Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I will wager that Hank has no idea and was just playing the odds.

let's hear your big brained knowledge: what all does the 1st responders bill do? no fair peeking.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

let's hear your big brained knowledge: what all does the 1st responders bill do? no fair peeking.

You're too late on the peeking part, as I went off to do your research for you.

But yeah, I could assume that its not as simple as "let's give 'em health care" too. But I (and apparently Cletus) don't buy into your apparent added assumption that the Rs in congress have some principled objection that they just haven't bothered to state.

As always, your faith in the humanity of the congressional Rs is touching, but not necessarily reality-based.

ETA: btw, that was clearly an admission on your part.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You know what's un-American? Pretending that there is only one possible way to see an issue.

I have a different view on that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I would like there someday to be a political party that does not resort to saying that a "no" vote on its legislation is un-American, but it looks like both parties are not going to achieve this in my lifetime.

You know what's un-American? Pretending that there is only one possible way to see an issue.

True. Besides the right way, there's also the wrong way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Why is the FCC going to pass watered-down, fake net neutrality? The two Republicans are going to oppose it, so watering net neutrality down doesn't win anything. The two Democrats other than Genachowski want something stronger, so why doesn't he offer real net neutrality instead of this ersatz version? It's like the first stimulus all over again: The Obama Administration waters its policy down in a futile attempt to win Republican votes, instead of passing a policy that will work better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why is the FCC going to pass watered-down, fake net neutrality? The two Republicans are going to oppose it, so watering net neutrality down doesn't win anything. The two Democrats other than Genachowski want something stronger, so why doesn't he offer real net neutrality instead of this ersatz version? It's like the first stimulus all over again: The Obama Administration waters its policy down in a futile attempt to win Republican votes, instead of passing a policy that will work better.

you have what it takes to be a dem whip!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why is the FCC going to pass watered-down, fake net neutrality? The two Republicans are going to oppose it, so watering net neutrality down doesn't win anything. The two Democrats other than Genachowski want something stronger, so why doesn't he offer real net neutrality instead of this ersatz version? It's like the first stimulus all over again: The Obama Administration waters its policy down in a futile attempt to win Republican votes, instead of passing a policy that will work better.

I don't usually respond to the same post twice, but I wonder if you could suggest to the Dems that they vote to outlaw the two party system?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why is the FCC going to pass watered-down, fake net neutrality? The two Republicans are going to oppose it, so watering net neutrality down doesn't win anything. The two Democrats other than Genachowski want something stronger, so why doesn't he offer real net neutrality instead of this ersatz version? It's like the first stimulus all over again: The Obama Administration waters its policy down in a futile attempt to win Republican votes, instead of passing a policy that will work better.

I don't usually respond to the same post three times, but I suggest you consider doing what Hitler did and kill those who disagree with you. after all he did make the trains run on time, and you like trains.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't usually respond to the same post twice, but I wonder if you could suggest to the Dems that they vote to outlaw the two party system?

I was thinking of suggesting that the FCC Chairman rent some balls. That seems simpler.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was thinking of suggesting that the FCC Chairman rent some balls. That seems simpler.

if he had balls wouldn't he say "we should have no control over the net at all?" how will they enforce anything? blocking?

have you thought about why youporn continues to exist as a name?

what actual practical problem are you feeling is being cured? the Dem FCC under Clinton began the process of forcing howard stern off radio- forgive me is I don't hug the Dem FCC vision.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

how will they enforce anything? blocking?

Huh?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Huh?

the internet is tougher to police than intra-national companies, unless you block sites. Blocking is possible- China does it. I'm not sure Obama wants to start having the US gov blocking websites though.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the internet is tougher to police than intra-national companies, unless you block sites. Blocking is possible- China does it. I'm not sure Obama wants to start having the US gov blocking websites though.

Okay. But net neutrality is primarily about ISP conduct, no?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay. But net neutrality is primarily about ISP conduct, no?

smh

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

smh

So, as usual, you have no opinion aside from faux condescension. Got it.

But should you feel a need to, you know, actually state a view, what websites will the FCC need to block in order to enforce its net neutrality rules? What investigative difficulties will it face in finding those who may be discriminated against (hint: a lawsuit was filed recently against ebay alleging unfair treatment of certain sellers (probably one of many))?

To be clear, I have no idea whether these are the right rules. I'm far from expert in the area, but on the surface I share Ty's and Al Franken's concern that there may be some big loopholes here.

But the position you seem to be implying (maybe some day you will let us know for sure), which seems to be "let Comcast, Verizon and Time-Warner Cable decide what content its subscribers see because it is too hard to police them," I do not agree with.