Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
President Obama came out and said he wanted the FCC to classify the internet as a utility.
Cruz's opinion piece was a response to that.
You didn't even pay attention to the title of what you provided.
That title was:"Ted Cruz: Don’t turn Internet access into public utility "Obviously the Publisher understands what Cruz is speaking to even if readers like you don't.
Yes Mustachio he was speaking to the Obama's idea of classifying it into a utility.
Which further becomes clear as one reads along, as the regulatory issues he speaks to come about by classifying it as a utility.
And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is “net neutrality.”
In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.
President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?
You may have read it but you certainly didn't understand it or the context, as he certainly was addressing the President's idea of classifying it as a utility.
All you have done is shown that you have no idea as to what he speaks.
Cruz's position on actual neutrality was stated in the second paragraph.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
Everything else is in opposition to the Presidents idea of classifying it as a utility. And it is hyperpartisian hacks that can't see either of those.
It is Obama who is not speaking to actual neutrality, but lying to the public again.
Last edited by Excon; 11-18-14 at 05:08 AM.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
Wait. I thought we were arguing about Ted Cruz all this time. Lol. You cant even keep your own lies straight. How pathetic. But good to see you finally get back to what were were actually arguing about and get off this day long diversion of arguing about what we were arguing about.Again Fletch, you've demonstrated quite a few things here. You've demonstrated you don't know what net neutrality is mostly because you think it's a new form of regulation as opposed to what we've had for 25+ years. You think the free market, which various poster and myself have explained does not really exist in the ISP business, should settle this. Then when faced with evidence showing why net neutrality is an inherently good thing, you've downgraded your argument from it being a government program, to believing that it can be achieved through market means.I haven't lost the argument. Obamas call to have the FCC regulate providers differently is a new form of regulation. You don't understand this either because you aren't all that bright, or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. See, this is a discussion of Obamas policy on net neutrality, so if you are looking for a post where you discuss it look no further than post #409. Now, you can either grow up and discuss the issue like an adult or continue with your adolescent games. You decide.How does it feel to have lost an argument so badly that you've been reduced to catch phrases? Wait... before you answer...
Can you tell us where I discussed Obama's policies? Specific post # will do.
Are you still trying to conflate the fact that you didn't know what net neutrality was with some imaginary discussion we had on Article II and Obama's policies? I'll wait until you can show the post where I discussed them.Wait. I thought we were arguing about Ted Cruz all this time. Lol. You cant even keep your own lies straight. How pathetic. But good to see you finally get back to what were were actually arguing about and get off this day long diversion of arguing about what we were arguing about.
Third time you try to steer the conversation away from your defense of Ted Cruz' statements. Do you not realize that nobody is falling for it yet?I haven't lost the argument. Obamas call to have the FCC regulate providers differently is a new form of regulation. You don't understand this either because you aren't all that bright, or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. See, this is a discussion of Obamas policy on net neutrality, so if you are looking for a post where you discuss it look no further than post #409. Now, you can either grow up and discuss the issue like an adult or continue with your adolescent games. You decide.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Lady Gaga/Nikki Minaj 2016
Because you know we're all about our base, 'bout our base, no rebels...
I'm sure somebody posted this but yesterday Cruz posted this anti-net neutrality video which concludes with him saying we shouldn't reclassify the internet as a utility but the title of the video says that it's about net neutrality. This is a man who clearly has no idea what net neutrality is. And the idea that with net neutrality the government could decide which businesses can and cannot operate on the internet? That makes no sense at all. We are looking at a man who knows one thing about net neutrality: he was told it is bad for business and so he's repeating the talking points his people are giving him.
A working class hero is something to be