• 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!

Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

sangha said:
Oooh look! Suddenly you want to discuss the issue? OK

Tell me again about this secret bill you mentioned in this thread. What bill? In the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
Click to expand...


I've been discussing the issue, bro. where have you been? lol.



Luddites...... /facepalm
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I've been discussing the issue, bro. where have you been? lol.
Click to expand...

You have? So then you'll have no problem telling me all about this mythical bill you've been talking about. Is it in the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
 
sangha said:
You have? So then you'll have no problem telling me all about this mythical bill you've been talking about. Is it in the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
Click to expand...




okie dokie
 
:laughhat:
JasperL said:
3) repeating a baseless assertion over and over doesn't prove the baseless assertion. I've provided my evidence - it's your turn.
Click to expand...
Is that what you think you have done? Well you haven't.


JasperL said:
1) you have no evidence that's the case
Click to expand...
Wrong usual.
The rate is currently 16.8%. The fee is required. That is what will be charged, again, "if" this proposal is passed, that is the rate that will be charged if the designation goes into effect while that rate is in effect.


JasperL said:
2) you're ignoring the evidence I linked to explaining how the rate is set, and it's exactly consistent with my example.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.
 
Iron Yank said:
Why havent they released the 332 page report then? Another blind follower that denies what is really going on with this administration.
Click to expand...

Call me weird but I prefer to have some sort of detail about a regulation before I decide whether it is good or bad.

You have zero. No idea what's in that stack of paper. But you know it's bad. Interesting.
 
sangha said:
Thanks for confirming that there is no bill and your claim that there is was nothing but a lie.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming either your dishonesty in debate, or your inability to understand that in context he was speaking of what was proposed.
 
Excon said:
Thanks for confirming either your dishonesty in debate, or your inability to understand that in context he was speaking of what was proposed.
Click to expand...

So there is a bill?

Is it in the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
 
sangha said:
So there is a bill?
Click to expand...
Did I say there was a bill? Or did I say proposal?


sangha said:
Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet?
Click to expand...
That would be you. Just as you are playing a stupid game.
All you have done is confirm your dishonesty in debate. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Did I say there was a bill?
Click to expand...

The Rev said there was a bill

So is there a bill? If so, is it in the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

Or is he just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
 
sangha said:
The Rev said there was a bill
Click to expand...
And?
Are you incapable of understanding in context what is being spoken about?
In context he was speaking of the proposal. No one but you would think otherwise.
But instead of pointing that out to him you decided to play a stupid and diversionary game.
It is dishonest and uncalled for.
 
sangha said:
In what context does the word "bill" mean "a proposal,not a bill"?
Click to expand...
:doh
So you want to continue with your stupid game eh?

Again, the context of what was being spoken about.

Again;
Are you incapable of understanding in context what is being spoken about?
In context he was speaking of the proposal.​
 
Excon said:
:doh
So you want to continue with your stupid game eh?

Again, the context of what was being spoken about.

Again;
Are you incapable of understanding in context what is being spoken about?
In context he was speaking of the proposal.​
Click to expand...

His context was clear - he claimed there was a bill

He lied.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Yes

Your dishonesty is clear
Click to expand...
:naughty No, that was and still is your dishonesty.


sangha said:
There is no bill
Click to expand...

Again.
Are you incapable of understanding in context what is being spoken about?
In context he was speaking of the proposal.​

Stop with your diversionary and dishonest game.
 
sangha said:
It is yours and his dishonesty
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, that was and still is your dishonesty.



sangha said:
There is no bill
Click to expand...
:doh


Again.
Are you incapable of understanding in context what is being spoken about?
In context he was speaking of the proposal.​

No one but you would think otherwise.
But instead of pointing that out to him you chose to play a stupid and diversionary game.
It is dishonest and uncalled for.

Stop with your diversionary and dishonest game.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
:naughty
No, that was and still is your dishonesty.



:doh


Again.
Are you incapable of understanding in context what is being spoken about?
In context he was speaking of the proposal.​

No one but you would think otherwise.
But instead of pointing that out to him you chose to play a stupid and diversionary game.
It is dishonest and uncalled for.

Stop with your diversionary and dishonest game.
Click to expand...




d00d ignore it, it's not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom