Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[Varth Dader]

Do you not believe in private property?

I guess the answer is no, I don't believe in private property like you do.

You advocate for private property in a way that would completely paralyze society if a few people chose to abuse their property rights.

It makes from great sound bites, but in reality if you push your argument to the edge we will all fall off the cliff.

If tomorrow the Chinese buy off Verizon, and decide to destroy every single fiber line, you would see no problem with that. It's all about ownership.

 

[Revere]

The government should tell corporations to carry all traffic, without discriminating.

Communications network are not 'private'. Society has a huge interest in that.

If tomorrow Verizon, Time Warner and Comcast decided to shut down their networks, what would you do?

Buy from someone else, who will be glad to have my business.

What is government's claim to the fiber optic cable Verizon laid in my condo complex at their own cost?

Are you arguing that Verizon owns the land over which the cable runs? All of it?

They lease air and land rights from states and municipalities at negotiated rates.

Several ISPs do.

 

[Revere]

Do you not believe in private property?

I guess the answer is no, I don't believe in private property like you do.

You advocate for private property in a way that would completely paralyze society if a few people chose to abuse their property rights.

It makes from great sound bites, but in reality if you push your argument to the edge we will all fall off the cliff.

If tomorrow the Chinese buy off Verizon, and decide to destroy every single fiber line, you would see no problem with that. It's all about ownership.

The Chinese own $1T in American debt, what's your point?

Yeah, if grandma had balls she'd be grandpa.

 

[Jarhead]

Do you not believe in private property?

I guess the answer is no, I don't believe in private property like you do.

You advocate for private property in a way that would completely paralyze society if a few people chose to abuse their property rights.

It makes from great sound bites, but in reality if you push your argument to the edge we will all fall off the cliff.

If tomorrow the Chinese buy off Verizon, and decide to destroy every single fiber line, you would see no problem with that. It's all about ownership.

Actually, I see absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Dont get me wrong...it will suck for us.....but certainly constitutional.

 

[Synthaholic]

...
I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Indeed. It should be corporations that decide who, what, we see and hear.

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can keep you from logging into a site, maybe a competitor.

Right now, Comcast is fighting with Netflix because of their competing On Demand services. Since Comcast owns the cable lines, should they be able to slow down or outright kill a movie that you are streaming from Netflix? Can they mess with Netflix' business enough where people leave Netflix and sign up for Comcast?

 

[Revere]

so you basically support censorship of the internet?

Only government censors, by definition.

thats a stupid argument. the government isnt trying censor the internet withe net neutrality bill. they are simply saying that ISP's cant treat traffic differently. there is nothing about them giving it away for free. it is simply trying to keep the flow of information free from restrictions. how can anyone possibly be against this?

Anyone who believes in private property rights.

Why should government tell private networks what do to?

 

[Jarhead]

so you basically support censorship of the internet?

Yes, but when asked directly he refuses to actually say it. He is what is known as a completely partisan uneducated relic who has no working knowledge of how the internet actually functions and the government is out to get him.

No...actually he seems to be more of a consitutionalist and whereas I disagree with him as it pertains to this, I see where he is coming from.

That is why I said earlier, and it was ignored....

The best way to implement such legislation and make it constitutional would be to insist on FULL disclosure by the internet provider if it opts to restrict certain sites.
Perhaps everytime the browser is opened, a dsiclaimer comes up saying that certain sites have been restricted by the provider and you will not have access to them. Not name the sites, but let the consumer know they are being restricted.

Curious...why are both sides of the debate ignoring what is in bold...It seems to allow for the needs of both sides of the debate.
Correct me if I am wrong?

 

[Vanquish]

so you basically support censorship of the internet?

Yes, but when asked directly he refuses to actually say it. He is what is known as a completely partisan uneducated relic who has no working knowledge of how the internet actually functions and the government is out to get him.

No...actually he seems to be more of a consitutionalist and whereas I disagree with him as it pertains to this, I see where he is coming from.

That is why I said earlier, and it was ignored....

The best way to implement such legislation and make it constitutional would be to insist on FULL disclosure by the internet provider if it opts to restrict certain sites.
Perhaps everytime the browser is opened, a dsiclaimer comes up saying that certain sites have been restricted by the provider and you will not have access to them. Not name the sites, but let the consumer know they are being restricted.

Why are you giving the corporations even that little bit? So they get to fuck you...as long as they tell you??

TV and Cable have rules that they have to play by...why not the internet service providers.
Hell, with TV and Cable it wouldn't be cost-effective or even manageable to run an infinite number of channels...but with the internet...it costs absolutely zero to offer then entire internet unrestricted!

And all this bypasses the fact that rural people will get fucked again. Only one choice and it sucks? Oh well. Fuck you. We used to have an open internet where we weren't in some controlled oligarchic state...but screw that. now we get to censor what you get to do.

This is a censorship for profit issue. Nothing else.

 

[Varth Dader]

...
Actually, I see absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Dont get me wrong...it will suck for us.....but certainly constitutional.

You see no problem whatsoever with a private entity destroying something that society relies upon?

Wow.

Well then, I guess Net Neutrality is clearly the least of your concerns.

 

[edthecynic]

Did a corporation shut down the "copyright infringment" sites or did government?

It was corporate groups like the RIAA who petitioned the government to shut down the sites for copyright infringement, as if you didn't know!!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

You clearly do not understand this bill.

 

[Jarhead]

Revere, do you believe it not appropriate that the FDA, years ago, passed legislation insisting on the disclaimer on cigarette boxes?

 

[RDD_1210]

so you basically support censorship of the internet?

Yes, but when asked directly he refuses to actually say it. He is what is known as a completely partisan uneducated relic who has no working knowledge of how the internet actually functions and the government is out to get him.

No...actually he seems to be more of a consitutionalist and whereas I disagree with him as it pertains to this, I see where he is coming from.

That is why I said earlier, and it was ignored....

The best way to implement such legislation and make it constitutional would be to insist on FULL disclosure by the internet provider if it opts to restrict certain sites.
Perhaps everytime the browser is opened, a dsiclaimer comes up saying that certain sites have been restricted by the provider and you will not have access to them. Not name the sites, but let the consumer know they are being restricted.

I don't see how that is a compromise. That is still restricting access to information even if they tell you they are doing it. I'm not ok with any restriction on information access especially when many people can't change their ISP.

 

[Revere]

Why does free access to the internet need to be "disclaimed" by government? Does it cause cancer?

 

[Revere]

Yes, but when asked directly he refuses to actually say it. He is what is known as a completely partisan uneducated relic who has no working knowledge of how the internet actually functions and the government is out to get him.

No...actually he seems to be more of a consitutionalist and whereas I disagree with him as it pertains to this, I see where he is coming from.

That is why I said earlier, and it was ignored....

The best way to implement such legislation and make it constitutional would be to insist on FULL disclosure by the internet provider if it opts to restrict certain sites.
Perhaps everytime the browser is opened, a dsiclaimer comes up saying that certain sites have been restricted by the provider and you will not have access to them. Not name the sites, but let the consumer know they are being restricted.

I don't see how that is a compromise. That is still restricting access to information even if they tell you they are doing it. I'm not ok with any restriction on information access especially when many people can't change their ISP.

Who can't change their ISP?

 

[Revere]

Did a corporation shut down the "copyright infringment" sites or did government?

It was corporate groups like the RIAA who petitioned the government to shut down the sites for copyright infringement, as if you didn't know!!!!

Corporate cronyism. How funny.

 

[daveman]

Wrong. Idiot Right wingers can deny CON$ervative orginizations and presidents, etc., are CON$ every time they are caught in their hypocrisy, but the fact remains that Heritage Foundation is the most CON$ervative of all CON$ervative think tanks, and is parroted by all other CON$ because CON$ are incapable of "thinking" for themselves and therefore are completely dependent on think tanks.
But keep making a fool of yourself trying to claim the Heritage Foundation is not CON$ervative, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

Pointing to your own mindless parroting of talking points as proof is proof only that you're a mindless parrot.

Denying the CON$ervatism of the Heritage Foundation is proof of just how shameless a liar you are.
Thank you.

It sounds as though you're completely unable to form a singe thought all on your own.

Heritage may be conservative, but the individual mandate is simply not a conservative idea.

So all you're left with is impotent butthurt.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why does free access to the internet need to be "disclaimed" by government? Does it cause cancer?

This conversation is obviously above your head at this point.

 

[Vanquish]

Only government censors, by definition.

thats a stupid argument. the government isnt trying censor the internet withe net neutrality bill. they are simply saying that ISP's cant treat traffic differently. there is nothing about them giving it away for free. it is simply trying to keep the flow of information free from restrictions. how can anyone possibly be against this?

Anyone who believes in private property rights.

Why should government tell private networks what do to?

why have laws at all.

why have laws saying that you're liable for accidents on your property?

why have laws protecting children from curse words over the airwaves?

why have laws protecting workers by instituting an 8hour work day?

why have government at all. you should be able to do whatever you want with your property. fuck...use your car to run over other people. it's your property.

 

[Revere]

When does more government intervention in your day to day life ever result in more freedom?