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.
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.
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.
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.
On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:13:13 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Maybe you should check the facts. What Stormin is saying, that
part of the California crisis was due to *partial* deregulation,
"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
"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 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
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
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.
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
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
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,
| 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
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?
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?
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
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!
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.
| 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
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?
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"?
| 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.
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.
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
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.