• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama pushes broadband plan

iguanaman said:
You are crazy if you think everyone has to make decisions for all of us based on what some contributor wants. It is unique to politics and dangerous by nature.
Click to expand...

OK, so you think people are all corrupt and the fact that there's no evidence that it's so is no obstacle to you. That explains a lot.

Cheers.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, so you have no idea what a political system that shares your ideals would even look like because you've done literally no research whatsoever, and you are completely unaware of what happens during the lobbying process.

Right-o.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think our own political system was a great model until it swelled beyond all reasonable bounds.

I'm not surprised you're holding pat on your "lobbyists are da' devil" nonsense, though. You'd probably have to turn in your lib card if you didn't.

Cheers.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
[Re: positive for the business who pays them to do so......again 'ning DUH!

What is idiotic is the constant pooh-poohing of the effect of lobbying by industry and the vastly greater influence it has over a vote by a single constituent. This denial is just so ludicrous!


"Govt work to everyone else"? WTF? You think the influence of lobbying, which is carried out far more by Big Business....is doing so for "everyone else"?

Good grief.....why am I wasting so much time on such ignorant postings from you?
Click to expand...

OK, I got you, the lizard and the redbird down for "lobbyists are evil".

Your opinion is noted. Thanks for sharing.
 
Papa bull said:
OK, I got you, the lizard and the redbird down for "lobbyists are evil".

Your opinion is noted. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...
If that is how the bovine needs to chew the cud down, so be it....it cannot be helped.
 
Papa bull said:
Lobbyists do the leg work. They work {bribe} with legislators and communicate back to industry what's going on. Communication is a two-way street. You should try to learn something about this government of ours. You seem very interested in discussing political things, so knowing how our political system actually works would be helpful for you.
Click to expand...

I fixed it for you.
 
AJiveMan said:
Lobbyist;
Click to expand...

Whats your point? The right to petition govt is in the constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
jonny5 said:
Whats your point? The right to petition govt is in the constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

So you support government preventing competition then? If you're confused how I arrived at that conclusion I'd be happy to do a step-by-step breakdown for you.
 
jonny5 said:
Whats your point? The right to petition govt is in the constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

I just love how some people twist and spin the meaning of the constitution. See post # 307.
 
Cardinal said:
So you support government preventing competition then? If you're confused how I arrived at that conclusion I'd be happy to do a step-by-step breakdown for you.
Click to expand...

The competition can petition the government, too. So I don't have any idea what triggered that brain fart about linking "the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances" with that silly-ass statement about "supporting the government preventing competition".
 
Papa bull said:
The competition can petition the government, too.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you think that a person wanting to start out in business shouldn't just have to take the risk of competing with a more powerful company, but that they should also get in a bidding war with that company in order to gain the permission of the state congress to compete with that business. Is that what you're saying?

You know, for the side in this debate most against government intrusion in business, they sure are picking the side of government intrusion a lot!

So I don't have any idea what triggered that brain fart about linking "the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances" with that silly-ass statement about "supporting the government preventing competition".
Click to expand...

Push those little arrows next to the quote. He was defending lobbying by applying a kinder meaning.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Okay, so you think that a person wanting to start out in business shouldn't just have to take the risk of competing with a more powerful company, but that they should also get in a bidding war with that company in order to gain the permission of the state congress to compete with that business. Is that what you're saying?

You know, for the side in this debate most against government intrusion in business, they sure are picking the side of government intrusion a lot!
Click to expand...

You are conflating issues to the point where you are making no sense whatsoever. The right of the people to petition the government does NOT prevent competition. Everyone can petition the government.
 
Papa bull said:
You are conflating issues to the point where you are making no sense whatsoever. The right of the people to petition the government does NOT prevent competition. Everyone can petition the government.
Click to expand...

So answer the question then. Do you find it acceptable that a person wanting to start out in business shouldn't just have to take the risk of competing with a more powerful company, but that he should also get in a bidding war with that company in order to gain the permission of the state congress to compete with that business?

Yes or no.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
So answer the question then. Do you find it acceptable that a person wanting to start out in business shouldn't just have to take the risk of competing with a more powerful company, but that he should also get in a bidding war with that company in order to gain the permission of the state congress to compete with that business?

Yes or no.
Click to expand...

You act as though that question is pertinent to my comments and it is not. The fact that someone recognizes the constitutional right of EVERYONE to petition the government in no way can be taken to mean that they want the government to stifle competition. Just deal with that and stop tossing out red herrings about bidding wars and just deal with that very simple fact. That was what I was addressing. If you don't have anything to say about that, then just go find someone else to start a pissing contest with.
 
Papa bull said:
You act as though that question is pertinent to my comments and it is not. The fact that someone recognizes the constitutional right of EVERYONE to petition the government in no way can be taken to mean that they want the government to stifle competition. Just deal with that and stop tossing out red herrings about bidding wars and just deal with that very simple fact. That was what I was addressing. If you don't have anything to say about that, then just go find someone else to start a pissing contest with.
Click to expand...

It's not a red herring because it deals directly with the issue. Do you approve of what the internet providers did when they lobbied the state government to prevent competition or not? Do you feel this is an acceptable template for the future or not? This is about making your own position clear instead of the constant twisting and dodging you've been doing since you've entered the discussion.

If you will not state your position, then you have no business being here.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
It's not a red herring because it deals directly with the issue. Do you approve of what the internet providers did when they lobbied the state government to prevent competition or not? Do you feel this is an acceptable template for the future or not? This is about making your own position clear instead of the constant twisting and dodging you've been doing since you've entered the discussion.

If you will not state your position, then you have no business being here.
Click to expand...

My position is that there is NOTHING wrong with lobbying or petitioning the government. You and every other citizen or business or industry or special interest group has that right. There was nothing wrong with internet providers petitioning legislators. The problem is if the legislators passed bad laws and that's what's in debate. Just because you pitch a tent outside your senator or representative's office and beseech him every chance you get to please, please, write a law to demand all registered repblicans get neutered for the good of the future of the country, you don't automatically get him writing it into a bill just because you asked for it or demanded it. If you don't like the laws, blame the legislators, not the lobbyists.
 
These two words
lobbying or petitioning
Click to expand...

have completely separate and distinct meanings. Stop scrambling words and splitting hairs.
 
AJiveMan said:
These two words


have completely separate and distinct meanings. Stop scrambling words and splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

Go to the clue store and load up on them because you obviously don't have one.
 
Papa bull said:
Go to the clue store and load up on them because you obviously don't have one.
Click to expand...

That's all you can come up with?

Please answer post # 312 if you think you can, a simple yes or no would suffice.
 
AJiveMan said:
That's all you can come up with?

Please answer post # 312 if you think you can, a simple yes or no would suffice.
Click to expand...

I already dealt with 312. The fact that you do not understand that lobbying is constitutionally protected because it is, in fact, "petitioning the government" is your shortcoming, not mine.
 
Papa bull said:
My position is that there is NOTHING wrong with lobbying or petitioning the government. You and every other citizen or business or industry or special interest group has that right. There was nothing wrong with internet providers petitioning legislators. The problem is if the legislators passed bad laws and that's what's in debate. Just because you pitch a tent outside your senator or representative's office and beseech him every chance you get to please, please, write a law to demand all registered repblicans get neutered for the good of the future of the country, you don't automatically get him writing it into a bill just because you asked for it or demanded it. If you don't like the laws, blame the legislators, not the lobbyists.
Click to expand...

So did the legislators pass a bad law in banning competition in those twenty states?
 
jonny5 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Okay, then you need to clearly navigate these facts for me, then:

1) You don't support the government preventing competition.
2) You support the right of the internet providers to lobby the government into banning competition.
3) The internet providers did, in fact, lobby the government to banning competition, which the states then subsequently legislated.
4) Ergo, the government prevented competition.
5) Yet you still stand by 1) and 2)

Work that out for me.
 
Cardinal said:
So did the legislators pass a bad law in banning competition in those twenty states?
Click to expand...

That's a judgement call and I don't know enough about the laws on those 20 states to make that call. My comments weren't about whether the laws were good or bad but about your errant assertions about lobbying. Go back and re-read if you forgot what we were talking about.
 
Papa bull said:
That's a judgement call and I don't know enough about the laws on those 20 states to make that call.
Click to expand...

The laws prevent local municipalities from creating their own isps. Now you know. Were those bad laws?

My comments weren't about whether the laws were good or bad but about your errant assertions about lobbying.
Click to expand...

Your own words: "The problem is if the legislators passed bad laws and that's what's in debate." And so now I'm asking you: are these bad laws?

Go back and re-read if you forgot what we were talking about.
Click to expand...

I think in your efforts in avoiding making judgments and thus avoiding how your positions may be applicable to Obama's proposal, it may be you who forgot what you yourself wrote, as demonstrated above. You took an indefensible position and now you're tangling yourself up in knots. It was an interesting mental exercise, but you're not doing so hot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom