You answered my question with a question. This is not a great way to make your case.
Your article illustrates a very similar pattern from Obama’s administration. Write a bill with little to no hope of passing through Conservative rank and file, compromise before anything has even happened yet. It looks good to his people, like he’s fighting the moral fight.
I will ask another question; What do think the worst thing Obama has done as President?
the FCC chairman, no matter who he/she is, or who appointed him/her is still bound by the court decision. that you chose to ignore that made your question irrelevant.
i’m not interested in playing that game, sorry.
You don’t have to. It just establishes you’re an apologist for the President. I say it with no spite, I say it factually.
It’s unfortunate that this is the behavior is so prominent as it ensures the next President will be somebody like Hillary Clinton and not Elizabeth Warren.
[quote=“Vallindsay2, post:23, topic:29879, full:true”]You don’t have to. It just establishes you’re an apologist for the President. I say it with no spite, I say it factually.
[/quote]
like i said, i’m not playing that game. if you want to dream up attributes to pin on your imaginary version of me, kindly leave me out of your fantasy.
if you think Hillary Clinton is to the left of Obama on anything, you’re absolutely crazy.
“if you think Hillary Clinton is to the left of Obama on anything, you’re absolutely crazy.”
Well, that’s the point. Elizabeth Warren 2016!
I hoped and kinda figured you were being humorous, I mainly pontificated for the sake of those who might not understand the issue. 
As I will do now as well…
Not only is every byte of bandwidth paid for twice, both on the consumer and the hosts ends, and the middle paid twice in peering agreements from both, like you said, the infrastructure they run on was in no small part subsidized by taxpayers. Many of these companies are posting record profits. They don’t need to break the internet out of greed.
If I’m paying Comcast $65 for my broadband internet then I want to be able to use what I purchased however I please. The idea that they’d downgrade services that I paid for to extort more money from other companies at the other end is unacceptable and something that I, the consumer have no control over. They don’t offer a premium internet package were they promise not to downgrade any services. This is absolute bollocks and is going to drive the last remaining strong sector in the USA, technology companies, overseas to other countries that aren’t crippling and extorting the internet mafia style.
For whatever it is worth. This wouldn’t have been able to happen if the Republicans hadn’t intentionally blocked the Net Neutrality bill that the Democrats tried to pass earlier. That bill would have protected Net Neutrality and made this all illegal so it never would have occurred. The system is broken. 
I understand that generally speaking the GOP is kinda no good, but at the same time when Obama appoints a pro-industry lobbyist as the chairman of his commission, some of the blame gets shared. And this is a consistent thing with him, walking a completely different walk than he talks. And it isn’t simply “The Republicans didn’t give him a choice”.
Single-Payer? Never got to the table.
Patriot Act? Expanded.
Most open White House? Most Secretive White House.
No Telecom Immunity? Telecom Immunity.
This President’s legacy is going to be one of a true Democrat, at least…
With this particular issue he surely does share some of the blame, but this wouldn’t have even been possible if the Republicans hadn’t intentionally blocked the bill that would have guaranteed net neutrality and allowed it to pass into law. That would have protected us against this and any future attempts. That was the real tragedy and where things went seriously wrong. That is where it became possible for the Net to get screwed instead of being protected. This new development is a direct consequence of that shortsightedness.
Well, the GOP is against net neutrality on principle and have been for many years now. And they have a majority in the House, so they effectively get to decide what laws get passed and what laws don’t.
It doesn’t mean that “the system is broken.” It means that there’s too many Republicans in Congress.
The fact that we only really have 2 party choices, and both are in the pockets of private interests. One party is super messed up, and the other is mostly messed up. Congress a joke. Yeah the system is broken. 
At least from my perspective.
I think it would have been entirely possible and probable without Republican support. I mean, who appointed Tom Wheeler, a lobbyist for cable and wireless corporations?
It starts there, not with Republicans…
You miss the point. If they hadn’t blocked the law the Democrats tried to pass earlier, it would have not only been impossible, it would have been illegal. That law was designed specifically to ensure Net Neutrality going forward.
So what you’re saying is because Republicans made it possible that it’s understandable Obama’s administration would try and change Net Neutrality rules to favor corporations?
NO. NO. NO. Please actually read my replies and check whatever agenda is causing you to not understand my comments at the door. I don’t appreciate being straw manned by someone with such a strong bias that they cannot even see that I AGREE that Obama shares the blame, but am making a larger more important point that regardless whom was appointed, this wouldn’t have been possible if the Republicans hadn’t blocked the bill that would have ensured Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality would have been protected by law!!!
Capiche?
I capiche, but it’s the Obama administration pulling the trigger, do you capiche? It’s also Republicans that made the march to war, the ones who made the Patriot Act, etc.
Do you want me to simply submit to the fact the Republicans made this possible? That’s not a problem. It’s true. But it’s irrelevant to the fact that the * Democratic* administration is the one pursuing to remove net neutrality. Obama is not being pressured to propose this.
I am saying all this because the Democratic Party is not helping make the world a better place. The only reason I can tell you the Republicans are worse is the fact that they are* obviously* reptilian. Democrats like Obama may not be so obvious, but they can be worse enemies to the social-progressive cause. No more shining example exists then the current administration’s active diligence to be more obtrusive and secretive then the previous Republican administration.
I understand what you are saying, but let’s be honest for a moment, shall we? Republicans may have made it possible, but who’s pulling the trigger on this action? And when you find out it’s the people who are supposed to be on your side what do you do? Simply point and say the Republicans shoulder part of the blame?
No. You remember everyone on your team that did this and make sure they don’t get votes.
I understand Obama nominated an appointee who was then approved by both parties, and that appointee is responsible for pushing the case that the allowed the court to rule against Net Neutrality. I don’t oversimplify things out of bias. I already said I think Obama shares responsibility for what happened, wtf more do you want? I was only pointing out that NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE if the Republicans hadn’t killed the bill that WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ALL OF THIS. Without that bill, it was inevitable that monetary pressure would eventually result in Net Neutrality being compromised, regardless of which party was in power, they BOTH serve the interests of the people giving them money.
Republican Party - Is Outright Against Net Neutrality
Democratic Party - Claims to be for Net Neutrality but is culpable in nominating the person who killed it.
Neither are “my party”, they are (D)Not so Great and (R)Horrible…
[quote=“Vallindsay2, post:36, topic:29879”]
And when you find out it’s the people who are supposed to be on your side what do you do? Simply point and say the Republicans shoulder part of the blame? No. You remember everyone on your team that did this and make sure they don’t get votes.[/quote]
Again I do not appreciate you straw manning me due to your own personal biases. I do not share them. WRONG. I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. None of these are my teams. I have no special love for the current administration. I think Obama is a heck of a lot better then Bush was, but still a far cry from the kind of candidate I’d like to see in office. Your assumptions are way off base. Why do you insist in pigeonholing other people into boxes they don’t belong in?
Once you can see past your own preconceived notions of what you think and what you think everyone else is thinking, you might see that some of us don’t share those biases. I’m viewing the big picture fairly accurately IMHO.
I’m pretty sure that due to term limits, he won’t be getting any votes in the next election. If pressed I’d rather vote for the party that at least pretends to be for the right things, then that party that is outright openly evil, but really I hate both choices and i wish we weren’t locked into a f’ed up two party system where people such as myself aren’t represented at all.
I would just like to take a moment and say I am not straw-manning you. Well, at least any more than anyone is straw-manning me. And I honestly don’t believe you or anyone else is.
“I was only pointing out that NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE if the Republicans hadn’t killed the bill that WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ALL OF THIS.”
You’ve left something out of this emphasis. You point out the Republicans, all fine and dandy. It illustrates ‘who’ of the Cause nicely. But ‘who’ is the moving with the Effect? If it is not Obama or his administration moving forward with this ball of killing Net Neutrality(And I believe it is), who is it?
Am I wrong in believing this?
The big telcom and ISPs lobbies are. Their lobbying and dollars are buying politicians in both parties. This is why Net Neutrality so desperately needed the protection it was denied for political reasons and why the bill was so damn crucial. It would have prevented all of this. Without direct legal protection this was inevitable with either party in power, because they both can be bought these days. The bill was the only thing standing in the way of this inevitable outcome.
Chairman Wheeler was appointed by President Barack Obama and UNANIMOUSLY confirmed by the United States Senate, meaning both parties fully supported this. Both parties are culpable in Wheeler’s appointment, and both are to blame for the consequences of that appointment. It is really too bad that this couldn’t have been prevented…oh wait it almost was.
I only meant don’t base your arguments on mistaken assumptions that I belong to a political party that I don’t support, because that is wrong and unfair.
Jeez, at which point did I mention which political party you were affiliated with? And why am I being put to task for pointing out the political leader who is supposedly opposed to such a travesty has instigated it?
