• 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

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



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?



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.

Unlike you, I don't make judgement calls without hearing ALL the arguments from both sides and giving thought to all the arguments. Without knowing what the legislators were trying to accomplish, I won't say it's good or bad.

If it is actually what you say and just a sinister plot to prevent competition, I'd agree it's bad but I don't think your version is the unimpeachable truth and I don't care enough to research it, myself.

I only clicked on this thread out of curiosity and responded to the first stupid assertion I saw. It just happened to be yours.
 
Unlike you, I don't make judgement calls without hearing ALL the arguments from both sides and giving thought to all the arguments. Without knowing what the legislators were trying to accomplish, I won't say it's good or bad.

The laws were made via lobbying by internet providers to ban competition....and you don't know what the legislators were trying to accomplish? I know you're trying to avoid the obvious in an attempt to avoid looking silly, but your evasion isn't just silly. It's sad.

If it is actually what you say and just a sinister plot to prevent competition, I'd agree it's bad but I don't think your version is the unimpeachable truth and I don't care enough to research it, myself.

And if you had to guess, what would be the motive of a corporation for pushing the illegalization of competition? Just guess.

I only clicked on this thread out of curiosity and responded to the first stupid assertion I saw. It just happened to be yours.

This was your first contribution to the thread.

If a state or local government wants to supply broadband to it's citizens, the decision is being made at the level where it should be made, by the people on a state and local level. At this point, I don't see an issue and there's nothing wrong with Obama "looking into it". Now if he proposes something that actually does trample the rights of people or is an overstep of federal authority, we can just wait until there's something beyond speculation to flog mercilessly. :)

You didn't respond to me until three posts later, in which you confessed you had done no research and given no thought to nations that had attempted the government you liked best. It's a lot like the rest of your posts in this thread, actually: unresearched, ill though-out and lazy, in that you can't even be bothered to click back to find your original motivation for entering the discussion in the first place. But now you've buried yourself so deep in one side that you can't even allow yourself to guess why a corporation would lobby to ban competition for itself without your entire position unraveling. If I had to guess, I'd say you were wishing you had stopped at that first post when you wrote something decently reasonable.
 
You really take it hard when someone debunks your falsehoods, don't you? Sorry, Cardinal, but when I see complete bullcrap like your idiotic assertion that supporting the rights of lobbyists to lobby is to applaud laws that prevent competition, I have to call it.

You got caught busted for "just sayin' stuff". Get over it. If you don't like getting busted for it, don't say stuff you know is bullcrap.
 
Last edited:
Here it comes, the first roadblock in the internet, setup by the federal govt. And a violation of states rights. The govt has no power to control personal communications, certainly not to tell cities that they cant make laws prohibiting govts from running their own ISPs. And Obama wants to make YOU pay more taxes for it.

The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.



Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see

I see. Since the telecom companies couldn't stop it through the courts, they've paid politicians to legislate their competition away. Note that telecom companies can still compete in any market. What they want is to stop anyone else, including LOCAL govts (who don't have tons of money) from entering the fray and offering services.

What Obama seeks to do (which is merely ask the FCC to regulate this) is a good thing.

Lafayette, Louisiana did this. It provides the ONLY way for a citizen to get decent, reasonable cost internet. It's not cheap. And it's not the fastest. But it's something that gives customers a choice. AT&T and others sued the sh___ out of the city, ultimately losing.

What we have right now is a near monopoly on internet services. We have Time Warner/Comcast (when the merger is approved) and AT&T/DirecTV, with Verizon pulling up the rear. Verizon and TW/Comcast don't operate in the same areas. So any given area has two choices: TW/Comcast or Verizon, on the one hand, or one of those and AT&T on the other hand.

The cost to enter a market is prohibitive for companies, so these companies operate almost exclusively within given areas. Because of that, cost is exorbitant, service is slow and sloppy, and caps are increasingly used so that customers are charged internet usage like a utility. If you don't know what your bill is supposed to be, it's hard to catch fraudulent charges, something that AT&T does (I have personal experience with that, and it's being investigated by the govt for that currently).

A local govt makes a profit on the service, but is more concerned about its citizens getting service it pays for, unlike companies. Why shouldn't a local govt get a profit on a service that almost all its citizens use? The other companies can still offer their services. All they have to do is compete by offering good service at reasonable cost. Easy.

Here in Dallas, the city offers electricity. But we're unregulated, so we can also cost shop and sign contracts for lower rates. Deregulation. Which is what Republicans like, right? It works. We have both a government entity AND corporations competing for our business.

In my area we have Time Warner and AT&T. AT&T has a cap. AT&T includes fraudulent charges on its bills, which you must catch (if you can). You can't get wireless service from Time Warner unless you buy one of the most expensive speeds. There is no rational reason for that, except Time Warner wants to fleece you.

AT&T requires you to use its equipment, for which it charges you a monthly fee.

It's a racket. Telecom companies are the most hated in the country, for a reason.

It's getting to where people NEED the internet to conduct business and live a middle class or better life in many communities in our country. It's how you pay bills, communicate with your ins. co., buy insurance, shop, look up your utility and credit card and bank accounts, job hunt, remote in to your office e-mail, etc.

Lafayette, Louisiana was very brave and innovative to do what it did. It seems to be working well. There's no reason it shouldn't provide internet services to its citizens, just like it provides water and gas and electricity.
 
Last edited:
You really take it hard when someone debunks your falsehoods, don't you? Sorry, Cardinal, but when I see complete bullcrap like your idiotic assertion that supporting the rights of lobbyists to lobby is to applaud laws that prevent competition, I have to call it.

You got caught busted for "just sayin' stuff". Get over it. If you don't like getting busted for it, don't say stuff you know is bullcrap.

Since I've never argued about whether or not the isps had the right to lobby, you've reduced yourself to falsehoods. How much further can you drop? But fine, since you want to make this about rights, then it's the Federal Government's right to overturn those state laws. Bam, problem solved.
 
Since I've never argued about whether or not the isps had the right to lobby, you've reduced yourself to falsehoods. How much further can you drop? But fine, since you want to make this about rights, then it's the Federal Government's right to overturn those state laws. Bam, problem solved.

Wow. It's like we are having completely different conversations here. You sure are good at talking but you're not worth a damn at listening. Post that in levels of stupid. ;)
 
For example.

lob·by
seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.
"it is recommending that booksellers lobby their representatives"
synonyms: seek to influence, try to persuade, bring pressure to bear on, importune, sway, solicit, appeal to, pressurize

pe·ti·tion
1. noun a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause

1. verb make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a particular cause

Please, someone show others of the forum where it states in the US Constitution where it is permissible to lobby (pay or buy) to influence congress and their ilk. Don't cite the SCOTUS ruling in reference to Citizens United, it does NOT apply here.


This is one of many reasons why lobbyists should not have any influence over elected officials;

All told, seventy-nine former state officials, lobbyists, and others have been since charged in the investigation, and at least 76 have been convicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ryan

Lobbyists breed corruption.
 
Last edited:
lob·by
seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.
"it is recommending that booksellers lobby their representatives"
synonyms: seek to influence, try to persuade, bring pressure to bear on, importune, sway, solicit, appeal to, pressurize

pe·ti·tion
1. noun a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause

1. verb make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a particular cause

Please, someone show others of the forum where it states in the US Constitution where it is permissible to lobby (pay or buy) to influence congress and their ilk. Don't cite the SCOTUS ruling in reference to Citizens United, it does NOT apply here.


This is one of many reasons why lobbyists should not have any influence over elected officials;


George Ryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lobbyists breed corruption.

You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!
 
You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!

Show us in the constitution where it says lobbyists.

I specifically asked people not to cite citizens united (e.g. freedom of speech = money) :doh
 
Show us in the constitution where it says lobbyists.

I specifically asked people not to cite citizens united (e.g. freedom of speech = money) :doh
:doh
Nobody quoted Citizens united.
:lamo
So again:
You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!

And whether you realize it or not, you can have anybody you choose to represent your petition to the Government. Duh!
 
:doh
Nobody quoted Citizens united.
:lamo
So again:
You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!

And whether you realize it or not, you can have anybody you choose to represent your petition to the Government. Duh!

Duh, I'm talking about lobbyists, since you need to be drawn a picture.
 
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.

Read up, there's pages and pages of answers.
 
lob·by
seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.
"it is recommending that booksellers lobby their representatives"
synonyms: seek to influence, try to persuade, bring pressure to bear on, importune, sway, solicit, appeal to, pressurize

pe·ti·tion
1. noun a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause

1. verb make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a particular cause

Please, someone show others of the forum where it states in the US Constitution where it is permissible to lobby (pay or buy) to influence congress and their ilk. Don't cite the SCOTUS ruling in reference to Citizens United, it does NOT apply here.


This is one of many reasons why lobbyists should not have any influence over elected officials;


George Ryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lobbyists breed corruption.

We already posted where in the constitution its expressly allowed, however, if you dont think its in there, then the 9th and 10th apply. Its not delegated to the federal govt, therefore it is a right of the people. Otherwsie, show me where paying someone to petition govt is disallowed in the constitution. Furthermore:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Present-day legislative complexities are such that individual members of Congress cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. Yet full realization of the American ideal of government by elected representatives depends to no small extent on their ability to properly evaluate such pressures. Otherwise the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned out by the voice of special interest groups seeking favored treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public weal. This is the evil which the Lobbying Act was designed to help prevent. 16

Toward that end, Congress has not sought to prohibit these pressures. It has merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose. It wants only to know who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much. It acted in the same spirit and for a similar purpose in passing the Federal Corrupt Practices Act - to maintain the integrity of a basic governmental process. See Burroughs and Cannon v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 545 .

In which the Supreme Court confirmed that lobbying was a right, and that congress also had the power to regulate it narrowly.
 
You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!

Mindblowing, isn't it? I gave up on the guy. You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
 
:doh
Nobody quoted Citizens united.
:lamo
So again:
You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!

And whether you realize it or not, you can have anybody you choose to represent your petition to the Government. Duh!
Duh, I'm talking about lobbyists, since you need to be drawn a picture.
:doh

You clearly didn't read what you quoted.
Let me draw for you a single line picture to help.

Read what I underlined. Duh!

Again:
You really do not understand that the First Amendment "Right" to petition the government "for a redress of grievances" includes lobbying?
Wow!​

And whether you realize it or not, you can have anybody you choose to represent your petition to the Government. Duh!


Why you need to be told that that chosen rep falls in to the category of lobbyist is beyond me. :shrug:
 
We already posted where in the constitution its expressly allowed, however, if you dont think its in there, then the 9th and 10th apply. Its not delegated to the federal govt, therefore it is a right of the people. Otherwsie, show me where paying someone to petition govt is disallowed in the constitution. Furthermore:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes



In which the Supreme Court confirmed that lobbying was a right, and that congress also had the power to regulate it narrowly.

$1.1 billion coming to the 2016 election cycle, most in coke money, which means, if you can't win something, either by influence or fairly and squarely, just buy it. We get the lawmakers rich people purchase.
 
$1.1 billion coming to the 2016 election cycle, most in coke money, which means, if you can't win something, either by influence or fairly and squarely, just buy it. We get the lawmakers rich people purchase.

If you have evidence of corruption, present it.
 
$1.1 billion coming to the 2016 election cycle, most in coke money, which means, if you can't win something, either by influence or fairly and squarely, just buy it. We get the lawmakers rich people purchase.
Its been that way forever. The rich have always written the rules and always will. Deal with it. :2wave:

.
 
I thought Dems said voter fraud wasnt a big deal? Not sure how this proves rich people are bribing politicians though. Where is the evidence of rich people buying this turnout?

Walker recall election.
 
$1.1 billion coming to the 2016 election cycle, most in coke money, which means, if you can't win something, either by influence or fairly and squarely, just buy it. We get the lawmakers rich people purchase.

That is modern America, teh corporate state is up for grabs to the highest bidder.
 
Back
Top Bottom