• 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:
What branch of the government they belong to and what prosecutorial authority do they have?
Click to expand...

The don't need to belong (and shouldn't belong) to any branch of government. If they catch a Congressman with an irrefutable smoking gun, you can bet he'll be impeached.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The don't need to belong (and shouldn't belong) to any branch of government. If they catch a Congressman with an irrefutable smoking gun, you can bet he'll be impeached.
Click to expand...

Right! Like Charlie Rangel? They really took his ass down.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Yes. He got censured and lost his committee chair.
Click to expand...

And then, he got re-elected. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not impressed with congressional watchdogs. and lack any real confidence in their ability to police our government.
 
Excon said:
You have to be playing a game or purposely lying. Which is it?

President Obama came out and said he wanted the FCC to classify the internet as a utility.
Cruz's opinion piece was a response to that.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read your whole post but it's pretty obvious to me that Ted Cruz would not say "net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet" in an editorial in which he's strongly supporting net neutrality. How stupid would a human being have to be to conclude a pro-net neutrality editorial with an attack on net neutrality? No, there's no way that Ted Cruz is that stupid. I don't think you're giving him enough credit. No, he just doesn't understand net neutrality, that seems pretty clear to me.

I'm sure somebody posted this but yesterday Cruz posted this anti-net neutrality video which concludes with him saying we shouldn't reclassify the internet as a utility but the title of the video says that it's about net neutrality. This is a man who clearly has no idea what net neutrality is. And the idea that with net neutrality the government could decide which businesses can and cannot operate on the internet? That makes no sense at all. We are looking at a man who knows one thing about net neutrality: he was told it is bad for business and so he's repeating the talking points his people are giving him.
 
Mustachio said:
I'm not going to read your whole post but it's pretty obvious to me that Ted Cruz would not say "net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet" in an editorial in which he's strongly supporting net neutrality. How stupid would a human being have to be to conclude a pro-net neutrality editorial with an attack on net neutrality? No, there's no way that Ted Cruz is that stupid. I don't think you're giving him enough credit. No, he just doesn't understand net neutrality, that seems pretty clear to me.

I'm sure somebody posted this but yesterday Cruz posted this anti-net neutrality video which concludes with him saying we shouldn't reclassify the internet as a utility but the title of the video says that it's about net neutrality. This is a man who clearly has no idea what net neutrality is. And the idea that with net neutrality the government could decide which businesses can and cannot operate on the internet? That makes no sense at all. We are looking at a man who knows one thing about net neutrality: he was told it is bad for business and so he's repeating the talking points his people are giving him.
Click to expand...
And you are wrong again. Figures.
He is against classifying it as a utility to accomplish NN. Which this is about.
He clearly stated he wanted things to remain they way they are.
Your failure to acknowledge these things as well as what he actually said, continually makes you in the wrong.
So come back when you have something valid to say.
 
Hatuey said:
Show me where I discussed Obama's policies as you claimed. I'll wait.



Are you still trying to conflate the fact that you didn't know what net neutrality was with some imaginary discussion we had on Article II and Obama's policies? I'll wait until you can show the post where I discussed them.



Third time you try to steer the conversation away from your defense of Ted Cruz' statements. Do you not realize that nobody is falling for it yet?
Click to expand...
I never defended Ted Cruz' statements. As I said, and you went on to prove, you and I were not discussing Cruz' comments in this thread. That was just you lying. Over and over and over and over again. You seem to be following to the letter the liberal tactic of lying your ass off, then sticking to the lie even after it is exposed. Honesty is not a virtue to liberals as you continue to demonstrate. And for that, I thank you.

As I also mentioned earlier, I was discussing obamas plan for NN and you were arguing with me. Now, for anyone with a first grade education, that would mean you and I were arguing obamas policy on NN. So, if you are looking for a post where you discussed obamas policy, all you need to do is find a post of yours where you argued against what I was saying. See what you can accomplish when I do your thinking for you?
 
Excon said:
And you are wrong again. Figures.
He is against classifying it as a utility to accomplish NN. Which this is about.
He clearly stated he wanted things to remain they way they are.
Your failure to acknowledge these things as well as what he actually said, continually makes you in the wrong.
So come back when you have something valid to say.
Click to expand...

Cruz' exact words:

"In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet."

and hes he's in favor of net neutrality, just not via this method?
 
Mustachio said:
...How stupid would a human being have to be to conclude a pro-net neutrality editorial with an attack on net neutrality? No, there's no way that Ted Cruz is that stupid. ... No, he just doesn't understand net neutrality, that seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is: just as stupid as Ted Cruz is. And apparently, he is just that stupid, to the point that "he just doesn't understand net neutrality", and yes, it is pretty clear.
 
Deuce said:
Cruz' exact words:

"In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet."

and hes he's in favor of net neutrality, just not via this method?
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of Obama's method of net neutrality either. if you don't know what Obama's method is then I will explain it to you and well you will see what Obama's method of net neutrality is basically the obamacare for the internet.

Obama wants the FCC to regulate internet companies to ensure net neutrality. on the surface this seems like a good idea. currently the FCC does not regulate the internet or what internet companies do with the internet.

The chairs of the FCC have warned Obama that if they do this then internet companies will be forced to pay the FCC fee that they currently do not have to pay. there is no doubt that this fee will be passed onto customers. so basically everyone with and internet connection will have to pay a federal tax if the FCC regulates the internet the way that Obama wants.
so basically you do have obamacare for the internet. you want on the internet then you will have to pay the fcc tax to use it.

a better way would be to pass a congressional bill that guarantee's net neutrality. this way we have a law there is no tax and you still get the same results.
 
ludin said:
I am not in favor of Obama's method of net neutrality either. if you don't know what Obama's method is then I will explain it to you and well you will see what Obama's method of net neutrality is basically the obamacare for the internet.

Obama wants the FCC to regulate internet companies to ensure net neutrality. on the surface this seems like a good idea. currently the FCC does not regulate the internet or what internet companies do with the internet.

The chairs of the FCC have warned Obama that if they do this then internet companies will be forced to pay the FCC fee that they currently do not have to pay. there is no doubt that this fee will be passed onto customers. so basically everyone with and internet connection will have to pay a federal tax if the FCC regulates the internet the way that Obama wants.
so basically you do have obamacare for the internet. you want on the internet then you will have to pay the fcc tax to use it.

a better way would be to pass a congressional bill that guarantee's net neutrality. this way we have a law there is no tax and you still get the same results.
Click to expand...

Can you point to anything in any net neutrality bill that will force ISPs to pay a fee? To the best of my knowledge, no such proposal to tax the internet exists as part of NN, it's just made up.

But maybe if the tax is the only issue, then instead of rejecting net neutrality, we should be rejecting the concept of taxing it.
 
imagep said:
The answer to your question is: just as stupid as Ted Cruz is. And apparently, he is just that stupid, to the point that "he just doesn't understand net neutrality", and yes, it is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
And you are just as wrong.
No where is it evident that he doesn't understand what NN is.
That claim is nothing more than exaggerated nonsense.
 
imagep said:
The answer to your question is: just as stupid as Ted Cruz is. And apparently, he is just that stupid, to the point that "he just doesn't understand net neutrality", and yes, it is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Not to make too big an issue of this, but Cruz is anything but stupid. The guy was valedictorian at his high school, received degrees from Princeton and Harvard and has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court. And, yes, it bothers me when people refer to Obama as stupid as well. Neither man is stupid and, in fact, both are exceedingly brilliant. Neither are infallible, however. And either being wrong on a particular issue hardly makes them stupid.
 
imagep said:
Can you point to anything in any net neutrality bill that will force ISPs to pay a fee? To the best of my knowledge, no such proposal to tax the internet exists as part of NN, it's just made up.

But maybe if the tax is the only issue, then instead of rejecting net neutrality, we should be rejecting the concept of taxing it.
Click to expand...
Classifying it as a Utility will bring about taxing it as a utility.


President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.

The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass​


Classifying it as a Utility brings about rate regulation also.
While he may say that it wouldn't be appropriate to apply, even Obama acknowledges that rate regulation comes with classifying it as a Utility.

Even President Obama conceded that a strict Title II approach would not by itself be sufficient because there are hundreds of rules applying to telephone service common carriers that would be inappropriate to apply to broadband, like, for example, rate regulation.

In addition, even Title II does not ban paid prioritization completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/t...nts-on-fcc-head-over-open-internet-rules.html​
 
Deuce said:
Cruz' exact words:

"In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet."
Click to expand...
And?
In short, it is a valid comparison.


Deuce said:
and hes he's in favor of net neutrality, just not via this method?
Click to expand...
Not via this method.
Whether he is in favor in principle has yet to be determined. He may not be.
But regardless if he is or isn't that is irrelevant to this discussion about classifying it as a utility.
 
imagep said:
The answer to your question is: just as stupid as Ted Cruz is. And apparently, he is just that stupid, to the point that "he just doesn't understand net neutrality", and yes, it is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that Ted Cruz understands net neutrality. It isn't rocket science, and someone with the intellectual clout to write 70 Supreme Court briefs should be quite capable of both understanding what it means and its implications.

Net neutrality has been a subject of debate for 30 years. It has even made its way sporadically into the mainstream news cycle, 2007, Jan 2014 etc.. At no time did Ted Cruz make any statement whatsoever about Net Neutrality. Obama says he's for it and suddenly Ted Cruz is 100% against it. It doesn't take a genius to understand what's going on.


Edit: Excon, why on earth would you like this? Sure Ted Cruz understands Net Neutrality, but that doesn't mean he's being honest about it.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
I am not in favor of Obama's method of net neutrality either. if you don't know what Obama's method is then I will explain it to you and well you will see what Obama's method of net neutrality is basically the obamacare for the internet.

Obama wants the FCC to regulate internet companies to ensure net neutrality. on the surface this seems like a good idea. currently the FCC does not regulate the internet or what internet companies do with the internet.

The chairs of the FCC have warned Obama that if they do this then internet companies will be forced to pay the FCC fee that they currently do not have to pay. there is no doubt that this fee will be passed onto customers. so basically everyone with and internet connection will have to pay a federal tax if the FCC regulates the internet the way that Obama wants.
so basically you do have obamacare for the internet. you want on the internet then you will have to pay the fcc tax to use it.

a better way would be to pass a congressional bill that guarantee's net neutrality. this way we have a law there is no tax and you still get the same results.
Click to expand...
No one wants this. The only thing anyone wants here is the assurance that content providers won't be charged twice for providing the same service and that big ISPs can't tilt the playing field to what's profitable for them.

Congress could pass a law legislating exactly this. Ted Cruz could lead the charge. ... yet.... Ted Cruz proposes no alternatives? He's a legislator... Shouldn't he... you know... legislate?
 
Mithros said:
At no time did Ted Cruz make any statement whatsoever about Net Neutrality. Obama says he's for it and suddenly Ted Cruz is 100% against it. It doesn't take a genius to understand what's going on.
Click to expand...
That suggestion is nothing more than an example of an over active imagination.
Cruz had no reason to mention previously that he is against classifying it as a utility because the possibility of such didn't happen until now.
 
Fletch said:
Not to make too big an issue of this, but Cruz is anything but stupid. The guy was valedictorian at his high school, received degrees from Princeton and Harvard and has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court. And, yes, it bothers me when people refer to Obama as stupid as well. Neither man is stupid and, in fact, both are exceedingly brilliant. Neither are infallible, however. And either being wrong on a particular issue hardly makes them stupid.
Click to expand...

OK. I guess I was wrong. Thanks for bringing all of that to my attention.

The guy isn't stupid, he's just a liar.
 
Mithros said:
yet.... Ted Cruz proposes no alternatives? He's a legislator... Shouldn't he... you know... legislate?
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Cruz stated that he wants things to remain as they are. That is an alternative to classifying it as a utility.

And our legislators shouldn't be legislating anything unless it is absolutely necessary for the betterment of the country.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
OK. I guess I was wrong. Thanks for bringing all of that to my attention.

The guy isn't stupid, he's just a liar.
Click to expand...

Good. So what is he lying about?
 
Excon said:
That suggestion is nothing more than an example of an over active imagination.
Cruz had no reason to mention previously that he is against classifying it as a utility because the possibility of such didn't happen until now.
Click to expand...
And his alternative?

If I'm for something but against the way it's being done then I'm going to make it very clear that the reason I'm against it is because there are other better methods of implementing it.

Ask yourself this, did you care about this issue before the last few days? Did you even know about it? There are those of us who've been following it for a decade, some even more. Here's candidate Obama talking about Net Neutrality in 2007. Where has Ted Cruz been on the issue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

You'll note that the criticism against Cruz is just as strong from the right as is is from the left. Here's some of the responses Cruz has gotten from Republicans. tps://m.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152839355922464

Some examples
As a Republican whom also works in IT like Ed... You have no clue what you are talking about or you are company bought and paid for.

As a Republican who works in the tech industry I can say that this statement shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are bought and paid for by the American Cable monopoly. This is amazingly an stupid statement and is disheartening.

Ted, I am as conservative as they come.... I want government out of just about everything... and I hate to say it, really hate to say it, but Obama is right on this one. I do not want my access and internet speed controlled by my ISP. It will be. The internet has been an open forum with little to no restrictions, that will change and not for the better. Bottom line, do not go against freedom of the net just because Obama is for it. Even an old blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

Goddammit, stop making my party look like morons and look up net neutrality. It doesn't mean what you and your speechwriters think it means.
Click to expand...

And Gizmodo's take:
Ted Cruz's Net Neutrality Take Isn't Just Dumb, It's Dangerous
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Yes. He got censured and lost his committee chair.
Click to expand...

But what he did was criminal. All he got was a slap on the wrists. Seems that congressmen treat their own according to different rules than the rest of us. That's a real problem, the in-equal application of the law? Wouldn't you agree?
 
Kobie said:
Well, neither chamber of Congress has the constitutional authority to expel one of its own members, so what else are they supposed to do?
Click to expand...

Kobie, Hmm. I didn't know that expelling wasn't an option, but in retrospect, I can see and understand why that's the case.
Are you telling me that there's no prosecutor for crimes committed by congressmen? Surely that can't be true.
 
eohrnberger said:
Kobie, Hmm. I didn't know that expelling wasn't an option, but in retrospect, I can see and understand why that's the case.
Are you telling me that there's no prosecutor for crimes committed by congressmen? Surely that can't be true.
Click to expand...

I was incorrect, that's why I deleted the post. They do. 2/3 vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress

I'm not sure how Charlie Rangel came up in a discussion about net neutrality, but whatevs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom