• 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

Thanks for proving my point. He claims we are discussing Cruz and you claim we are discussing net neutrality. Why don't you two hook up on IM and get your stories straight. In the mean time, please point to the post of his that explains net neutrality. That should be easy even for you since you claim he has been doing it for page after page. Or, you could just butt out and go find another thread to post your hit and run one liners.

We are discussing Cruz's idiotic comments on net neutrality. Please do TRY to keep up.

Net Neutrality has been explained to you multiple times in this thread. Go find it your goddamn self.
 
We are discussing Cruz's idiotic comments on net neutrality.
No Kobe, you are not. Nor have you.
I seriously doubt you even know what he said in context.
It appears as though hardly anybody read what he actually said and are just following lockstep like a good little liberal lemming with the idiocy that Franken spewed.



So why don't you at least keep up by reading what he actually said, because it was not idiotic.

Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post
 
No Kobe, you are not. Nor have you.
I seriously doubt you even know what he said in context.
It appears as though hardly anybody read what he actually said and are just following lockstep like a good little liberal lemming with the idiocy that Franken spewed.



So why don't you at least keep up by reading what he actually said, because it was not idiotic.

Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post

It most certainly is idiotic. You don't understand what net neutrality is, and neither does Ted Cruz.

Plus, what he tweeted was "NN is Obamacare for the internet," which is BREATHTAKINGLY stupid.
 
We are discussing Cruz's idiotic comments on net neutrality. Please do TRY to keep up.

Net Neutrality has been explained to you multiple times in this thread. Go find it your goddamn self.

Lol. No one is discussing Cruzs comments in this thread. And why should I search the thread for comments I know don't exist. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up or shut the hell up.
 
Lol. No one is discussing Cruzs comments in this thread. And why should I search the thread for comments I know don't exist. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up or shut the hell up.

The entire point of the thread, at least at first, was Cruz's comments.

I'm not the one who explained net neutrality to you. Hatuey did, during the process of him utterly destroying you in this thread. Do your own homework.

PROTIP: If you're going to argue a topic before jumping the rails and making it yet another hackish rant against "leftists," I would advise you to have one iota of an idea of what the hell you're talking about, because on this subject, you look utterly clueless, and I'm pretty sure I know the reason why.
 
I think it's good thing for my isp to not treat different sites differently.

I know I wouldn't pay for internet service if it did that.

We don't need governmental interference, just market forces.
 
I think it's good thing for my isp to not treat different sites differently.

I know I wouldn't pay for internet service if it did that.

We don't need governmental interference, just market forces.

"Market forces" are what's making legislated net neutrality essential in the first place, because "market forces," in the form of ISP monopolies, are champing at the bit to treat different sites differently.
 
"Market forces" are what's making legislated net neutrality essential in the first place, because "market forces," in the form of ISP monopolies, are champing at the bit to treat different sites differently.

No. The consumer provides the market force in question. They do so by conveying to current provider that their continued service provision is dependent upon their stance on this issue.

Of course, there is the possibility that the majority of consumers simply don't care. In which case, well, that would still be the market informing the providers what kind of service they want. But then, of course, if all companies do thing one way and there is a sizable piece of the market that doesn't like it, that does lend itself to the creation of an alternative.

I don't agree that legislation against internet SERVICE providers is essential. It's right there in the name.
 
The entire point of the thread, at least at first, was Cruz's comments.

I'm not the one who explained net neutrality to you. Hatuey did, during the process of him utterly destroying you in this thread. Do your own homework.

PROTIP: If you're going to argue a topic before jumping the rails and making it yet another hackish rant against "leftists," I would advise you to have one iota of an idea of what the hell you're talking about, because on this subject, you look utterly clueless, and I'm pretty sure I know the reason why.

Yes,AT FIRST, this thread was about Cruz. The discussion between hatuey and I was never about Cruz or his comments. Since you don't know but simply pretend to know, WHAT net neutrality is isn't the issue. What Obama plans to do about it is. As usual you have interjected yourself into a conversation you don't understand and added exactly zero to the debate. Bravo
 
No. The consumer provides that market force. They do so by conveying to current provider that their continued service provision is dependent upon their stance on this issue.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, individual ISPs generally have monopolies on their respective markets. I live in a metro area of close to a million, and I have TWO choices for broadband internet. And both are lobbying HARD against net neutrality. Now, in your market-driven fantasy land, some scrappy young entrepreneur would start in his garage his own ISP that treats all internet traffic equally and eventually dominate the competition. I'm sure Time Warner would take that lying down.
 
Well, in case you haven't noticed, individual ISPs generally have monopolies on their respective markets. I live in a metro area of close to a million, and I have TWO choices for broadband internet.

Currently.

Now, in your market-driven fantasy land, some scrappy young entrepreneur would start in his garage his own ISP that treats all internet traffic equally and eventually dominate the competition. I'm sure Time Warner would take that lying down.

Take it lying down? No, I imagine they would have to change their policies if they were losing that much business.
 
Yes,AT FIRST, this thread was about Cruz. The discussion between hatuey and I was never about Cruz or his comments. Since you don't know but simply pretend to know, WHAT net neutrality is isn't the issue. What Obama plans to do about it is. As usual you have interjected yourself into a conversation you don't understand and added exactly zero to the debate. Bravo

Actually, Hatuey was the one directly addressing Cruz's comments the entire time. YOU turned it into some freakshow rant against Obama. Hatuey EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU that Obama's "plans" (as nefarious as they surely are, in your fever dreams) weren't what he was advocating, just NN as a concept, and you still kicked and screamed against it because of your irrational fear of getting liberal AIDS because you might somehow agree with what one of those accursed "leftists" is advocating.

You can backtrack now and try to make it about me, but this thread is here and your breathtakingly stupid comments are preserved for posterity.
 
Currently.

Been that way for well over a decade.

Take it lying down? No, I imagine they would have to change their policies if they were losing that much business.

Yes, those bootstrappy young entrepreneurs will put a dent in TW's business.

Fine, oppose NN. I hope you enjoy DP loading a minute a refresh and paying 50 bucks a month for Netflix once your ISP figures out how to extort them.
 
Well, in case you haven't noticed, individual ISPs generally have monopolies on their respective markets. I live in a metro area of close to a million, and I have TWO choices for broadband internet. And both are lobbying HARD against net neutrality. Now, in your market-driven fantasy land, some scrappy young entrepreneur would start in his garage his own ISP that treats all internet traffic equally and eventually dominate the competition. I'm sure Time Warner would take that lying down.

If you have two choices, that isn't a monopoly, but I bet you have more than two choices.
 
If you have two choices, that isn't a monopoly, but I bet you have more than two choices.

Getting ****ed in the ass or ****ed in the mouth are two choices, but it's a monopoly on my available holes.
 
Getting ****ed in the ass or ****ed in the mouth are two choices, but it's a monopoly on my available holes.

Your two ISP choices are ****ing you?
 
Been that way for well over a decade.

If you and your fellows don't like it, you have the power to change it. The majority must like it just fine.

Yes, those bootstrappy young entrepreneurs will put a dent in TW's business.

Well not if the people in your area don't care. In which case, why should I?

Fine, oppose NN. I hope you enjoy DP loading a minute a refresh

:roll: Yes, yes, I'm sure Verizon has it in for Schweddy.
 
It most certainly is idiotic. You don't understand what net neutrality is, and neither does Ted Cruz.

Plus, what he tweeted was "NN is Obamacare for the internet," which is BREATHTAKINGLY stupid.
:doh
:lamo
You are again showing that you do not know what you are talking about.

Since your ignorance is painfully obvious, why don't you at least keep up by reading what he actually said, because it was not idiotic.

Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post
 
Your two ISP choices are ****ing you?

Well, considering what Time Warner charges for broadband, kinda, and if they get their way, they'll be ****ing me more.
 
Actually, Hatuey was the one directly addressing Cruz's comments the entire time. YOU turned it into some freakshow rant against Obama. Hatuey EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU that Obama's "plans" (as nefarious as they surely are, in your fever dreams) weren't what he was advocating, just NN as a concept, and you still kicked and screamed against it because of your irrational fear of getting liberal AIDS because you might somehow agree with what one of those accursed "leftists" is advocating.

You can backtrack now and try to make it about me, but this thread is here and your breathtakingly stupid comments are preserved for posterity.
Making it about you? Lol. You are irrelevant to this discussion. You add exactly zero
 
:doh
:lamo
You are again showing that you do not know what you are talking about.

Since your ignorance is painfully obvious, why don't you at least keep up by reading what he actually said, because it was not idiotic.

Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post

It was stupendously idiotic.

Making it about you? Lol. You are irrelevant to this discussion. You add exactly zero

I'm sorry you can't handle having had your ass handed to you by someone who adds "exactly zero," but maybe you should bow out of this thread before you further embarrass yourself.
 
OK, let's parse Cruz's column for a moment. I'm skipping parts, because it's long, but feel free to fill in the gaps if you feel I've missed something.

Never before has it been so easy to turn an idea into a business. With a simple Internet connection, some ingenuity and a lot of hard work, anyone today can create a new service or app or start selling products nationwide.

Irrelevant to net neutrality. An app is not an ISP.

In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running.

As opposed to an internet service provider, which is apparently free to start up.

First, we must abandon the idea of further taxing Internet access and sales. At this very moment, online retailers face an enormous threat because Washington may pass a massive, new Internet sales tax during the next two months, in the lame-duck session of Congress. As the hashtag puts it, #NoNetTax.

Literally nothing to do with net neutrality. I agree with him on this instance, but it has zero to do with the discussion here.

Second, we should dismiss all plans to give nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy.

Literally nothing to do with net neutrality.

Third, we must promote growth in the technological sector, a consistent bright spot for the U.S. economy. But we won’t realize more of that dynamic growth unless we keep the Internet free from the kind of unnecessary regulation that is strangling our health-care, energy and banking industries.

And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is “net neutrality.”

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

Emphasis mine. Ted Cruz has no idea what net neutrality is. What he claims here is not it.

What net neutrality actually is has been explained multiple times in the thread.

President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?

Well, here's a boatload of bull****.

The Postal Service certainly isn't innovative NOW, but it was 100-plus years before Mark Zuckerberg's was a glimmer in his father's eye. What's better for consumers, taxis or uber? Wait until an Uber driver plows into a bridge abutment with no insurance. Ted Cruz, who I guaran-goddamn-tee has never taken Uber or Lyft in the short part of his life that they've existed, is the last person to be lecturing us on them.

That said, it's been stated multiple times in the thread that the desire for net neutrality is not automatically lockstep agreement with the idea of running the internet like a utility. There are other ways to accomplish that goal. Read and learn, don't just take this asshole's words as gospel.

If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.

Again, NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS.

Fourth, we must recognize that our constitutional rights are digital rights, too. In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting property rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.

A well-intentioned if not likely focus-group provided rant against SOPA, but a nice sentiment and one I agree with. Again, NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY.

The topic of the thread is Cruz's tweet:

CruzNetNuetrality_tweet.png


... and Franken's response to it, which is correct -- NN is not remotely comparable to Obamacare, and Ted Cruz doesn't know dick about the subject. That's it.
 
:doh
Did I say "no regulation"?
Or perhaps did I say making it a utility is what is not needed?
Would you like me to tell you?

i'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
 
i'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
And again.
Did I say "no regulation"?
Or perhaps did I say making it a utility is what is not needed?
Would you like me to tell you?

Your comment was absurd and your question irrelevant.

As I said.
It is the way that Obama wants to accomplish it which is wrong.
It does not have to be, nor should it be classified as a utility.
 
Well, considering what Time Warner charges for broadband, kinda, and if they get their way, they'll be ****ing me more.

Get wifi.
 
Back
Top Bottom