• 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!

Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

eohrnberger said:
Agreed.

I don't know either which is the way to maintain what we've had for the last 25 years. I'm really not all excited by yet more regulations from the government, as they tend to give companies feet of lead, rather than the fleet afoot that we've experienced in the tech sector, nor do I like the idea of a tiered delivery performance system, in effect a balkanization of the Internet (although if you think about it, how often you see an @aol.com email address and think of A-O Loser! - but that's different I think).

We also have to acknowledge the good deeds from companies such as ComCast, AT&T, etc., in putting the current and extensive data pluming into place. Without their investments over the years in building out the Internet from major backbone links to the last mile and making it available to the general public at a reasonable price, we'd still be have an Internet of academicians trading insults with each other, rather than the information super highway that we have today on which you can purchase any number of things and conduct any number of business transactions (and yes participate in virtual communities such as this), and we should continue to have in the future.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be excited by the idea of continued regulation from the government to ensure net neutrality, but it really is the only way it's going to continue to happen.

Not liking the idea of government involvement isn't a position, it's just a place where many of your positions just happen to stem from. In the discussion of net neutrality, however, the belief against government involvement doesn't work, especially as in this case that particular involvement has demonstrated itself to be necessary and good.
 
The unbridled hackery on the part of a few of the conservatives (and one so-called independent) on this thread is absolutely astounding.
 
Hatuey said:
... You do realize that laws regulating net neutrality have zero relevance in regards to the existence of monopolies... correct?
Click to expand...

You're the one that brought up monopolies, sport...not me. Now what's it going to be?
 
Kobie said:
The unbridled hackery on the part of a few of the conservatives (and one so-called independent) on this thread is absolutely astounding.
Click to expand...

NCL's complaining about partisan hackery is the laugh of the century. :lamo
 
Hatuey said:
You're exposing your weak debating skills again Fletch, better be careful. Not knowing what is the best way to ensure net neutrality does not make opposition to net neutrality any less of a ridiculous position. However, trying to argue that net neutrality in anyway resembles Obamacare when it's part of the well working system that's been around for 25 years is absolutely ludicrous.

The fact that you think net neutrality means "change" when it's been what has actually been around for 25+ years is just laughable.
Click to expand...
Try to be a little less pompous. The change I was referring to was treating the web like a utility. And again, you haven't given a moments thought to the downside of doing such a thing. That is a mix of arrogance and foolishness.
 
Helix said:
no, you were trying to strawman, and you even ****ed that up.
Click to expand...

You got caught with you pants down and now you're trying to run away. Nothing new, there.
 
apdst said:
You're the one that brought up monopolies, sport...not me. Now what's it going to be?
Click to expand...

Does your head hurt when you read posts which you don't understand? Yes, I brought up monopolies, they exist regionally and are backing anti-net neutrality politicians. That doesn't make net neutrality as a concept about them. In short, you're as confused as someone who argues that the first amendment is about newspapers because freedom of the press is mentioned.
 
Kobie said:
The unbridled hackery on the part of a few of the conservatives (and one so-called independent) on this thread is absolutely astounding.
Click to expand...

I hope to god that I'm criminally broad-brushing every time I've suggested this is a universally conservative thing.
 
Hatuey said:
Does your head hurt when you read posts which you don't understand? Yes, I brought up monopolies, they exist regionally and are backing anti-net neutrality politicians. That doesn't make net neutrality as a concept about them. In short, you're as confused as someone who argues that the first amendment is about newspapers because freedom of the press is mentioned.
Click to expand...

If you can't back up your argument, maybe you shouldn't participate in the discussion.
 
Fletch said:
Try to be a little less pompous. The change I was referring to was treating the web like a utility. And again, you haven't given a moments thought to the downside of doing such a thing. That is a mix of arrogance and foolishness.
Click to expand...

Still trying to steer the argument away from your initial nonsense? Okay, I'll play, you originally stated you didn't understand why opposition to net neutrality was wrong. I showed you what net neutrality means and why it's nothing like Obamacare. If nothing else, it's the complete opposite of regulation. It is a concept which ensures data and how it is accessed is not subject to regulations by either corporations or government and yet here you are sitting and complaining about utilities. That doesn't make opposition to net neutrality any less wrong.
 
apdst said:
If you can't back up your argument, maybe you shouldn't participate in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Lol... wha? Show me a single post I haven't backed up. I'll wait.
 
apdst said:
Look who's talking.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who went all wobbly and started parroting the "net neutrality is like Obamacare" idiocy the very instant some corrupt politician tweeted it.
 
Fletch said:
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.
Click to expand...

WTF? Do you really think this is about government paying for anybody's internet use? How ****ing ignorant of the discussion do you have to be?
 
Hatuey said:
Lol... wha? Show me a single post I haven't backed up. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

It was be less time consumptive for you to show me one post your have backed up.
 
Hatuey said:
Still trying to steer the argument away from your initial nonsense? Okay, I'll play, you originally stated you didn't understand why opposition to net neutrality was wrong. I showed you what net neutrality means and why it's nothing like Obamacare. If nothing else, it's the complete opposite of regulation. It is a concept which ensures data and how it is accessed is not subject to regulations by either corporations or government and yet here you are sitting and complaining about utilities. That doesn't make opposition to net neutrality any less wrong.
Click to expand...
Only a liberal could claim that having the FCC regulate internet providers under Title II of the Telecommunications act is the opposite of regulation. Good one.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not the one who went all wobbly and started parroting the "net neutrality is like Obamacare" idiocy the very instant some corrupt politician tweeted it.
Click to expand...

Nor am I. Don't believe everything that Hatuey posts. ;)
 
Cardinal said:
WTF? Do you really think this is about government paying for anybody's internet use? How ****ing ignorant of the discussion do you have to be?
Click to expand...
Did I say that?? No. I didn't. How ****ing incapable are you of reading a post?
 
Fletch said:
Did I say that?? No. I didn't. How ****ing incapable are you of reading a post?
Click to expand...

So what did you mean when you said this?

"So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free."
 
Cardinal said:
You don't have to be excited by the idea of continued regulation from the government to ensure net neutrality, but it really is the only way it's going to continue to happen.

Not liking the idea of government involvement isn't a position, it's just a place where many of your positions just happen to stem from. In the discussion of net neutrality, however, the belief against government involvement doesn't work, especially as in this case that particular involvement has demonstrated itself to be necessary and good.
Click to expand...

Now you see, you are taking the position that government regulation to ensure Net Neutrality is the only way. I'm not convinced of that. There is always another way. I may not know this solution at this moment, but this is my belief. Further, I believe that government involvement in this MAY not be the best possible solution, and we should expend some time and resources to see if there is a better one, as well as if there is a real problem here, beyond the short term 3 month conflict between Netflix and ComCast.

I'm not going to belittle you for your position. It's your honest opinion and position and you have every right to hold it. The same as mine is.
 
Cardinal said:
So what did you mean when you said this?

"So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free."
Click to expand...
I was responding to the poster who didn't want to see the cost of his site go up, so rather than pay the cost, he prefers the state to step in and force the provider to supply it at cost he wants.
 
eohrnberger said:
Now you see, you are taking the position that government regulation to ensure Net Neutrality is the only way. I'm not convinced of that. There is always another way. I may not know this solution at this moment, but this is my belief.

I'm not going to belittle you for your position. It's your honest opinion and position and you have every right to hold it. The same as mine is.
Click to expand...

If neither you nor I can imagine a different way, and if it has worked for 25 years, then there's no point in trying to find a different solution. As you said, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
 
apdst said:
It was be less time consumptive for you to show me one post your have backed up.
Click to expand...

All of them. :) Now challenge me and prove a single one of them is wrong.
 
Fletch said:
I was responding to the poster who didn't want to see the cost of his site go up, so rather than pay the cost, he prefers the state to step in and force the provider to supply it at cost he wants.
Click to expand...

Okay, so your statement was meaningless since a)he didn't ask for the state to come in an provide internet service for free, and b)you didn't even mean that either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom