• 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!

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

ReverendHellh0und said:
of course.

That said, I am for actual net neutrality, not the democrats turning into a utility under the guise of net neutrality. Do you see the difference ?
Click to expand...

What is "actual net neutrality"? The "democrats" option seems to be to term internet access as a utility and in doing so regulate that a service provider can't discriminate between different pieces of data; that you pay for the access, and what you do with it is your choice. What is the alternative route you're suggesting? It's hard to "see the difference" without something to compare the utility option to.

I would MUCH rather an option to protect net neutrality OTHER than the government declaring it a "utility" and regulating it as such...but thus far I've yet to see anyone offer up a suggestion that is realistic or worth while. The two alternatives I've seen put forward is:

1. Do nothing. Which to me is not a worth while option at all, seeing how we have repeated evidence over the past decade of internet providers going against net neutrality principles and actions on their part clearly showing a desire to further such a thing.

2. Bust the psuedo-monopolies the ISPs have, which is likely as realistic as saying remove marriage from government entirely or ban all guns. It may sound good to ideologues who like such ideas, but the chance of either happening is as realistic as me ****ting out a rainbow that has a pot of gold at it's end. As much as the ISPs are fighting net neutrality, it'd look like a 3rd year old trying to be a boxer compared to how they'd react if their monopolies were being busted.

One other poster keeps going on and on about net neutrality being good, but suggesting it shouldn't be done without turning things into a utility....but everytime he's questioned for his alternative method he refuses and deflects, NEVER answering. I'm hoping, since you're one who never seems to hide their opinion on a subject, that you'll at least give an explanation of how you think "net neutrality", the concept, can be protected and assured (or at least most likely assured)?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So many arguments from ignorance on this subject. This is the same response I used in a different thread, but it applies here as well, so here goes:

If you don't work as a Sr. Systems Admin, Sr. Network Admin, or Systems Engineer, then you have nothing to add to this debate and almost any argument you give will be based in ignorance.

That said, I work as the Sr. System and Network Administrator for what is easily one of the highest traffic sites hosted in the Midwest (both in terms of bandwidth and page views). So I know my **** on this one.

Basically, as wikipedia states Net Neutrality is:

The principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

That does not mean that under the current system you cannot buy higher tiers of internet service. These higher tiers of internet service basically mean that:

1. Internet bandwidth at the provider is shared by less customers than lower tiered service.

2. Internet bandwidth has a lower latency than lower tiered service.

3. Your connection is more reliable (due to higher redundancy at the carrier level).

Those are all available to you under the current system. What the current system does not allow for is a carrier or provider to prioritize their content over other providers, or to censor their competitors. For example, without net neutrality, Time Warner could utilize QoS to ensure that any voip packets coming from their service has a much lower latency than say a Vonage customer on their network. So calls from a TWC customer would be crystal clear while a Vonage customer would have forced jitter due to high latency. The same would be true for their video streaming vs say, Amazon's. Hell it could go so far as stock trades being prioritized over certain networks while others get higher latencies. The potential for corruption is nearly endless absent Net Neutrality. Who benefits from that other than carriers lobbying congress?
Click to expand...
Your arrogance speaks to your ignorance of others and isn't going to gain you any traction.
Your arrogance because of your field of endeavor also means nothing as it does not mean others do not know what NN is.
And you only provided what wiki said, which is what anybody here can obtain, understand and provide. Which has nothing to do with your personal knowledge. :doh
You may be able to explain it in a more accurate way (unseen), may be able to provided a general description/definition (wiki) or in a way that some may understand better, it does not mean that one has to be employed as you are to explain or understand it.

So while I speak of it in terms of "for-pay packet prioritization" and throttling for ease of understanding, your addition from wiki is really no different and has nothing to do with your personal knowledge. And not being employed as you are certainly does not mean that one has nothing to add to this discussion.
So kindly spare us your arrogance.


And as far as I am concerned, for those knowledgeable enough, while it may lack the monetary motivation, Samhain's explanation is far better than either mine or the one you provided from wiki.
Net Neutrality means ISPs are not allowed to alter, restrict or enhance packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.​




Samhain said:
Net Neutrality means not only can Joe User not pay for more bandwidth or priority, but the ISP cannot stop him from hindering your bandwidth through over-use.
Click to expand...
While I find your description to be more accurate, Joe user would not be and is not restricted from purchasing higher bandwidth.




And as to accuracy, packet prioritization and throttling happens now and will continue to happen regardless of any NN rules. It has too.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
when they obviously don't know what they are talking about (ie: Ted Cruz).
Click to expand...

SERIES OF TUBES!!!!

Hell, if someone did, then why are they not working in IT then as it almost certainly pays more than their job probably does. ;)
Click to expand...

After graduating the Cisco's Networking Academy program and getting my CCNA prior to college, and then going into Info Science there, ended up just finding myself really not enjoying the work. Though admittedly part of it was me just not being a good student through my first few years in college and not taking things seriously. All told, probably would've been better off staying down that path for the reason you say.
 
Mithros said:
Why all of the distraction?
Click to expand...
Excuse me? What distraction?
Do you not know what this topic is about?
It is about what Cruz said. And there are folks here who refuse to understand what he said.


Mithros said:
If you agree with the concept of net neutrality, then why aren't you on board with some alternate means of achieving it?
Click to expand...
That is not what this topic is about.


Mithros said:
There's no reason why ISPs have to be classified as utilities.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Nough said.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I see the difference, but net neutrality is a hell of a lot closer to what Al Franken is proposing than what Ted Cruz is proposing. That all said I am very leery of a bunch of lawyers writing regulations concerning the internet when they obviously don't know what they are talking about (ie: Ted Cruz).

This is exemplified by some of the arguments from ignorance on display in this thread. A lot of people seem to know the buzzwords without knowing what they actually mean. That's why I said earlier if you don't work as a Systems or Network Engineer / Admin, chances are you don't know what you are talking about in regards to net neutrality.

Hell, if someone did, then why are they not working in IT then as it almost certainly pays more than their job probably does. ;)
Click to expand...



I agree with the coporatist favortism shown ISP's etc, that tome form of net neutrality is needed. That said, you remove the perks for these government monopolies and make the playing feild equal then I'd say let it lie where it lays.
 
As a note, net neutrality does not disallow packet prioritization and throttling...it just requires that it be done for a legitimate need to deal with network traffic when no other means of managing said traffic is available. This is what screwed Comcast when it was throttling P2P connections.

There's nothing wrong with throttling as it relates to a and congestion issue; where it becomes a problem is when it's being done in a discriminatory way when there are other alternatives, or it's being done for the purpose of promoting/decentivizing one service over another, or for other reasons other than pure and immediete congestion management.

For example, throttling a service and claiming it's because of a traffic issue, and then seemingly not throttling it and not having that issue IMMEDIETELY following that company agreeing to pay you money (which doesn't inherently have ANY impact on traffic) would be a pretty clear indication of throttling being done for reasons other than a legitimate network congestion concern.
 
Excon said:
Your arrogance speaks to your ignorance of others and isn't going to gain you any traction.
Your arrogance because of your field of endeavor also means nothing as it does not mean others do not know what NN is.
And you only provided what wiki said, which is what anybody here can obtain, understand and provide. Which has nothing to do with your personal knowledge. :doh
You may be able to explain it in a more accurate way (unseen), may be able to provided a general description/definition (wiki) or in a way that some may understand better, it does not mean that one has to be employed as you are to explain or understand it.

So while I speak of it in terms of "for-pay packet prioritization" and throttling for ease of understanding, your addition from wiki is really no different and has nothing to do with your personal knowledge. And not being employed as you are certainly does not mean that one has nothing to add to this discussion.
So kindly spare us your arrogance.
Click to expand...

First off, I used Wikipedia's explanation, then followed with 3 points describing how service works now. Morever, its a complicated subject, and frankly if you knew enough to understand Net Neutrality and how Layer 2 and Layer 7 QoS, CoS, Traffic Shaping, and other packet encapsulation methods and inspection methods work, then you would be working IT.


And as far as I am concerned, for those knowledgeable enough, while it may lack the monetary motivation, Samhain's explanation is far better than either mine or the one you provided from wiki.
Net Neutrality means ISPs are not allowed to alter, restrict or enhance packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.​
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you, but that explanation is wrong. Net Neutrality in no way prevents ISPs from altering, restricting, or enhancing packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.

For example, if an ISP detecting a DoS or scanning attack from a network in say, Russia, then the firewalls at that ISP would have a threat detection rule to shun those hosts and networks. This restricts traffic based on origination and in no way violates net neutrality.

If an ISP had a segment that was being saturated, they would utilize various CoS and Traffic Shaping policies to temporarily throttle high usage users connections to ensure that enough bandwidth is available to other users on that same segment.

What net neutrality prevents is an ISP from creating a QoS classes for its own content (at either Layer 2 or Layer 7) and prioritizing it above another company's content.
 
Mithros said:
Here's a good test. If anyone in congress on either party rails against the way something is being done without proposing any alternate legislation, then you can be assured that they're more interested in playing politics than creating solutions.
Click to expand...
Wrong in general and wrong in regards to Cruz.
Cruz is on record as saying he wants it to remain as it is. You do not need to suggest any legislation to accomplish that.

And in general, one does one have to suggest anything else when in opposition to what is being suggested.
 
Excon said:
Excuse me? What distraction?
Do you not know what this topic is about?
It is about what Cruz said. And there are folks here who refuse to understand what he said.


That is not what this topic is about.


Exactly. Nough said.
Click to expand...
Your selective quoting is quite telling.
There's no reason why ISPs have to be classified as utilities. Congress could also pass a new category of provider for ISPs which enforces net neutrality but otherwise maintains a hands-off approach to regulation.
Click to expand...
It's not exactly intellectually honest to concentrate on half of a statement, and ignore the bold.

Why do you continue to ignore that option? You cannot claim to be for Net Neutrality, but against any means of actually achieving it. So once again, would you support any means of ensuring net neutrality?
 
Zyphlin said:
What is "actual net neutrality"? The "democrats" option seems to be to term internet access as a utility and in doing so regulate that a service provider can't discriminate between different pieces of data; that you pay for the access, and what you do with it is your choice. What is the alternative route you're suggesting? It's hard to "see the difference" without something to compare the utility option to.

I would MUCH rather an option to protect net neutrality OTHER than the government declaring it a "utility" and regulating it as such...but thus far I've yet to see anyone offer up a suggestion that is realistic or worth while. The two alternatives I've seen put forward is:

1. Do nothing. Which to me is not a worth while option at all, seeing how we have repeated evidence over the past decade of internet providers going against net neutrality principles and actions on their part clearly showing a desire to further such a thing.

2. Bust the psuedo-monopolies the ISPs have, which is likely as realistic as saying remove marriage from government entirely or ban all guns. It may sound good to ideologues who like such ideas, but the chance of either happening is as realistic as me ****ting out a rainbow that has a pot of gold at it's end. As much as the ISPs are fighting net neutrality, it'd look like a 3rd year old trying to be a boxer compared to how they'd react if their monopolies were being busted.

One other poster keeps going on and on about net neutrality being good, but suggesting it shouldn't be done without turning things into a utility....but everytime he's questioned for his alternative method he refuses and deflects, NEVER answering. I'm hoping, since you're one who never seems to hide their opinion on a subject, that you'll at least give an explanation of how you think "net neutrality", the concept, can be protected and assured (or at least most likely assured)?
Click to expand...



Ideally, The current system is gamed as a corporatist-state of favortism and protectionism, the government funds through our taxes the very infrastructure of ISP's and therefore arguably not 100% private. I don't think the answer is to regard them as part of the government and therefore open for regulation, but to tie my position of no state regulation of the internet with a call for the elimination of all forms of corporatism, and laws that protect larger companies via tax subsidies, and other laws favoriting these state related monopolies over smaller businesses that could provide competition.
 
Excon said:
Wrong in general and wrong in regards to Cruz.
Cruz is on record as saying he wants it to remain as it is. You do not need to suggest any legislation to accomplish that.

And in general, one does one have to suggest anything else when in opposition to what is being suggested.
Click to expand...




As it is is a system with documented cases of ISP's not operating under net neutrality.

So, you're saying he's on record with not wanting net neutrality then?
 
Excon said:
Cruz is on record as saying he wants it to remain as it is. You do not need to suggest any legislation to accomplish that.
Click to expand...

Just keeping the status quo does NOT accomplish letting it "remain as it is". This is CLEARLY evidenced by the multitude of instances by various telecom providers over the past decade of them violating net neutrality principles, and their repeated attempts in recent years to argue for the ability to continue and expand upon such violations.

From Comcasts throttling of P2P traffic (and lately the questionable issue regarding Netflix), to AT&T's banning of facetime but allowing other video chatting services, to various regional telecoms hijacking popular search engines and routing people to their own or hindering traffic for competing services of their own (like vonage), to Verizon fighting arguing that they should be able to discriminate against what data travels over their network and that they should be able to charge content providers for the ability to have their data delivered to end users in a neutral fashion, and on and on....

The psuedo-monopolies of the past decade make just relying on the "status quo" to keep net neutrality as a concept a fools errand, as is evidenced by the repeated attempts by telecoms to violate those principles and their clearly stated desire to continue to push that route forward. This is not the 90's when there was a low barrier of entry for ISPs to enter the market thus allowing for significant competition and a free market approach to maintaining neutrality. Rather, we are in a highly monopolized market where the customer has little options other than to go without internet or simply bend over and take it up the rear.

Going with the status quo is simply choosing to continue down the path we're on, which is a path AWAY from network neutrality principles.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Ideally, The current system is gamed as a corporatist-state of favortism and protectionism, the government funds through our taxes the very infrastructure of ISP's and therefore arguably not 100% private. I don't think the answer is to regard them as part of the government and therefore open for regulation, but to tie my position of no state regulation of the internet with a call for the elimination of all forms of corporatism, and laws that protect larger companies via tax subsidies, and other laws favoriting these state related monopolies over smaller businesses that could provide competition.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the up front answer Rev. But in my mind, this is just unrealistic. It's no different than Ron Paul droning on about being completely isolationist or like those who declare we should just remove marriage from governent all together as their ONLY option as it relates to that issue. It's a great stance to have in a smokey room with a bunch of collegues waxing philisophical regarding policy, but has little real impact on the real world.

In an ideal world I agree, that's my prefered method for that as well. I said in another thread, in a perfect sort of world I'd say the backbone infastructure which is even more monopolized then the telecoms would continue to be regulated and subsidized by the government, while the actual middle men (the ISPs) would be far less regulated and far more open and free with a lower bar to hurdle to gain entry into the market place.

But it's just extremely unlikely given the importance to the telecoms those things you speak of are and how much influence they have over politicians on both sides of the aisles...there's little to no chance that we see the government legitimately bust up their monopolies. So simply saying that's the answer, and looking at no other alternative, is no different in my eyes than saying "just leave things the way they are"....because ultimatley, realistically, that's what will happen. There's little to no chance those psued-monopolies are busted, and if that doesn't happen and that's all we say we want to try, then the reality is that we just go with the status quo.

Even if you look at now, Cruz hasn't said one word about busting up the telecoms. Not a single one that I've seen. All he's done is **** on the Democratic proposals and tacitly suggest we just need to maintain the status quo.

And the status quo is not working. The status quo has been a steady movement away from net neutrality proposals, with clear reasons to see that the telecoms have every intent to continue that push.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality



facepalm.jpg


With every other statement Cruz makes on this subject, he proves he doesn't understand what is being discussed here or has the first clue regarding the inner working of the internet. First of all, he argues that rotary phones are symbols of being "frozen in time". Then he argues that iphones are... what? A symbol of innovation? Well... aside from all of Apple's issues with stealing technology, does he not realize that at one point or another rotary phones were innovative? Does he believe they're still widely used? Does he believe his iPhone will evolve like a Pokemon and won't become a relic of time 25 years from now? Well, whatever he intended to show with that argument it failed. However, this is what made me laugh the most:
Click to expand...

Oh, Jeez. Went right over your head.
 
Zyphlin said:
I appreciate the up front answer Rev. But in my mind, this is just unrealistic. It's no different than Ron Paul droning on about being completely isolationist or like those who declare we should just remove marriage from governent all together as their ONLY option as it relates to that issue. It's a great stance to have in a smokey room with a bunch of collegues waxing philisophical regarding policy, but has little real impact on the real world.

In an ideal world I agree, that's my prefered method for that as well. I said in another thread, in a perfect sort of world I'd say the backbone infastructure which is even more monopolized then the telecoms would continue to be regulated and subsidized by the government, while the actual middle men (the ISPs) would be far less regulated and far more open and free with a lower bar to hurdle to gain entry into the market place.

But it's just extremely unlikely given the importance to the telecoms those things you speak of are and how much influence they have over politicians on both sides of the aisles...there's little to no chance that we see the government legitimately bust up their monopolies. So simply saying that's the answer, and looking at no other alternative, is no different in my eyes than saying "just leave things the way they are"....because ultimatley, realistically, that's what will happen. There's little to no chance those psued-monopolies are busted, and if that doesn't happen and that's all we say we want to try, then the reality is that we just go with the status quo.

Even if you look at now, Cruz hasn't said one word about busting up the telecoms. Not a single one that I've seen. All he's done is **** on the Democratic proposals and tacitly suggest we just need to maintain the status quo.

And the status quo is not working. The status quo has been a steady movement away from net neutrality proposals, with clear reasons to see that the telecoms have every intent to continue that push.
Click to expand...



Cruz is just another republocrat, will say enough to stir the pot and get headlines for his own run, so I am not to impressed with that guy.


I'm a little less of an isolationist but I am also in the firm camp that we've had enough war for a country. I am also in the camp of removing marriage as a government institution, that said, like you I am also a realist, I know these things are not likely nor probable, in that sense I support a net neutrality as posted in my graphic, a simple law stating that Internet service providers and governments must treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently basis of user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.


We don't need a regulatory body, we don't need a commission, czar or turn it into a utility like my gas bill. I think that's way to far in the other direction.
 
This has gottan really nuts.

People who are against Net Neutrality are against it for purely political reasons and nothing more.

There is no reason to do away with Net Neutrality, to do so would be incredibly harmful to small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovation, things conservatives claim to champion.

The only people, THE ONLY people who benefit from Net Neutrality being torn down is big corporations.

There is no more transparent issue than this one that clearly shows what side many extremist and ignorant conservatives are on and that isn't regular folks.
 
Mithros said:
Again, you're missing the point. You're paying for that bandwidth. If you watch Netflix, or Hulu, or Amazon Prime, or host a website.. it doesn't matter. All of those packets should be treated the same. How an ISP handles peak vs average bandwidth is entirely up to the agreement between you and the ISP. An ISP can throttle it's biggest data users without violating net neutrality.

What we're talking about is throttling down one provider like Hulu, but throttling up another provider like NetFlix. And all of the traffic is travelling over the same exact network.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the often cited Comcast/NetFlix issue has nothing to do wit that scenario. Also, while the traffic is traveling on the same network, the path it takes to get from point to point differs based on the path it takes. Indeed, the reason that Netflix was slowed during the peering contract dispute, rather than stopped all together, was because Netflix traffic simply routed through other peering relationships with the Comcast network. It wasn't "throttled", it was given the same QoS as any traffic coming from those other internet providers.

So, does Net Neutrality enforce topology decisions for ISPs? Are ISPs now required to create peering relationships with all other networks to ensure equal access?
 
Jetboogieman said:
This has gottan really nuts.

People who are against Net Neutrality are against it for purely political reasons and nothing more.

There is no reason to do away with Net Neutrality, to do so would be incredibly harmful to small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovation, things conservatives claim to champion.

The only people, THE ONLY people who benefit from Net Neutrality being torn down is big corporations.

There is no more transparent issue than this one that clearly shows what side many extremist and ignorant conservatives are on and that isn't regular folks.
Click to expand...

False. Your statement was born of a wrong generalization and didn't get better from there.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Cruz is just another republocrat, will say enough to stir the pot and get headlines for his own run, so I am not to impressed with that guy.

I'm a little less of an isolationist but I am also in the firm camp that we've had enough war for a country. I am also in the camp of removing marriage as a government institution, that said, like you I am also a realist, I know these things are not likely nor probable, in that sense I support a net neutrality as posted in my graphic, a simple law stating that Internet service providers and governments must treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently basis of user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

We don't need a regulatory body, we don't need a commission, czar or turn it into a utility like my gas bill. I think that's way to far in the other direction.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone who doesn't like the utility option actually put forth a clear, reasonable, realistic alternative.

And I agree with you entirely. I would be far more interested in passing legislation mandating that all entities must treat data on the internet equally as you say, except in situations of legitimate network congestion issues where there are no other reasonable solutions. The issue with such a law is that it still would need regulation by SOME government body or else it'd have no teeth, and I don't necessarily mind the FCC being that body. But I agree with you, I'd prefer that method to the utility method IF there's legitimate grounds for the government to be able to enforce such a law.

Also agree with you on my general neutral to sour view of Cruz. Doesn't impress me much, and instances like this are a great example of why.
 
Jetboogieman said:
This has gottan really nuts.

People who are against Net Neutrality are against it for purely political reasons and nothing more.

There is no reason to do away with Net Neutrality, to do so would be incredibly harmful to small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovation, things conservatives claim to champion.

The only people, THE ONLY people who benefit from Net Neutrality being torn down is big corporations.

There is no more transparent issue than this one that clearly shows what side many extremist and ignorant conservatives are on and that isn't regular folks.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is against it. Most folks oppose Franken's bill, because there's no telling what that bill will do. The Democrats don't have a good track record for passing legislation that is honest, transparent and isn't confused, convoluted and over-reaching. They're currently notorious for passing legislation that is, "written in a tortured way", so that they can take advantage of the, "stupidity of the American people".
 
Mithros said:
Your selective quoting is quite telling.

It's not exactly intellectually honest to concentrate on half of a statement, and ignore the bold.

Why do you continue to ignore that option? You cannot claim to be for Net Neutrality, but against any means of actually achieving it. So once again, would you support any means of ensuring net neutrality?
Click to expand...
:doh
I am quoting to that which I am responding. No matter how much you may complain about that, there is nothing wrong or intellectually dishonest about it.

As to what you emboldened. It was irrelevant and as such I was not responding to it. That shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.
Especially as it is dishonest to try and discuss that which the topic isn't about and not even being argued.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thank you.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone who doesn't like the utility option actually put forth a clear, reasonable, realistic alternative.

And I agree with you entirely. I would be far more interested in passing legislation mandating that all entities must treat data on the internet equally as you say, except in situations of legitimate network congestion issues where there are no other reasonable solutions. The issue with such a law is that it still would need regulation by SOME government body or else it'd have no teeth, and I don't necessarily mind the FCC being that body. But I agree with you, I'd prefer that method to the utility method IF there's legitimate grounds for the government to be able to enforce such a law.

Also agree with you on my general neutral to sour view of Cruz. Doesn't impress me much, and instances like this are a great example of why.
Click to expand...



rest assured, no matter what happens, we can be guaranteed the government will **** it up to benefit themselves and those they protect.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
As it is is a system with documented cases of ISP's not operating under net neutrality.

So, you're saying he's on record with not wanting net neutrality then?
Click to expand...
I see. You are one of those people that likes trying to put words into another's mouth. Sorry that doesn't work with me.

I am pointing out what he said.
Funny thing here is that folks have been saying that we have NN as it is.


What do I think he means?
I am pretty sure that in context of all that he has said, it means he does not want it to be regulated as a Utility, just as it isn't now.
It is funny how partisan hacks can't see that.
Are you one of those partisan hacks?
 
obvious Child said:
In a sense Cruz is farming the idiots for their votes.
Click to expand...

In a sense, you share Professor Gruber's view of the electorate. We can't all come up to your standard of intelligence--why, Cruz himself probably misses it by a mile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom