-————You’ve gone way off script.—————
I haven’t gone off script at all. The courts told the FCC no, congress told the FCC no, they’ve done it anyways.
-————New freedoms are supposedly for the people. You’re talking about a power of government.-——————
Right. How do you convince people to accept totalitarianism? By convincing them that totalitarianism is a “new freedom”. The freedom from want, the freedom from ISPs, the freedom from rent payments. On and on and on.
————Governments do not have freedoms or rights, only powers.-—————
Governments do have freedoms, ask the 65 million that Mao killed.
—————Copy and paste exact words in relation to net neutrality.—————
This is foolish. You were in the discussion thread. It’s time you ate some carrots or something to stimulate your memory banks.
-————No, he actually said the words “universal access” in relation to — wait for it — the subject of universal access! Go figure, how strange that he would do that, actually speak of something in the context of a conversation about it.—————
Fine. All he’s doing is showing how big of a threat to our freedoms that he is.
—————You could learn from that, argue universal access on the subject of universal access, and argue net neutrality on the subject of net neutrality.—————
I’m not foolish enough to look at a totalitarian, and think he’s actually going to separate the two. That’s not how this works. If you’d learned from the road to serfdom, you’d know that.
-————Hey, did you know that the FTC regulates both false advertising and antitrust laws?-—————
Do they play the role of a referee? Or a toll booth?
Actually, the courts told the FCC they couldn't reverse a previous hands-off policy in that manner. First they had to reset policy to allow the regulation, then they could make the regulation. And Congress? You mean those people who didn't know the difference between fairness doctrine and net neutrality?
The freedom from want, the freedom from ISPs, the freedom from rent payments. On and on and on.
True, but net neutrality has nothing to do with "freedom from ISPs." Maybe protection from being screwed by ISPs, but then that describes all anti-fraud and consumer protection law too. For Internet companies, it's also freedom from having someone interfere with your business.
Hey, did you know laws against murder are actually about "freedom from murder" and thus should not be supported? Just because you restate something that way doesn't make it bad.
Governments do have freedoms, ask the 65 million that Mao killed.
That's power, the power to kill. No, no freedoms, no rights. That's why I don't even like the term "states' rights." State governments don't have rights. They have powers, they have sovereignty, but they don't have rights.
Fine. All he’s doing is showing how big of a threat to our freedoms that he is.
So does Kucinich with most of what he says, but here he is, absolutely correct on the Obama/Libya issue. The fact that he's an loony leftist who makes JG look like Ronald Reagan doesn't change the fact that he's right on this one.
I’m not foolish enough to look at a totalitarian, and think he’s actually going to separate the two.
Who cares? We can separate the two, we can reject a net neutrality proposal if fairness doctrine provisions are included. However, the only one who seems to be combining them is you.
Do they play the role of a referee? Or a toll booth?
Show me where in the FCC rules that toll booths are implemented. I'm talking about the actual rules, not stuff you made up as to what the rules could be, not what is imprinted in tin on your forehead. Speaking of that, I'm still waiting for Clyburn's words about the FCC implementing toll booths as part of net neutrality.