Disgusting GOP effort to defund net neutrality protections

[cpwill]

Nobody is being forced to receive internet services. Analogy fail.

:shrug: Democrats didn't want to force anyone to receive healthcare services. Just purchase it.

 

[natsb]

Nothing wrong with that? There's plenty wrong with that. Only having 2 providers is collusion. Collision between businesses is never good for the consumer. Sometimes I wonder who is more for free markets. Because of their love affair with businesses Republicans often seem to be definitely against free market policies. Anyway thankfully this net neutrality should offer some protection from the ISP's.

Let me try to type it slower... Only having two providers is the local Government's decision. It has nothing to do with collusion between the two companies. The part where the companies work together is with the access fees. That way, you only have one physical cable running to your home. They are still competing hard for your money against each other.

 

[Kobie]

Democrats periodically get to control government. That's one of the major reasons why you distrust government power - you recognize that you will not always be in charge of it, making the decisions you feel are wise.

That is something that I think a lot of liberals who have celebrated Obama's expansion of Executive Authority haven't really dealt with yet - he is creating a lot of precedents for the next Republican President to use in dramatically changing healthcare, tax, or immigration policy without the consent of Congress.



Firstly, I am (barely) for net neutrality, but only with a sunset provision. I recognize that what we have functions as a monopoly. I simply also have the ability to recognize that people who disagree with me can have good arguments for doing so, and conservatives who argue that putting the government in a position to control, shape, and steer information is dangerous are correct when they do so.



:shrug: leading Democrats have been advocating for bringing it back for some time now. Why would I want to give them that power over not radio but the internet?

As near as I can tell, many of the same people advocating for giving government power over media content are the same ones who have a history of not seeing the problem with government steering or controlling media content. So, the relevant question to ask someone such as yourself is: do you want Republicans to be in a position where they can steer, shape, or control the media that we get?

What "leading Democrats" are out there fighting for the Fairness Doctrine to return?

 

[Kobie]

I believe you missed the point. That is exactly what Net Neutrality is. It gives the Government the sole right to "steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get". That might sound good to you under a Democrat administration, but will it give you the same warm fuzzies under a Republican administration.

No, that is not what net neutrality is. You're wrong. Period, end of conversation.

 

[cpwill]

What "leading Democrats" are out there fighting for the Fairness Doctrine to return?

Well, off the top of my head Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Dick Durbin come to mind...

 

[natsb]

Guess I forgot to wear my mind-reading pants today.

Given the utter bull**** the conservatives who populate this place accuse liberals of on a daily basis, discerning sarcasm is not the easiest thing in the world.

Understood. I will not deny that I have often suffered from "panties in a bundle" syndrome because I failed to see the nuance in a post.

 

[cpwill]

No, that is not what net neutrality is. You're wrong. Period, end of conversation.

No, it is what net neutrality is. It takes that power out of the hand of private providers, and puts it in the hands of government, under the argument that the companies are abusing the market (which they are) and government can be trusted not to (which it can't).

 

[natsb]

Nobody is being forced to receive internet services. Analogy fail.

My point was, and still is about being forced to pay; not receive. Analogy stands.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Let me try to type it slower... Only having two providers is the local Government's decision. It has nothing to do with collusion between the two companies. The part where the companies work together is with the access fees. That way, you only have one physical cable running to your home. They are still competing hard for your money against each other.

LOL.. They would be competing harder if I had more then 2 choices. That's simple business 101. Since we're resorting to name calling maybe business 101 is too complicated for you? The companies lobbied for this. Yes the governments are involved, but the companies paid for that decision.

Anyway as I mentioned before when the #1 and #2 biggest cable companies ADMIT they seldom compete against each other you can't blame all of that on the local governments, something else is going on.

 

[Kobie]

Well, off the top of my head Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Dick Durbin come to mind...

Pelosi: 2008; has been in the House for about six centuries. Did she bring back the FD during the two years the Dems controlled both chambers and the Oval Office?
Clinton: 2009; mentioned it as a possible solution to a perceived issue.
Durbin: Factcheck link jumps straight to The Hill front page.

That's it?

 

[Cardinal]

:shrug: Should republicans be able to steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get?

I think Republicans should educate themselves on Net Neutrality before automatically assuming that just because Obama is for it, it must be bad.

 

[Kobie]

No, it is what net neutrality is. It takes that power out of the hand of private providers, and puts it in the hands of government, under the argument that the companies are abusing the market (which they are) and government can be trusted not to (which it can't).

NN does not give the government control over internet content. It just doesn't.

 

[Kobie]

I think Republicans should educate themselves

I agree.

 

[cpwill]

Pelosi: 2008; has been in the House for about six centuries. Did she bring back the FD during the two years the Dems controlled both chambers and the Oval Office?
Clinton: 2009; mentioned it as a possible solution to a perceived issue.
Durbin: Factcheck link jumps straight to The Hill front page.

That's it?

:shrug: do you deny that any of them are leading Democrats, or that it is liberals who advocated for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?

 

[cpwill]

NN does not give the government control over internet content. It just doesn't.

Merely the means.

I can't help but notice that you continue to refuse to answer the question about the degree of power that you want Republicans to exert over the internet. I can imagine the fun we would have had in 2004 with accusations that Karl Rove & Co. were trying to shape war-coverage or access to things like images of Iraqi dead.

I think Republicans should educate themselves on Net Neutrality before automatically assuming that just because Obama is for it, it must be bad.

If anyone was using that logic, I would agree. But as I recall, Republicans just passed Trade Promotion Authority for the President, indicating that perhaps your view of their decision-making process is inaccurate.

 

[Henrin]

I think Republicans should educate themselves on Net Neutrality before automatically assuming that just because Obama is for it, it must be bad.

Where was post #57 wrong?

 

[Cardinal]

Merely the means.

I can't help but notice that you continue to refuse to answer the question about the degree of power that you want Republicans to exert over the internet. I can imagine the fun we would have had in 2004 with accusations that Karl Rove & Co. were trying to shape war-coverage or access to things like images of Iraqi dead.



If anyone was using that logic, I would agree. But as I recall, Republicans just passed Trade Promotion Authority for the President, indicating that perhaps your view of their decision-making process is inaccurate.

I think you hit respond to the wrong poster.

 

[Kobie]

:shrug: do you deny that any of them are leading Democrats, or that it is liberals who advocated for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?

See, this is the fundamental dishonesty of your argument. One person outright advocated it; one alluded to it; and you're acting as if it's a fundamental plank in the party platform.

Have a relative handful of "leading Democrats" advocated for the FD's return? Sure.
Have Democrats done ANYTHING legislatively to bring it back? Nothing substantive, if anything at all.

Ted Cruz is a "leading Republican," and he thinks George Soros is leading a UN effort to ban golf. I guess that means I should get my clubs regripped now.

TX Sen Candidate Ted Cruz Spouts Paranoid Fantasy About United Nations/George Soros Conspiracy To Eliminate Golf | ThinkProgress

You don't like net neutrality because Obama is for it.

 

[Cardinal]

Where was post #57 wrong?

His post doesn't address what net neutrality itself is. Ever since some guy called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" conservatives have made a concerted effort to not know what it is. I've been in about three or four of these debates, and you simply cannot educate conservatives on this topic. They won't read any explanations, they won't read the history of the internet, they won't read the definition. Nothing short of strapping them down and prying their eyes open Clockwork Orange-style can get them to so much as read the Wikipedia page on net neutrality.

As far as they're concerned, net neutrality is "government control" and that's the end of that.

 

[cpwill]

See, this is the fundamental dishonesty of your argument. One person outright advocated it; one alluded to it; and you're acting as if it's a fundamental plank in the party platform.

That's ironic. You accuse others of dishonesty while dishonestly representing their arguments

Have a relative handful of "leading Democrats" advocated for the FD's return? Sure.

Good to see you admit that those advocating for the Fairness Doctrines returns are Democrats.

Have Democrats done ANYTHING legislatively to bring it back? Nothing substantive, if anything at all.

H.R. 4710 2004 MEDIA Act

Introduced by (Democrat - but hey, let's admit it, we knew that) Congresswoman Slaughter, no state-level politician or freshman she.

For the nearly 20 years she has been in Congress, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has fought for fairness on the airwaves. Her latest legislation on the topic is HR 4710, "The MEDIA Act," which would reinstate the fairness doctrine and ensure that broadcasters present discussions of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Read the transcript of a web exclusive conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Slaughter below. Also on the NOW site: find out more about the fairness doctrine and media consolidation.

Transcript

BILL MOYERS: You were elected in Congress in 1986.

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: That was the year the fairness doctrine went down and you've been fighting ever since to resurrect it. Why?

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: I have. And, you know, I was so committed to it and I kept doing bills. Because the airwaves belong to the people. I think we've good and sufficient examples now of what has happened to us with media consolidation — the fact that the information coming to us is controlled, the fact that at least half the people in the United States have no voice because they're not allowed in on talk radio....

Now comes the part where you say "but it failed" and I point out that failing at a goal does not mean that you did not demonstrate the tendency to desire the goal, which is the concern. Taking this power and making it something that requires a legislative action - with all kinds of disclosure, transparency, the opportunity for public input, public pressure, public reaction, and making it something that requires only a bureaucratic action - with none of that transparency, opportunity for public pressure, etc., and then extending that power over the internet is indeed dangerous.

Ted Cruz is a "leading Republican," and he thinks George Soros is leading a UN effort to ban golf. I guess that means I should get my clubs regripped now.

A) No, he doesn't. He thinks that the UN is attempting to extend control over local areas in the US using rules that could include golf courses in the name of the environment.
B) If he did would you trust him with the power to determine George Soros' ability to engage in political speech?

No, you wouldn't. And you shouldn't.

You don't like net neutrality because Obama is for it.

:lol: What part of I am actually in favor of net neutrality skipped by you there, sonny jim?

Look, you even responded to the post

...Firstly, I am (barely) for net neutrality.... I simply also have the ability to recognize that people who disagree with me can have good arguments for doing so

 

[Kobie]

One bill introduced. 11 years ago. Never made it out of committee.

 

[cpwill]

I think you hit respond to the wrong poster.

?

Did you not state in this post right here, by you

I think Republicans should educate themselves on Net Neutrality before automatically assuming that just because Obama is for it, it must be bad.

?

 

[cpwill]

Now comes the part where you say "but it failed" and I point out that failing at a goal does not mean that you did not demonstrate the tendency to desire the goal, which is the concern.

One bill introduced. 11 years ago. Never made it out of committee.

Hey! Success! :lol:



Hey- but I can't help but notice that you completely failed whatsoever to respond to the rest of the post?



Huh, and didn't even quote the post you were responding to, as though you didn't want me to know that you'd responded unless I came looking for it. Funny, that.

 

[Cardinal]

?

Did you not state in this post right here, by you




?

Okay, then your reply is just a meaningless non-sequitur, and doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen anything from you to suggest you know what net neutrality is.

 

[cpwill]

Okay, then your reply is just a meaningless non-sequitur, and doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen anything from you to suggest you know what net neutrality is.

Your claim was about Republicans decision-making process - you were arguing that they opposed net neutrality not for any particular reason inherent to the policy, but rather because Obama was for it. The counter that Republicans have demonstrate that that is not, in fact, how they make decisions, is rather germane .