• 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

apdst said:
So, you agree that there are more than a couple of other options in any given community?
Click to expand...

Your carrier in this case would be your isp, and therefore no more bound to the principles of net neutrality as comcast or time warner.
 
apdst said:
It all means nothing, if the profit margin is too low for startups to survive. I mean, let's face it, the current Democrat Party doesn't have the best track record for legislation making things better for the business community.
If profit margins are too low for startups to survive, the mega-ISP's could lower quality, to increase their profit margin and there's not damn thing anyone could do about it. Or, would you say that that scenario is impossible?
Click to expand...

fyi & fwiw
You are describing the scenario which encoding net neutrality would prevent.
That's why NN is important to maintain.
:shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
... This made me chuckle a lot. On par with root beer makes you impaired. If anything reduces apdst credibility on the subject, let it be this response.
Click to expand...

Hell, you boys can't even intelligently discuss why a net neutrality bill is so awesome; except to say that you're all right and anyone that dares question you is stupid.

But, that's just par for the course, ain't it? ;)
 
Simon W. Moon said:
fyi & fwiw
You are describing the scenario which encoding net neutrality would prevent.
That's why NN is important to maintain.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Show us how it would prevent that, because if the bill forces price controls and lowers profit margins, there's no way to prevent that scenario.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It makes one question the wisdom of responding to the author of such a comment.
There's a knowledge gap which the author may not wish to have bridged.
Click to expand...

I agree. I say we stop responding to his statements. It's like debating the merits of evolution with a creationist. Not only are they uneducated on the basics of the topic, they have no technical knowledge of the idea in question.
 
apdst said:
Here it is:

https://archive.org/details/CarolineFayardTheMoonGriffonElectionInterview

Listen to the interview, where she's all about not being a tax and spend Liberal and supports economic growth, blah, blah.

Then, 4 months later, she says:
Click to expand...

Just my 2 cents but anytime anyone declares, with a broad brush, that they hate democrats/republicans <fill-in-the-blank> immediately loses all credibility with me. To say I don't like this or that about either is one thing. As I even said, I side with dems on particular stances, all the while abhorring them, while also siding with the republicans on particular issues, even though I have currently lost faith in the party as a whole, is totally different than making across the board declarations like "I hate republicans or I hate democrats, etc."
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Al Franken is no more knowledgeable about Net Neutrality than Ted Cruz is. He is only well versed in the simplistic, stupid explanation of Net Neutrality targeting people who know zero about the actual functionality of the Internet.

I am getting very tired of the idiotic babbling from the talking heads on this subject.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Don't listen to them, get your news and info elsewhere.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
It looks like the courts have consistently ruled against net neutrality.
 
apdst said:
Show us how it would prevent that...
Click to expand...
Two scenarios.
You tell me which is better for a small business.

ONE
The small business pays for the bandwidth to provide content to the internet
Consumers pay for the bandwidth to access whatever content they would like via the internet.
​

TWO
The small business pays for the bandwidth to provide content to the internet.
Then small business also pays to have that content delivered to an ISP's customers
Consumers pay for the bandwidth to access only the internet content from businesses who can afford to be double charged for providing internet content.
​

Scenario one is what we did have until earlier this year--the good ol internet we've come to know and love.
Scenario two is what we will have if NN is not codified.

Should ISPs be able to double charge small businesses?
Does increasing a small business's overhead help small business grow?

apdst said:
... if the bill forces price controls and lowers profit margins, there's no way to prevent that scenario.
Click to expand...
Iirc, a proposed bill was already linked to here. You could take a look at it instead of positing hypotheticals.
But, if we're going to go with the hypotheticals instead, then allow me to help.

If the bill promotes puppy-kicking and grandma raping, then...Whoah..won't we all be sorry?
 
apdst said:
The only Conservatives in Congress, are in The Republican Party. There's no way I could vote for a Democrat, any Democrat and betray my Conservative principals.

A local radio show, hosted by Moon Griffon, interviewed a Democrat, who was running for office a few years ago--I forget here name--on the basis of, "Hey, folks! Let's give her a fair shot". Well, she sounded like a level headed Conservative on his show, until she got elected and swung left quicker than you can flick flies off of ****. She made some outrageous comment about Conservatives, that would make most Liberal heads spin--I wish I could remember her name, so I could dig that comment up. My point is, Democrats are going to vote Liberal, when they get into office and there's no getting around it. Some Republicans will vote Liberal. But, the only people I can expect to preserve Conservative principles, are in the Republican party, period.
Click to expand...

That's politics, I suppose. I heard Rand Paul on Bill Maher this week and he came across as a liberal friendly conservative. Using much common sense. Reminded me of his father. But put him in front of an audience of teabaggers and I expect his tone and demeanor would change totally.

Further, anytime I hear a republican talk about smaller government, I put my hand over my wallet and expect a new governmental department to form. Common sense tells me that any professional politician, democrat or republican, endorsing downsizing their own industry sends up a red flag.

They are chameleons. They change colors depending on their surroundings.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Don't listen to them, get your news and info elsewhere.
Click to expand...


..... sooooo if you don't want people getting their Net Neutrality info from people like Al Franken then why do you start a thread specifically about Al Franken explaining Net Neutrality?
 
jmotivator said:
..... sooooo if you don't want people getting their Net Neutrality info from people like Al Franken then
why do you start a thread specifically about Al Franken explaining Net Neutrality?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Just bringing up the issue of Net Neutrality.

I don't recommend Al Franken as a source of news and info. He has a little bit of left-wing bias.
 
shrubnose said:
[/COLOR][/B]

Just bringing up the issue of Net Neutrality.

I don't recommend Al Franken as a source of news and info. He has a little bit of left-wing bias.
Click to expand...

Well, you could start the thread with an actual useful source, you know.
 
Excon said:
Franken is an idiot.
Cruz's word are correct.
Obama Care is a tax on the citizens just as classifying the internet as a utility would be a tax on the citizens.

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.
Click to expand...

Wait wait what? What are you responding to? Certainly not Ted Cruz's words. Cruz said "net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet." Where is he talking about classifying the internet as a utility? Cruz wasn't talking about classifying the internet as a utility, he was talking about net neutrality. Seriously. Net neutrality. Look:

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.
Click to expand...

I read the whole editorial. Read it in context. I have no idea why you assumed that you knew what he was talking about, but you clearly don't have any idea what he's talking about and he doesn't even know what he's talking about. But what we do know is that he was talking about net neutrality. You get it? We talking bout net neutrality. Not a game. Net neutrality.
 
Hatuey said:
You're lying. Please show where I discussed Obama's policies or retract.
Click to expand...

We have been discussing obamas call on the FCC to regulate providers under title II of the Telecommunications law. Maybe your not realizing what we have been discussing is the cause of your confusion
 
Fletch said:
We have been discussing obamas call on the FCC to regulate providers under title II of the Telecommunications law. Maybe your not realizing what we have been discussing is the cause of your confusion
Click to expand...

Show me the post where I've discussed Obama's policies. Thanks. I can wait as long as it takes. Show us the post.
 
shrubnose said:
One more time: Use whatever sources that you want to use, I'm not going to spoon-feed you.
Click to expand...

Well, who would be spoon fed by you when you advise people not to consume what you are serving?!
 
shrubnose said:
Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".

Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.

"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".

Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.

I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Cruz isn't entirely wrong (although he's certainly a nut job like all his right wing brethren).

Net neutrality would not be needed if there were no govt subsidies (state, local, or federal) to ISPs that were not also available to every other ISP.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Comcast, CenturyLink, etc. have all received huge federal subsidies (i. e. corporate welfare).

The Libertarian rule is simple: if you own it, you control it.

Since these ISPs have received federal (tax) subsidies, by the above rule, the public (taxpayers) are considered partial owners, and therefore must have a say in how the ISPs are run--i. e. the ISPs must be accountable to them.

Therefore, neutrality regulation is a must--the FCC must be a proxy for taxpayers who subsidized the ISPs to ensure they don't use exploit their oligopoly for profit only.
 
Mustachio said:
Wait wait what? What are you responding to? Certainly not Ted Cruz's words. Cruz said "net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet." Where is he talking about classifying the internet as a utility? Cruz wasn't talking about classifying the internet as a utility, he was talking about net neutrality. Seriously. Net neutrality. Look:



I read the whole editorial. Read it in context. I have no idea why you assumed that you knew what he was talking about, but you clearly don't have any idea what he's talking about and he doesn't even know what he's talking about. But what we do know is that he was talking about net neutrality. You get it? We talking bout net neutrality. Not a game. Net neutrality.
Click to expand...

This kind of crap sells to right wingers because the right is too damn stupid to understand "net neutrality" or any other issue (i. e. global warming), so they'll believe anything that sounds good to them. A right winger will say he opposes something, but that can never explain to you what that something actually is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom