full of misinformation about | what Constitutional Conservatives believe, that nothing | I write will bring any truth to you. Your party line | preconceptions and inflammatory rhetoric is so obvious | in your writing. You wouldn't be able to see truth about | Rush, Tea Party, or conservatives if you tried.
I don't care about Rush or the Tea Party. I don't see two monolithic entities. I only want to understand how you have arrived at your views, apparently favoring libertarianism and plutocracy, and what you see as the logic behind those views.
Us vs them is not a view or a logic. Blanket opposition to whatever "you libs" is belongs in a sports arena, not a discussion. Don't you have any sort of reasoning in your own mind, on the level of theory, as to why plutocracy is the best way, and why deregulating all corporations on all levels is a good plan for society?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 10:33 AM, Mayayana wrote:

Do you have any sort of reasoning, as why you should place false accusations in the mouths of your opponents, and fail to reflect what they actually wrote? Is lying so much a part of you libs basic fabric?
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, July 18, 2014 10:40:50 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

I for one explained my positions on the internet point by point. And for that I get accused of not being interested in discussion. And unlike someone else here, I didn't drag Bush and Iraq in my second post on the subject. Seems the thought process of some is once upon a time, Michael Powell was FCC chairman. Powell's father was Colin Powell. Powell worked for Bush, Bush is to blame for the Iraq war, so therefore, Michael Powell screwed us all. Great logic. And never mind that Michael Powell was appointed to the FCC by Clinton and he left the FCC 7 years ago.... It's all his fault, we have a terrible internet now. How logical.

I was going to say I haven't seen anyone here advocating for plutocracy. But to the extent that the rich are more involved in govt, that's just as true on the lib side as the conservative side. Just ask Obama who was at two $32,000 a plate fundraisers last night. He'll be playing golf again this weekend, 10 weekends in a row. Isn't that a sport of plutocrats? Are the Clintons plutocrats? Bill was pres and he's worth $100mil+. And unlike those in industry his $100mil+ came off his profiteering from him being president. Or is it just Stormin and conservatives who are "plutocrats"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Do you libs want everyone to have green teeth like | England? After all, you're all for socialized medicine. | Do you want all children raised in Russian orphanages? | Why do you libs want to force Hobby Lobby to provide | birth control they are morally opposed to, and then | want to force Army chaplains not to use the name of | Jesus, as their sincere beliefs hold? Why do you | libs see conservatives as starving children and | throwing granny off a cliff, when it's liberal | places like Detroit that have starving children, | and homeless seniors? Why is it that so many liberal | programs result in suffering, but your only answer is | more government control? |
OK. I thought you might want to explain your views, but apparently your only "view" is a peculiar animosity toward the mysterious "you libs" monster that you keep mentioning. So I'll leave it at that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/18/2014 7:33 PM, Mayayana wrote:

There is asking for views, and there is inflammatory leading of the witness. I don't go with inflammatory when I see it coming along.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Stormin Mormon:

Having listened to Rush a couple of times out of curiosity, I would not admit public ally to listening to him any more.
Consider that, as human beings, you, I, and everybody else have a limit on our bandwidth for incoming information. It is not in anybody's interest to use up that limit with data from extremist sources - whether it's Rush, or MSNBC or whatever.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 3:56:12 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Rush is extreme? I'd say he can be pompous, maybe spend too much time on stuff that will lead nowhere, sometimes boring, but extreme? I've never found him to be extreme. Perhaps you can give us an example of his extremism.
And if you have a limited bandwith, it would seem better to listen to an hour of something extreme anyway, instead of some pointless meanderings about nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.