Obama's 332 Page Plan to Regulate the Internet

Sh!t

 

kk here we go again

1. Whoops, my bad. You got me there.
2. You seem to be missing the point here. The whole point of arguing the article's bias was in the context of "you shouldn't post this here, it will cause mass hysteria, this is a compilation of worst case scenarios, most of which will realistically never come to pass."
   
   You seem to be taking a turn to "no this isn't biased or exaggerated, it's just things that are wrong because it makes sense that Obama would try to control the country like that." The irony of course is that earlier you agreed that the article was in fact quite biased. And since everyone apparently knows what the bill is and what it does,
   
   why do they need that dude to tell them why it's horrible and evil? If it's really so bad, wouldn't everyone be able to tell for themselves?
3. So what you essentially just said is that American Internet regulations could turn into rampant censorship comparable to the kind in China? And because of that we shouldn't pass this bill? By that logic, I'll go live in a steel bunker in my basement and never venture outside because it's possible that a meteor would fall from the sky at that very moment and kill me. At least then I wouldn't have to keep arguing.
4. Pathetic strawman, I don't think any further explanation is needed.
5. I'm not debating whether or not there will be a tax, I'm saying the benefits of regulations on ISP monopolies outweigh any taxes that would realistically be imposed. Again, you seem to be deviating from the point and twisting my words.
6. Is the Tariff of Abominations really comparable to regulating ISP monopolies? Civil War : Tariff of Abominations :: ??? : regulated monopolies. Since I'm like 80% sure that the ISPs won't form a coalition and attempt to revolt against the government, this isn't an adequate comparison.

I don't think the government wants total power, that defeats the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. The Patriot Act was retarded, George Bush was a C student in college so not much is to be expected from him. This bill is to prevent future problems that will emerge as internet use becomes even more important to the functioning of our society.

You can fix problems as they spring up, or you can nip them in the bud.

 

I agree with the last statement so much it isnt even funny.
The government is limited to the power we give it.

 

I've been reading this and I have to say, Pegleg's getting schooled by Javed
Seriously Pegleg drop it youre not making any sense at all

 

Do you even politics?

It's really quite a basic mechanism; make yourself appear to be even slightly intelligent by using ridiculously long words, so as to cow your opponents and potentially confuse them to the point of giving in.

 

2. So since we can't prove him wrong, that means it's true? Since there is no proof to the contrary, we may as well believe it? Doesn't sound right to me. When information is presented with such an obvious slant, it's poor judgement to take it to heart.
3. Yeah, you actually did say that censorship would spread, just putting that out there.

Regarding "inadequate comparison," you're strawmanning me again. I think the odds of the United States having censorship like China's, which is exactly what you implied, is just about the same as getting hit by a meteor. You need to stick to exactly what I'm saying, instead of trying to warp it through ambiguous wording and bad debate tactics.
4. Imagine you are a poor woman trying to take care of a family of 3; you have 2 children and your husband left. You life in a poor suburb where your internet service comes only from Comcast. You need a job quickly to keep food in the house. What are you going to do if you can't use the internet? You could search the newspapers, but all the job offers are online now. You could go to the library, but that brings me back to the original argument, which is that internet is a utility like electricity and running water that needs to be regulated. It is too important to let monopolies run rampant, because people will suffer. Yes, that is the word I choose because that is what happens. The commissioner is trying to drive people away by emphasizing taxes, because he knows the American people have a fear of change, and "tax" is their trigger word. And just for the record, your previous point was that lack of service to rural areas as irrelevant because Americans have a higher quality of living than in other places, which dismisses the point entirely.
5. It was about REGULATING monopolies so they can't charge an arm and a leg. I thought that was abundantly clear at this point. Since point number 5 in this debate was about taxes and you seem to have dropped that, I'll just assume I win that particular point.
6. This point seems to be completely unrelated to the original topic as well, but I'll indulge you. It seems to me that you are saying that all protective tariffs are bad, because there was one tariff instituted in 1828 that had unintended consequences. That's some serious anti-vaxer logic.

and youre a blazing idiot who obviously doesnt keep track of anything, just plasters tags on whatever suits his purpose. if you think your political opinion matters to anyone, you'd better be well-informed.

 

TL;DR XD

 

When it comes to politics, the outcome is truly unpredictable. Have you seen the insane things Congress does?

Aside from that, the internet isn't necessarily a requirement for living, even for the lower-class citizens. If they truly required internet access for the use of job-searching, or whatever, I'm sure they could spare the time to visit a local library or similar and utilize the computers there. While the internet may be a utility, it's still not a necessity for survival, and so its lack of regulatuon does not pose a life-threatening situation.

On the other hand, internet access does "enhance" living conditions in this modern time and age, so I suppose I'd have to agree with you on some level of regulation. The issue is, if the government DOES become far too involved, we may end up with the government, rather than ISP's holding control over internet access, which is probably not too good of a situation either

All-in-all, being a democracy, it's the citizens' job to keep their government, and its powers, in check.

 

This was a bit john oliver did about this. At least i think this pertains to what bill you are talking about. Feel free to tell me if thsi has nothing to do with the disscusion, i will then remove it.

 

It is exceedingly difficult to achieve any kind of success without internet. If you can find me a story of someone who went from rags to riches WITHOUT the internet, I will be quite surprised.

Going to a library for internet is just what I'm talking about. It is a utility and should be accessible by everyone. While you go to the library to check your email, you may as well stop by the well to bring back a couple gallons of water for the day. Or perhaps go use an exercise bike to charge your desk lamp. Do you see what I'm getting at?

While it's true that capitalism fuels innovation, if left unchecked it turns into a fetid beast of greed and economic dependency. You know what my point is.

 

See, the main and fatal flaw in your argument is that not everybody is destined for a "rags to riches" fairy-tale life. Just because such people exist doesn't mean all poor people will follow the same story line. As far as I'm concerned, success doesn't revolve around the internet, or at least not to a point. Once you're at that point, you'll probably have the resources to access the internet.

Also, http://www.emergingstars.com/success-stories/rags-riches-china

 

Fair enough, but just making a living is hard enough for some people, even with the internet. I concede that your point is valid, but I think you see where I'm coming from. I think it would be universally beneficial if everyone had easy access to the internet.

I'm not trying to label you as anything regarding protective tariffs. That's the wrong road to travel today. When I said rags to riches without internet, it was implied in the age of the internet :v

Also we seem to be taking the same history course, which is interesting

 

Yes and yes respectively