The Internet will never satisfy its lust for Net Neutrality and Bandwidth

Reactions
416 219 1
And I’m using it to mock the last two presidents who used “mandate” language to expand their power and control:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...4/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics

I seem to remember a few on here defending the ACA and other Obama regime (language is fun!) decisions simply by saying, “he was elected so it’s what the people want”.
Post automatically merged:



When was it ever not hilarious? I started laughing when Democrats voted in republican primaries to sway the vote towards a candidate they felt couldn’t possibly win.
I know you are, at this point it's all just one big, futile expression of displeasure and frustration. A more precise statement would have been that I was expressing my frustration at your expense, than that I was making a snide comment to or about you - I don't have any ill will toward either steinman or the man behind the keyboard.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
He was required to have two republicans on the FCC. Pai isn't some outlier, he's a traditional republican. Anti net-neutrality is the standard republican policy. Republicans are universally bad. You continue to pretend both sides are the same in the face of overwhelming evidence. Stop doing that.
Surely he could have found a republican that was NOT A VERIZON EMPLOYEE? Hell, even Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens would have been a better pick, and he was found guilty of corruption.

Call it whataboutism all you want, Obama shares just as much, if not more, blame for Ajit Pai.
 
Reactions
983 415 25
Him working for verizon means he has "experience in the field." There is no republican who wouldn't be doing this. Pai is nothing.
 
Reactions
477 134 6
“Whataboutism” is a weak argument, but it’s still a useful discussion point.

The two most appropriate responses are:

1. This is a distinctly different situation

And

2. It was wrong back then too

There are other ways, of course, but shutting down the discussion by saying that the argument is invalid is equally or more weak.

If it was still bad under a different person, say so. If it wasn’t then develop the discussion further with key differences that provides contextual differences that should change the decision this time.

Or keep on whining that your favorite politicians are being picked on and refuse to engage because you can’t stomach the thought of tarnishing their legacy or justifying their terrible decisions.

That, however, is a much weaker position to advocate your policy and platform from.

Too lazy to undangle that participle.
 
Reactions
983 415 25
Of course it's bad that obama gave a republican power. Republicans are a cancer to the US. You'd be ok with him explicitly breaking the rules to prevent such a thing?
 
Reactions
264 24 6
Of course it's bad that obama gave a republican power. Republicans are a cancer to the US. You'd be ok with him explicitly breaking the rules to prevent such a thing?
blots, you are quite clearly stating "Only X group can stop Y group (which is "cancer") and thus I will support anything X group does, no matter how bad they are, because even implying they did something wrong gives weapons to group Y." This mentality is what led to your governments supporting the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and a number of other "really bad people" over the years. If you consider the Dems and the Republicans to be THAT different, I submit to you the idea that the distinction there is much closer than you think. Also keep in mind the difference between what they DO and what they SAY. They are MUCH closer under that lens. Your political choices are very much "heads they win, tails you lose" IMO.
 
Reactions
983 415 25
Yeah that's what Russia told the dumb people here too.

Obama named Pai to the FCC because he was literally required to name a republican. Being anti-net neutrality is a part of the republican platform. If he didn't choose Pai, he would've chosen someone else.

And yeah, there are bad democrats. The difference is that there aren't good republicans. I wouldn't want to be a single party state, but the alternatives gotta be better than the protofascism the Republican Party works hard to implement.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
1,942 565 15
Let’s also not forget that these days, party affiliation is something a politician dons more for outward appearance (and votes) than actual allegiance. That little R or D is about as much an indicator of a person’s actual character as the mask on a Mexican wrestler. Now if it’s any of the ones other than R or D, then I might believe it actually represents something.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
983 415 25
Let’s also not forget that these days, party affiliation is something a politician dons more for outward appearance (and votes) than actual allegiance. That little R or D is about as much an indicator of a person’s actual character as the mask on a Mexican wrestler.
Yeah that's what Russia says.

If you push racist/sexist/homophobic (or corporatist to get to the topic) policies for votes rather than a sincere belief, you're still a racist/sexist/homophobe/corrupt piece of shit.
 
Reactions
1,942 565 15
Yeah that’s what Russia says.
If you push racist/sexist/homophobic (or corporatist to get to the topic) policies for votes rather than a sincere belief, you're still a racist/sexist/homophobe/corrupt piece of shit.
...no matter which letter you wear, yes.

Also don’t forget xenophobic.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
983 415 25
...no matter which letter you wear, yes.
And there are plenty of democrats that don't (note that I did not say literally every one). There is not a single republican that can say the same. Those are the party's stated goals.
 
Reactions
264 24 6
Let’s also not forget that these days, party affiliation is something a politician dons more for outward appearance (and votes) than actual allegiance. That little R or D is about as much an indicator of a person’s actual character as the mask on a Mexican wrestler. Now if it’s any of the ones other than R or D, then I might believe it actually represents something.
Yeah that's what Russia says.
You keep saying this to ANY statement of equivocation between the two parties, but I have a reality check for you: Gas has been saying that since BEFORE Obama came in (at least). So saying "well Russia says this, so it's false" is just Reductio ad Hitlerum under the name of "Russia" these days.
 
Reactions
983 415 25
Well yeah they went that route in part because the US had enough useful idiots to spread the idea on their own.
 
Reactions
1,503 279 4
The two party system sucks. But at this point I think it would take actual government intervention to get rid of it, because people naturally want to gravitate to pre-formed groups because it means less effort on their part to get mostly what they want. The amount of people in my family who don't actually pay attention to politics at all and can't figure out why Donald Trump might be corrupt infuriates me. They just believe that the libs are fucking them over because that is what they are told, and having a "non-politician" is better even if, to quote my mom "He talks like an idiot." People actually *still* believe that Trump cares about people just doesn't have good public speaking skills. :rolleyes: They get mad at people who dare say mean things about the president because it's "so disrespectful," but spent 8 years talking shit about Obama, and I don't mean about his politics, because I can guarantee they don't know what any of them were.

I have acquaintances on the other side of the fence too. The ones who repost Occupy Democrats like it's going out of style and won't admit fault in anything. Unfortunately, between these two groups of people, we're just ending up with a government that swings erratically from one extreme to the other while more people flock to register as independents, while still more or less voting down a 1 party line regardless, because cock blocking has become the politics of today.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
578 74 10
This mentality is what led to your governments supporting the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and a number of other "really bad people" over the years.
I don't know if you really want to give those examples, since, you know, not supporting them any more turned out to be worse for their respective regions... and, actually, for the west too.
Post automatically merged:

Except, you know, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John Kennedy - the republican senators who voted to overturn the FCC's decision.
It's funny how it's always a few voting against the party on an unpopular, but somehow never enough to actually defeat the bill...
 
Reactions
983 415 25
It's funny how it's always a few voting against the party on an unpopular, but somehow never enough to actually defeat the bill...
Actually in this case it did pass the senate. It's just that it won't pass the house and presidency.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,099 1,288 27
It's funny how it's always a few voting against the party on an unpopular, but somehow never enough to actually defeat the bill...
Actually, they succeeded in the senate. The problem is the House hasn't brought it up for a vote yet (and yes, even if/when they do, it's probably not gonna go well... but then at least they'll be on record, and that record can be used against them come november).

Edit: Dammit, Ninja'd by blots!
 
Reactions
389 169 0
I don't know if you really want to give those examples, since, you know, not supporting them any more turned out to be worse for their respective regions... and, actually, for the west too.
This seems analogous to what happens when you helpfully yank the knife out of the stab wound you caused.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
1,930 265 3
Actually in this case it did pass the senate. It's just that it won't pass the house and presidency.
Yeah, because there's no cooperation between the Republicans in the Senate and those in the House. Two completely different groups that would never collude to make it look like some of their number are progressive, while still maintaining enough control over the issue to make sure their corporate interests are satisfied....
 
Reactions
578 74 10
Political topic my ass.

Tech work in an objective manner, you can't pretend there are more then 1 side to how the internet works.
 
Reactions
578 74 10
There are lots of objectively true things that republicans pretend aren't true because they're cancer.
But we shouldn't acknowledge that as a valid reason to treat a subject as political.


I sometimes bemoan my red-green colorblindness, but to see only in black and white must be truly debilitating.
He said lots, not all....

You ever considered that there are some black and white things, and just assuming everything you have mixed feelings is grey is just self serving?

Then gain, you're religious, so clearly you must have some things you think are black and white, unless you don't really believe in a supreme being and it's will.
 
Reactions
477 134 6
He said lots, not all....
Let me requote him without all the fluff:

...republicans ... [are] cancer.
And I’m not up to a philosophical discussion about the nature of truth here. We’ve attempted to discuss it before but this is such a limited means of communication, and it’s so easy to get caught up on details or examples before we even agree on semantics.

If you really want to make an honest attempt of it, though, I suggest you start a new thread.
 
Reactions
578 74 10
Let me requote him without all the fluff:
Sure, and let me requote you:


Let... him... get caught...
Clearly you're implying he's cheating on his wife... :p

And just above you where bemoaning people seeing only in b&w...

Context matters.

He clearly think republicans are cancer because they deny too many true things. Not just because they're republicans, as you're trying to imply.


And I’m not up to a philosophical discussion about the nature of truth here.

There's nothing philosophical about how 1&0s make a computer work. So there's really notinhg to discuss.
 
Reactions
477 134 6
There are lots of objectively true things that republicans pretend aren't true because they're cancer.
If you parse the entire thing you’ll find he’s claiming that it’s because they are cancer that they pretend these things aren’t true.

But hey, if I’m wrong, please give me an English lesson. Tell me how I should have parsed that.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
578 74 10
If you parse the entire thing you’ll find he’s claiming that it’s because they are cancer that they pretend these things aren’t true.
No, you chose to interpret it that way.

Yes, there's some ambiguity there, but to interpret it your way is to assume he just hates reps for no reason, and is just using their actions as an excuse... which is mighty b&w of you... while i'm giving him the mighty Christian benefit of the doubt and assuming he thinks they're cancer because of their actions.
 
Top