Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#131

Post by jbooth »

webXL wrote: post #130
jbooth wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy. End of story. (If you ask me to justify this, I'll just refer you to google for some of her crazier quotes). The Koch brothers supporting someone like her says to me that they're either more interested in profit than sound public policy, or they're fucking crazy too. More likely the first. Look, just own it. "Conservative". You are what you do. Nothing wrong with it, 45% of the…

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy Justify it. And don't use Media Matters as a source. They recently accused Huckabee of endorsing "ethnic cleansing" because he suggested that Arab states should offer land for a Palestinian state, and Jews have a right to settle the West Bank. Using "ethnic cleansing" in that way is crazy. Own what? Which sane candidate were the Kochs supposed to support? I assume you voted for O…

What I'm saying is that the Republicans do very little for you. Especially if you believe in things like science. They'll occasionally make noises about cutting the smallest pieces of the budget, and do nothing else whatsoever for the libertarian cause. Especially when it comes to the whole idea of state authoritarianism.

You just asked me to justify calling Bachmann crazy?

Can I get you on the record first as saying "she's not that crazy"? I'd like to see how strongly you endorse her before I waste 90 seconds googling.

Are you claiming to be a small-l libertarian, as opposed to a doctrinaire republican who supports Michelle Bachmann?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#132

Post by webXL »

jbooth wrote: post #131
webXL wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy Justify it. And don't use Media Matters as a source. They recently accused Huckabee of endorsing "ethnic cleansing" because he suggested that Arab states should offer land for a Palestinian state, and Jews have a right to settle the West Bank. Using "ethnic cleansing" in that way is crazy. Own what? Which sane candidate were the Kochs supposed to support? I assume you voted for O…

What I'm saying is that the Republicans do very little for you. Especially if you believe in things like science. They'll occasionally make noises about cutting the smallest pieces of the budget, and do nothing else whatsoever for the libertarian cause. Especially when it comes to the whole idea of state authoritarianism. You just asked me to justify calling Bachmann crazy? Can I get you on the record first as saying…

Do you believe in the separation of church and state? What about the separation of your bedroom and state? Or the separation of our government and forcing our ideals on other countries? Why is it OK to advocate that the government not be involved in those things, but when it comes to advocating that the government not be involved in advancing science and simple economic transactions between two adults, we're labeled as crazy? I'm not lumping Bachmann in with me, but plenty of comments here think libertarian positions are crazy.

Republicans advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They suck royally at implementing it. Democrats, on the other hand, advocate a larger government and you can do about 10 seconds of googling to see how successful they've been. Given that reality, please tell me why a libertarian should for 1 second consider voting for a Democrat.

Republicans tend to work against the people who want to limit my economic freedom. That does a lot more for the the libertarian cause than Democrats could ever do. An overwhelming number of Democrats have voted for the Patriot Act, so you can't make the argument that they both want to expand the government in different ways. Dems want more control over our lives, period. Advocating smaller government while passing the Patriot Act, starting wars and expanding Medicare might be considered Orwellian, but I don't remember Dems working against Republicans for libertarian values like Republicans are working against Dems now.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#133

Post by jbooth »

webXL wrote: post #132
jbooth wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that the Republicans do very little for you. Especially if you believe in things like science. They'll occasionally make noises about cutting the smallest pieces of the budget, and do nothing else whatsoever for the libertarian cause. Especially when it comes to the whole idea of state authoritarianism. You just asked me to justify calling Bachmann crazy? Can I get you on the record first as saying…

Do you believe in the separation of church and state? What about the separation of your bedroom and state? Or the separation of our government and forcing our ideals on other countries? Why is it OK to advocate that the government not be involved in those things, but when it comes to advocating that the government not be involved in advancing science and simple economic transactions between two adults, we're labeled…

Republicans don't advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They advocate spending cuts in things that help poor people and HUGE SPENDING INCREASES in the military, the war on drugs, and anything authoritarian or anything that puts money into a large corporation's pocket. The end result? Clinton balances budget. Bush blows it up. Repeat.

So, if you want to know why you should for 1 second consider voting for a democrat, I'd point to the results. Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#134

Post by webXL »

jbooth wrote: post #133
webXL wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in the separation of church and state? What about the separation of your bedroom and state? Or the separation of our government and forcing our ideals on other countries? Why is it OK to advocate that the government not be involved in those things, but when it comes to advocating that the government not be involved in advancing science and simple economic transactions between two adults, we're labeled…

Republicans don't advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They advocate spending cuts in things that help poor people and HUGE SPENDING INCREASES in the military, the war on drugs, and anything authoritarian or anything that puts money into a large corporation's pocket. The end result? Clinton balances budget. Bush blows it up. Repeat. So, if you want to know why you should for 1 second consider voting for a d…

Oh, I see, Republicans work for corporations and Democrats don't. Have you been following campaign financing the last few election cycles? Democrats received more from corporations. They both have been bought off. Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than anyone else. Whoever is in power acts authoritarian. Obama could have repealed the Patriot Act. He could have expelled lobbyists out of Washington. But he didn't.

Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well

I suggest you taper your expectations back a little. The only way Obama can be successful is if he solves the debt crisis. Clinton did a great job starting in 95 when Republicans took congress. I believe in checks and balances. 93-95, 01-07, 09-11. What do those years have in common? Single party rule. No checks on power. Huge deficits (except for TARP in '08), huge problems. Why are you so gung-ho on Democrats? Social Security, Medicare can't be solved with what they advocate. We'll end up like Greece if they don't move to the center on government spending. Republicans too!

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#135

Post by jacoblyles »

spenrose wrote: post #56
jacoblyles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t... And here's a post refuting the "money" argument: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...

Cato supports its corporate masters: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#C...

Cato gets 97% of its annual operating budget from individual donations.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#136

Post by spenrose »

webXL wrote: post #110
spenrose wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing…

"Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power" So your answer is additional regulations? Cato's solution for a more efficient and freer internet should be more regulation? I am not using "Orwellian language". Neither is Cato. When they say they want less regulation, they mean less regulation. Cato has always been opposed to Federal power not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Can you si…

Evaluating regulations by count is like evaluating software by lines of code.

Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#137

Post by jbooth »

webXL wrote: post #134
jbooth wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans don't advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They advocate spending cuts in things that help poor people and HUGE SPENDING INCREASES in the military, the war on drugs, and anything authoritarian or anything that puts money into a large corporation's pocket. The end result? Clinton balances budget. Bush blows it up. Repeat. So, if you want to know why you should for 1 second consider voting for a d…

Oh, I see, Republicans work for corporations and Democrats don't. Have you been following campaign financing the last few election cycles? Democrats received more from corporations. They both have been bought off. Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than anyone else. Whoever is in power acts authoritarian. Obama could have repealed the Patriot Act. He could have expelled lobbyists out of Washington. But he didn't. Fast…

Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress.

I'll copy paste that for you, maybe it will stick:

Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress.

Here's the deal.. the deficit is bigger than the entire domestic discretionary budget. A political party that's only interested in cutting the domestic budget and has no desire to close tax loopholes or anything like that physically can't balance the budget. This is basic arithmetic.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#138

Post by webXL »

jbooth wrote: post #137
webXL wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see, Republicans work for corporations and Democrats don't. Have you been following campaign financing the last few election cycles? Democrats received more from corporations. They both have been bought off. Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than anyone else. Whoever is in power acts authoritarian. Obama could have repealed the Patriot Act. He could have expelled lobbyists out of Washington. But he didn't. Fast…

Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress. I'll copy paste that for you, maybe it will stick: Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress. Here's the deal.. the deficit is bigger than the entire domestic discretionary budget. A political party that's only interested in cutting the domestic budget and has no desire to close tax loopholes or…

3 words: Cold War over. Copy and paste all you want. It still doesn't change the fact the government will need to curtail spending, and perhaps raise taxes once the economy recovers if it doesn't want Greece II:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/national-debt-skyroc...

I know it's a conservative web site, but the chart is generated from WH OMB data. I'm all for closing loopholes. Flat tax! We'll just need to fight fewer wars, subsidize fewer corporate farms, and not give 90 year olds hip replacements for free. Oh, and raise the retirement age.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#139

Post by webXL »

spenrose wrote: post #136
webXL wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power" So your answer is additional regulations? Cato's solution for a more efficient and freer internet should be more regulation? I am not using "Orwellian language". Neither is Cato. When they say they want less regulation, they mean less regulation. Cato has always been opposed to Federal power not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Can you si…

Evaluating regulations by count is like evaluating software by lines of code. Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-...

So Kochs = Cato, now? I think they have more than two people: http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html

And if you're going to make a wild accusation like Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language, please use a little more brain power than just posting a link to someone else's stretch that not buying into man-made climate catastrophe means you don't care about property rights as a whole.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#140

Post by webXL »

jshen wrote: post #129
webXL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and…

because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.

News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_...

And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!

Post reply on HN