So you're saying Ajit Pai is lying, the Wall Street Journal is dissembling, and both a gov't. website and you are truthful?Originally Posted by Kadmos
You'll forgive me if I fail to believe known liars, vs the Journal and Ajit Pai, who has given me no reason whatsoever, at any point, to believe he's lying.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
No, I'd say dissembling is the correct term for what both are doing.
The Journal is owned by News Corp.... owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has tried time and again to skirt anti-monopoly laws, which are exactly what this would expand to cover the net from.
Pai worked for Verizon, mostly dealing with ways to stop exactly this type of regulation. Verizon, btw is one of the companies Murdoch wasn't allowed to get his hands on due to the laws in question.
Technically, ....I suppose, it's not lying if you don't actually tell anyone any useful information...like I said the only thing of substance he had to say was that he wasn't going to say anything of substance.
Just like a resident leftard, coincidence I think not.
Your love of gov't., their goals, their methods, particularly this gov't. speaks volumes about your commitment to individual freedoms...i.e., you have none.
You also have no idea whether the passed regulations bear any resemblance to the initial ones, since neither you nor I have seen the current ones...ergo, you are lying by stating they are the same or nearly so. Since neither you nor I can view them, it is impossible to say they are the same or similar. You are a liar of the first order, claiming they are the same or similar.
You have evidence that they may indeed be different, yet you continue to hold they are not, all while you do not know...simply surmise and hope...another sign of a liar.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
It's simple realism. Stuff like this happens all the time. Trying to make the ordinary sound secretive is just fear mongering.
It's not like they are going to swap out the 2010 version for a copy of the Communist Manifesto or anything. Lot's of the details have been argued over for a long time now, public input was taken, as was input from the White House, Congress, the companies this would effect, etc.
Then after all that input, draft after draft, the 5 people who actually vote on it are given the final copy. They read it, they vote. In this case the two who dissented will write up why they dissented, that will likely get added to it, and then the whole thing will get printed in it's final form.
Then the effected parties will have their lawyers look it over. The lawyers will explain it to the companies, the companies will have questions or issues, they will have the lawyers contact the FCC for any clarification. If it can't be easily clarified then the FCC will either rule on the issue, or it will go to court. The court will decide what's what. And of course congress can get involved if they so choose.
Feel free to freak out if you want, but in the end it's going to be extremely close to the 2010 version with a few differences that have been gone over and over. Pretty much like every other time these sort of regs come out.
You act as though the FCC has the constitutional authority to declare Obama God-Emperor for Life and shut off access to right wing websites....they don't. It won't.
What Pai is doing has all the validity of screeching about "death panels", but without even being that specific.
We get it...you accept the gov't lies, hook, line and sinker, just as your people did in 1933...the more things change, the more they stay the same, and there is nothing new under the sun, particularly for God's chosen and their captors, enslavers and annihilators.
And if you want to talk about death panels, let's talk about the VA.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
I'm not going to go back and read 6 pages of BS, but let me hazard a guess.
The two resident socialists are defending a law that they have no idea the content of, and insulting everyone who doesn't blindly follow what .gov tells them is good for them?
Summation nicely done, Attorney Raxar!
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
The VA was in bad shape long long long before Obamacare.
It's like you are looking for demons in every shadow, and you're the one who is creating the shadows.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the difference between legislation and regulation. You are treating this like it's legislation.
While yes, regulation in a sense is "secondary legislation", there are key differences.
In this case you need to look at the FCC commission as more like a court (appellate court, not Jury trial) than a legislative body. The issue came up, evidence was gathered, people got to speak up and give input. But in the end the Judges (commissioners) go think it through, write up an opinion (the regs), and deliver them when they are ready.
What you are asking for is like wanting to see the rough drafts of Supreme Court judges before they have given their ruling and written opinion.
That's simply not how it works.
This is why all these commissioners have to go though the constitutional appointment process. To vet them to make sure they can in fact make good decisions. Just like higher court judges.
Plus there are legislative limits to what they can do, as well as constitutional limits...the first of which is the 1st Amendment. Kind of a big ass hurdle to them filtering any kind of actual content on the net.
And yet you, the liar and dissembler, already profess to know what's in it, even though you've not seen it, and feel confident to hold forth on that which you haven't seen.
That level of hubris is off the charts.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Because, moron, we already have what they previously wrote about the exact same subject, they've told us exactly what it is they are looking at and what they want to do, and which way they intend to "decide" the issue.
Sorry man.... but come on! We all know which way this went, the basic "ruling" has already been stated, all that's left is the written "opinion", so to speak. We know what the vote was. We know what the issue was.
It's like an extended version of the time between when the supreme court states it's decision and hands out the opinion. We might not have all the nouns and verbs lined up exactly, but we know the score.
Seriously....and please actually answer this....what is it you are actually thinking is going to be in there?
No imbecile...we have what they did before, and we have what the white hut did since that they've actually agreed on (3 of the 5, all dem appointees). and what they did since has not been released, the commissioners are gagged from speaking about, and you are pulling bullshit out of your ass!!!
Jeebus, you seriously are dumber than a bag of hammers!
You don't know, I don't know, only the 5 commissioners and other members of gov't. privy to these rules know!
If history is any example (i.e., every regulatory fiat to come down the pike during this administration (and several before it) it's not good for individuals, freedom, or capitalism. What we know it will be good for is Oligarchs, million and billionaires, bankers and more government overreach. If you can't see that, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Yeah, because all we have is what they wrote before, what all five of them have said it is, what the decision was, what all the input was....yep, totally in the dark
So if you don't know....and I really do think you are basically the only person who doesn't know...then how do you know it's bad?Jeebus, you seriously are dumber than a bag of hammers!
You don't know, I don't know, only the 5 commissioners and other members of gov't. privy to these rules know!
If history is any example (i.e., every regulatory fiat to come down the pike during this administration (and several before it) it's not good for individuals, freedom, or capitalism. What we know it will be good for is Oligarchs, million and billionaires, bankers and more government overreach. If you can't see that, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.
Let's start this again, in a fashion...
You believe what's in the 317 pages that was just approved, closely or nearly parallels what was proposed and published in 2010...correct?
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
With the exceptions of what has already been pretty widely reported. Yes. It's going to be essentially the same.
Define the exceptions.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
No.
Do your own homework.
If you had a point to make, then just make it.
You say there are exemptions between https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...-201A1_Rcd.pdf
And the current document. Surely someone of your vast intellect can define them in a few sentences?
Indulge me...I do have a point to make, but ground rules need to be set first...I'm allowing you to set them....unless you feel you're incapable?
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Oswald, I'm sure I could spend the next half hour or longer finding half a dozen bits of minutia which are probably included in the final draft, only to have you find one more that I didn't mention and you might jump out saying "Aha, but you forgot this!" and then watch you try to turn it into some big ass deal. But that's just a giant waste of time and effort on my part.
So again, no.
But for the sake of argument, lets just say "I think it will be exactly like the 2010 regs" and you go ahead and make your point from there. Saves me the work.
So you agree, unreservedly, no exceptions, the document/regulations approved by the FCC on February 26th 2015, will bear substantively little difference to https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...-201A1_Rcd.pdf ?
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks