64 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
64.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 23:30
64.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 23:30
Nov 11, 2014, 23:30
 
InBlack wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 06:38:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 04:18:
It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...


Except its not the same. Not that Im giving creedence to LittleMe's theory or anything, Im just saying that for all intents and purposes the free-market is pretty much what we have right now and it hasnt really failed. It's working out great for the 1%!
As far as Communism is concerned its doing pretty well for itself in China.

I didn't make my point clear. What I was trying to say is that any time you point out instances where the free market clearly has failed--as when the banksters nearly destroyed the global economy, causing thousands of people to lose their homes and any prospects for a better economic future--True Believers like LittleMe respond by saying "Well, that wasn't really a free market!"

In other words the free market can do no wrong and if it does then it automatically isn't the free market because ... the free market can do no wrong.

As far as China being an actual communist state, it isn't--it is actually a pretty good example of capitalism completely unfettered, where profit is the new god. Yes, the Chinese leaders keep very tight political controls on the populace and will ruthlessly enforce their authoritarian rule, but in terms of economics and the market you are pretty much free to do whatever the fuck you like. Want to take rat poison and market it overseas as baby formula? Want to raze a whole village to build an upscale condo? No problem! There isn't any FDA in China and very little restrictions on what corporations can do ... hence the terrible air pollution, high rates of cancer, etc etc. It is also a ruthlessly capitalist society in that if you have a lot of money, your options are pretty much unlimited. If you don't have money, then you aren't going anywhere. In an actual communist system, "workers" would have some rights, be valued, etc. None of China's leaders actually give a shit about "the workers." All they care about are money and power.

LittleMe should consider moving there if he really thinks a completely "free" market will lead to some sort of capitalist paradise.
"Supreme Uncontested Dear Leader for Life and Chief Justice for the Social Justice Warriors©--beeeeeeyotch!"
63.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 23:11
63.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 23:11
Nov 11, 2014, 23:11
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:18:
It also created you, the most spoiled generation in all of human history.

Yes! I AM the voice for my entire generation!

Wait ... what was my generation again?
"Supreme Uncontested Dear Leader for Life and Chief Justice for the Social Justice Warriors©--beeeeeeyotch!"
62.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 20:42
62.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 20:42
Nov 11, 2014, 20:42
 
This discussion sure went off into the weeds. Regardless of LittleMe's dislike for (aka burning hatred of) government, this is one of those areas where we have what is essentially a natural monopoly, evidenced by the fact that you don't see cable companies competing with each other just about anywhere. Even Comcast and Time Warner have admitted this. They stay out of each other's areas.

While I'm all in favor of competition at all levels, especially the last mile, we're not going to get that today. In the meantime though, we need to prevent the egregious abuses that come from having these huge corporations with a lock on their customer base. We already saw Comcast screw over Netflix. We need to put a stop to that crap now before it gets worse.

Treating them as an essential communications service, disallowing any preferential treatment of the data, is exactly what is needed. I just don't have much faith in the FCC actually doing that, given Democrats' and Wheeler's ties with the industry.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
61.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 14:43
61.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 14:43
Nov 11, 2014, 14:43
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:18:
InBlack wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 06:38:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 04:18:
LittleMe wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:06:
Banks were never fully de-regulated or 'free market' they just sloppily removed critical parts of regulation because they finance industry has far too much influence of our government. The house of cards that all regulations are, crumbled quickly. Instead of taking it as an example that regulations can be dangerous, many people seemed to take it as the opposite.

We haven't had free market monies or finance here in a very long time.

It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...


Except its not the same. Not that Im giving creedence to LittleMe's theory or anything, Im just saying that for all intents and purposes the free-market is pretty much what we have right now and it hasnt really failed. It's working out great for the 1%!
As far as Communism is concerned its doing pretty well for itself in China.

It also created you, the most spoiled generation in all of human history.

Oh so thats what created me. I thought it way my mom and dad. I guess I should have known that it was those benevolent agents, the forces of free market and enterprise.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
60.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Nov 11, 2014, 12:09
60.
Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 12:09
Nov 11, 2014, 12:09
 
Prez wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 02:30:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 02:02:
Prez wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 01:41:
You should look it up. The Republicans have gotten so good at it, that there were elections where the Democratic candidate actually got more votes overall ... and still lost.

Can I get a link or three on that? I hadn't heard that before now. And I thought re-districting only benefitted the party in power (which in the Senate was the Democrats)?

I'm not the most knowledgeable guy on this issue either, but here are some numbers compiled by daily kos, which is a left wing website, meaning some will immediately dismiss the data out of hand, but whatever ...


I get what you are saying now. Here's a link that describes it well. As far as sources go, I'll read anything from Breibart to Media Matters and anything in between. I have a finely-honed BS detector that serves me pretty well.

Yeah it's pretty routine now that the Democrats, at a national level, will get more votes in Congressional elections, yet Republicans will win more seats in Congress. In other words, if you total up all the votes in all Congressional elections across the country, you get something like 52-48 Democrat's advantage, but end up with a House with 200-235 Republicans advantage. Partly its a result of Gerrymandering, but more than that is the fact that Democratic voters tend to concentrate very densely in certain areas, i.e. major cities, while Republicans tend to be more broadly distributed. The end result is that Democrats win urban districts with like 90% of the vote, while Republicans win rural and suburban districts with 55-60% of the vote. If Democrats were more broadly distributed geographically, you would see a Democratic House much more frequently, but since they are concentrated, and since you only need 50%+1 to win an election, many of their votes are "wasted" in districts where victory was already assured.
59.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Nov 11, 2014, 10:40
59.
Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 10:40
Nov 11, 2014, 10:40
 
Those darned Blues News posters I tell ya!!
Avatar 51617
58.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Nov 11, 2014, 10:37
58.
Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 10:37
Nov 11, 2014, 10:37
 
Verno wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 10:05:
What a coincidence, that scenario popping up today. The world sure is an interesting place.

I had a big long speech ready for him about the evils of capitalism and how spoiled he is (while thinking of the geniuses at Blue's News of course) but I think I'll say happy Veteran's Day instead.
Avatar 15920
57.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 10:07
57.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 10:07
Nov 11, 2014, 10:07
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 09:45:
Verno wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 09:39:
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:59:
Baby Boomers sat around on their computers all day playing video games and bitching?

No, Boomers sit around all day burning through their inheritance and consuming on a ridiculous scale with a scorched earth policy for everyone else

Well I guess I should hurry and tell my father how privileged he was when he was drafted into the Vietnam War. He is a spoiled consumer after all and owes me big time, right? I'd lecture my uncle but he died of cancer he contracted from being exposed to Agent Orange. So spoiled.

Your anecdotes have swayed me! You are correct!
56.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Nov 11, 2014, 10:05
56.
Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 10:05
Nov 11, 2014, 10:05
 
What a coincidence, that scenario popping up today. The world sure is an interesting place.
Avatar 51617
55.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 09:45
55.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 09:45
Nov 11, 2014, 09:45
 
Verno wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 09:39:
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:59:
Baby Boomers sat around on their computers all day playing video games and bitching?

No, Boomers sit around all day burning through their inheritance and consuming on a ridiculous scale with a scorched earth policy for everyone else

Well I guess I should hurry and tell my father how privileged he was when he was drafted into the Vietnam War. He is a spoiled consumer after all and owes me big time, right? I'd lecture my uncle but he died of cancer he contracted from being exposed to Agent Orange. So spoiled.
Avatar 15920
54.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 09:39
54.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 09:39
Nov 11, 2014, 09:39
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:59:
Baby Boomers sat around on their computers all day playing video games and bitching?

No, Boomers sit around all day burning through their inheritance and consuming on a ridiculous scale with a scorched earth policy for everyone else
Avatar 51617
53.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Nov 11, 2014, 09:07
53.
Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 09:07
Nov 11, 2014, 09:07
 
People are so silly on this issue. You cannot have a decentralized Internet (what the Internet has always been and what we have now) and at the same time try to treat it as one giant "common carrier" with a raft of centralized rules and regulations. You'll destroy the Internet as we know it and transform it into yet another government organ. You'll wind up with *exactly* the kind of "common carrier" the government created when it sanctioned the old AT&T long-distance monopoly in the US. The regulations ruined the long-distance phone system in the US such that only its *deregulation* by the government, decades later after enormous harm, put it back on a competitive, innovative track. Even so, it has taken almost 30 years to reverse the disastrous course begun by "benevolent" government control.

When will people clearly understand that this government--the Obama administration--has been the most restrictive of individual and press liberties of any government in living memory? When will they see that the current FBI, the NSA--all of them--have been screaming about getting a "back door" into the Internet so that government entities can further usurp the *private* control of the Internet as a whole?

Basically, it works like this...if you want to destroy the Internet as we have come to know it, and you think that private companies cannot be trusted but your government can...if you think that government alone is the saint among the rest of us sinners...then you'll want to support this raft of sheer nonsense called "net neutrality."

People were duped into supporting Obama because they believed they'd be getting something (lots of things, really) for nothing...and now they see how horribly wrong they were...but it's the same with net neutrality. People have this list of freebies they think will magically happen with "net neutrality." But none of them will, of course. What will happen is only increased and heavy-handed government control within the Internet--more for the bureaucrats and less for the people. That's the way government works, if you hadn't noticed.

Seriously, how many net neutrality supporters could discern the difference between connecting to a slow/dead server, or a web site with download caps, and being "throttled" by an ISP? Not a damn one of them, is my guess...;)

They will be among among the most bitter when they discover that, no, net neutrality did absolutely nothing to dramatically raise their bandwidth connections; nothing to lower prices but rather the opposite; created new "regulatory taxes" for Internet service where none existed before, provided government agencies with back doors of all kinds where none existed before, and ruined the Internet as a private, decentralized communications system for everyday people. After decades of "common carrier" abuse of the nation's long-distance telephone service, it has taken decades longer after the government "allowed" companies to compete as long-distance providers for the phone service to come back to a degree. If you want the Internet to go through the exact same process then go ahead and keep on mindlessly supporting net neutrality and you'll get your wish.

The Internet isn't perfect, of course--no man-made organization ever is or ever will be. But opening the door to government control of the Internet is no solution at all--it's actually quite the opposite. Only fools expect that letting the government do to the Internet what it did to long distance phone service with "common carrier" rules prior to the 1980s will fail to bring about the very same catastrophic results with today's Internet.





It is well known that I cannot err--and so, if you should happen across an error in anything I have written you can be absolutely sure that *I* did not write it!...;)
Avatar 16008
52.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 08:59
52.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 08:59
Nov 11, 2014, 08:59
 
TheLeech wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:49:
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:18:
InBlack wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 06:38:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 04:18:
LittleMe wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:06:
Banks were never fully de-regulated or 'free market' they just sloppily removed critical parts of regulation because they finance industry has far too much influence of our government. The house of cards that all regulations are, crumbled quickly. Instead of taking it as an example that regulations can be dangerous, many people seemed to take it as the opposite.

We haven't had free market monies or finance here in a very long time.

It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...


Except its not the same. Not that Im giving creedence to LittleMe's theory or anything, Im just saying that for all intents and purposes the free-market is pretty much what we have right now and it hasnt really failed. It's working out great for the 1%!
As far as Communism is concerned its doing pretty well for itself in China.

It also created you, the most spoiled generation in all of human history.

InBlack is a white Baby Boomer?

Baby Boomers sat around on their computers all day playing video games and bitching?
Avatar 15920
51.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 08:49
51.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 08:49
Nov 11, 2014, 08:49
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 08:18:
InBlack wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 06:38:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 04:18:
LittleMe wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:06:
Banks were never fully de-regulated or 'free market' they just sloppily removed critical parts of regulation because they finance industry has far too much influence of our government. The house of cards that all regulations are, crumbled quickly. Instead of taking it as an example that regulations can be dangerous, many people seemed to take it as the opposite.

We haven't had free market monies or finance here in a very long time.

It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...


Except its not the same. Not that Im giving creedence to LittleMe's theory or anything, Im just saying that for all intents and purposes the free-market is pretty much what we have right now and it hasnt really failed. It's working out great for the 1%!
As far as Communism is concerned its doing pretty well for itself in China.

It also created you, the most spoiled generation in all of human history.

InBlack is a white Baby Boomer?
50.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 08:18
50.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 08:18
Nov 11, 2014, 08:18
 
InBlack wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 06:38:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 04:18:
LittleMe wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:06:
Banks were never fully de-regulated or 'free market' they just sloppily removed critical parts of regulation because they finance industry has far too much influence of our government. The house of cards that all regulations are, crumbled quickly. Instead of taking it as an example that regulations can be dangerous, many people seemed to take it as the opposite.

We haven't had free market monies or finance here in a very long time.

It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...


Except its not the same. Not that Im giving creedence to LittleMe's theory or anything, Im just saying that for all intents and purposes the free-market is pretty much what we have right now and it hasnt really failed. It's working out great for the 1%!
As far as Communism is concerned its doing pretty well for itself in China.

It also created you, the most spoiled generation in all of human history.
Avatar 15920
49.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 06:38
49.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 06:38
Nov 11, 2014, 06:38
 
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 04:18:
LittleMe wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:06:
Banks were never fully de-regulated or 'free market' they just sloppily removed critical parts of regulation because they finance industry has far too much influence of our government. The house of cards that all regulations are, crumbled quickly. Instead of taking it as an example that regulations can be dangerous, many people seemed to take it as the opposite.

We haven't had free market monies or finance here in a very long time.

It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...


Except its not the same. Not that Im giving creedence to LittleMe's theory or anything, Im just saying that for all intents and purposes the free-market is pretty much what we have right now and it hasnt really failed. It's working out great for the 1%!
As far as Communism is concerned its doing pretty well for itself in China.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
48.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Nov 11, 2014, 04:23
48.
Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 04:23
Nov 11, 2014, 04:23
 
Prez wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 02:55:
beremot wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 02:44:
Breitbart has a proven pattern of deceit--documented, by, among others, Media Matters. No one can say the reverse, because it simply isn't true.

I don't really keep score honestly - I just have learned to fact-check everything nine ways to Sunday (that is a strange idiom isn't it?). Media Matters does its own spin to be sure, but I don't mind them.

What I find curious is how someone like my wife (a hardcore conservative) and myself (a moderate libertarian with the occasional right-leaning view) determine what is "bias". She will swear that Fox News and Newsmaxx "only report the news, no spin!" while USA Today and CNN are heavily biased to the left. I'm like 'WTF?!?!'

Of course I just nod politely and deftly change the subject because this woman can easily kill me in my sleep and make it look like an accident...

Mixed marriage, huh? I don't know how you do it. I always felt the same way about James Carville and Mary Matalin. It's like Van Helsing marrying a vampire. This stuff just gets my blood boiling way too quickly. Hell, I already annoy my own wife when I talk politics, and she basically agrees with me.
"Supreme Uncontested Dear Leader for Life and Chief Justice for the Social Justice Warriors©--beeeeeeyotch!"
47.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 04:18
47.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 04:18
Nov 11, 2014, 04:18
 
LittleMe wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:06:
Banks were never fully de-regulated or 'free market' they just sloppily removed critical parts of regulation because they finance industry has far too much influence of our government. The house of cards that all regulations are, crumbled quickly. Instead of taking it as an example that regulations can be dangerous, many people seemed to take it as the opposite.

We haven't had free market monies or finance here in a very long time.

It's so funny that you can make statements like this while decrying "socialism" because your essential argument--"The free market never really failed because it wasn't really a free market!"--is the EXACT SAME argument a diehard Leninist would make for the failure of communism! "Communism never really failed because there never really was a true communist state!"

Oh, the irony ...

I'm a big Bezerk fan too, by the way. Or is that a screen capture of Frenzy? Been a while since I played either in the arcades ...

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 2014, 04:31.
"Supreme Uncontested Dear Leader for Life and Chief Justice for the Social Justice Warriors©--beeeeeeyotch!"
46.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 03:59
46.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 03:59
Nov 11, 2014, 03:59
 
Prez wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 03:38:
I'm confused by your opposition to this LittleMe. It's clear you are against how corporate interests in government have led to anti-consumer monopolies - "Corporatism" as you are calling it. If the FCC does what the POTUS is advocating it would eliminate that from how the internet is run at least. I could see you being opposed to that if you held the view that as businesses internet providers have the right to charge those who use the most bandwidth more, but I'm not hearing that as your stance. Net Neutrality would essentially remove the ability for corporations to be the final arbiter of information on the internet, which based on what you have written seems it would be something you would support.

Littleme is very paranoid about the US government. He fears it to such an extent that he will completely disregard all of his (mostly valid) own points on the power of corporatism in the world and actually completely contradict himself in many instances. It's very difficult to stay rational for very long when you are driven by irrational beliefs. This is common with religious nuts, conspiracy theorists and basically anyone who tends to twist facts around to fit into their vision of the world, rather than the other way around.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 2014, 04:13.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
45.
 
Re: tougher Internet regulation.
Nov 11, 2014, 03:38
Prez
 
45.
Re: tougher Internet regulation. Nov 11, 2014, 03:38
Nov 11, 2014, 03:38
 Prez
 
I'm confused by your opposition to this LittleMe. It's clear you are against how corporate interests in government have led to anti-consumer monopolies - "Corporatism" as you are calling it. If the FCC does what the POTUS is advocating it would eliminate that from how the internet is run at least. I could see you being opposed to that if you held the view that as businesses internet providers have the right to charge those who use the most bandwidth more, but I'm not hearing that as your stance. Net Neutrality would essentially remove the ability for corporations to be the final arbiter of information on the internet, which based on what you have written seems it would be something you would support.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
64 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older