Republicans Likely to Fight Net Neutrality Rules
Some Regulation Is Necessary
There are two camps in America -
1. Capitalism Free Market - the people who believe, those with the most money and means to do so, should, and will, and have all the right to set the pace and market as they see fit. Even if it is detrimental to the consumer, public at large, and competitive drive and innovation.
2. Competitive Market - the people who believe that any and all players, even small ones, should be given benefits as the big players. This means things such as access to broadband, waivers for taxes, fast permitting for deployment of their technology, and increasing the number of players in a general area to drive the innovation for the benefit of the consumer, public at large, and private sector.
What we need is a little ...
(continues)
1. Capitalism Free Market - the people who believe, those with the most money and means to do so, should, and will, and have all the right to set the pace and market as they see fit. Even if it is detrimental to the consumer, public at large, and competitive drive and innovation.
2. Competitive Market - the people who believe that any and all players, even small ones, should be given benefits as the big players. This means things such as access to broadband, waivers for taxes, fast permitting for deployment of their technology, and increasing the number of players in a general area to drive the innovation for the benefit of the consumer, public at large, and private sector.
What we need is a little ...
(continues)
...
You definition capitalist free markets looks like it was written by Stalin. Competition can only thrive in a free market system. What it looks like is that you are just unhappy with who is winning that competition. Free market competition offers equality of opportunity. What you are seeking is equality of outcome. You will find no competition in a market rigged by a government.
...
The market is already rigged by the government. Please explain how you think the current telecoms got to where they are in a free market? The truth is that they are the winners picked by the government, not through fair competition. Why won't you acknowledge that fact? You disparage others for what you perceive to be supporting a "market rigged by a government." But you won't admit that the market is currently rigged by the government in the first place. Why?
...
So even though the gov interfered, split the telecoms, and regulated the holy hell out them, the market still found a way to spit in the face of all those illusions of control? How about that? The market is not a nail. You are trying to hammer a wave instead of surfing it.
Please do us all a favor and stop putting words in people's mouths or attributing motives and ideas to statements based on your shallow understanding of the subjects at hand. I could try to explain it, but you are like that hammer-all you see is nails. So there is no point and I grow weary of debating hammers.
Please do us all a favor and stop putting words in people's mouths or attributing motives and ideas to statements based on your shallow understanding of the subjects at hand. I could try to explain it, but you are like that hammer-all you see is nails. So there is no point and I grow weary of debating hammers.
...
>>So even though the gov interfered, split the telecoms, and regulated the holy hell out them, the market still found a way to spit in the face of all those illusions of control? How about that?
That's a complete lie. Anyone who knows anything about how the big telecoms were made knows their networks were built on public tax dollars and that their market share was captured through government deals and contracts, instead of real competition.
>>The market is not a nail. You are trying to hammer a wave instead of surfing it.
What are you talking about?
>>Please do us all a favor and stop putting words in people's mouths
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I simply presented facts that don't jive with your own words and asked...
(continues)
That's a complete lie. Anyone who knows anything about how the big telecoms were made knows their networks were built on public tax dollars and that their market share was captured through government deals and contracts, instead of real competition.
>>The market is not a nail. You are trying to hammer a wave instead of surfing it.
What are you talking about?
>>Please do us all a favor and stop putting words in people's mouths
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I simply presented facts that don't jive with your own words and asked...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:...
That's a complete lie.
No. It happened. For real. ATT was split. I was there.Anyone who knows anything about...
Let me stop you there, man. That sounds similar to "I can't prove what I'm saying, so I need to over generalize here".
their networks were built on public tax dollars and that their market share was captured through government deals and contracts, instead of real competition.
And you keep saying that the government is the champion of fairness and competition...
>>The market is not a nail. You are trying to hammer a wave instead of surfing it.
What are you talking about?
Exactly.
(continues)
...
>>Let me stop you there, man. That sounds similar to "I can't prove what I'm saying, so I need to over generalize here".
See, this what you do. What's wrong with saying, "I disagree," or, "that's a little vague, please explain"? Or, "Have you considered this scenario..."? That's how real dialogue works. When you label something and dismiss it you close the door for further discussion.
>>And you keep saying that the government is the champion of fairness and competition...
That's a lie. I have never once said that.
>>>What are you talking about?
>>Exactly.
More of you being a jackhole.
>>While I do maintain that there is a certain amount of competition in the wireless market I would not call it capitalism. The carriers may...
(continues)
See, this what you do. What's wrong with saying, "I disagree," or, "that's a little vague, please explain"? Or, "Have you considered this scenario..."? That's how real dialogue works. When you label something and dismiss it you close the door for further discussion.
>>And you keep saying that the government is the champion of fairness and competition...
That's a lie. I have never once said that.
>>>What are you talking about?
>>Exactly.
More of you being a jackhole.
>>While I do maintain that there is a certain amount of competition in the wireless market I would not call it capitalism. The carriers may...
(continues)
...
"You can't stop can you?"
Followed by that down below? 🤣
You're special.
Yeah. Because you are on expert on what I do. 🙄
Indeed. Why don't you do that? You act as though there aren't numerous examples of you jumping down people's throats, making disparaging remarks and generally belittling other people's opinion all over this forum. Ghandi, you ain't.
(continues)
Followed by that down below? 🤣
You're special.
Zpike said:
>>Let me stop you there, man. That sounds similar to "I can't prove what I'm saying, so I need to over generalize here".
See, this what you do.
Yeah. Because you are on expert on what I do. 🙄
What's wrong with saying, "I disagree," or, "that's a little vague, please explain"? Or, "Have you considered this scenario..."?
Indeed. Why don't you do that? You act as though there aren't numerous examples of you jumping down people's throats, making disparaging remarks and generally belittling other people's opinion all over this forum. Ghandi, you ain't.
That's how...
(continues)
...
I'll give you a chance to be rational and civil. I don't have time for all the back-and-forth garbage. So, I'll just concentrate on the actual points.
>>When I say facts saying stuff like "XYZ is the way it is and anyone who knows anythings agrees". Is not now, nor will it ever be, a fact or even resemble a legitimate argument.
I'd point out that you could clean up these kinds of comments yourself, as you have made quite a few more of them than I have.
But, I'll also admit that what I did there is a logical fallacy. But what you're doing is committing what's called a fallacy fallacy. You're assuming that just because one part of the argument contains a fallacy the entire thing is fallacious.
I'll re-quote my original comment, and...
(continues)
>>When I say facts saying stuff like "XYZ is the way it is and anyone who knows anythings agrees". Is not now, nor will it ever be, a fact or even resemble a legitimate argument.
I'd point out that you could clean up these kinds of comments yourself, as you have made quite a few more of them than I have.
But, I'll also admit that what I did there is a logical fallacy. But what you're doing is committing what's called a fallacy fallacy. You're assuming that just because one part of the argument contains a fallacy the entire thing is fallacious.
I'll re-quote my original comment, and...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:
I'll give you a chance to be rational and civil. I don't have time for all the back-and-forth garbage. So, I'll just concentrate on the actual points.
Oh thanks for the chance. lol
But for civility's sake, let's move on.
>>When I say facts saying stuff like "XYZ is the way it is and anyone who knows anythings agrees". Is not now, nor will it ever be, a fact or even resemble a legitimate argument.
I'd point out that you could clean up these kinds of comments yourself, as you have made quite a few more of them than I have.
I disagree. Let's move on.
But, I'll also admit that what I did there is a logical fallacy.
The first step is ad...
(continues)
...
Part two.
The States are most certainly better representation of the people's wishes, however I don't see many good examples of local utilities. Most of my local utilities have monopolies granted to them by state and local municipalities. Given that, I don't see state and local levels handling that power much better than the giant centralized federal government.
(continues)
Furthermore, I would be curious if you would have as big of a problem with telecoms being classified as utilities if it happened at the state level,. And if so, why.
The States are most certainly better representation of the people's wishes, however I don't see many good examples of local utilities. Most of my local utilities have monopolies granted to them by state and local municipalities. Given that, I don't see state and local levels handling that power much better than the giant centralized federal government.
...
I think that the people are the ultimate authority here. But I also think they have become ineffective and conceded much of their power to the government. I do not believe th
(continues)
...
Zpike said:
The market is already rigged by the government. Please explain how you think the current telecoms got to where they are in a free market? The truth is that they are the winners picked by the government, not through fair competition. Why won't you acknowledge that fact? You disparage others for what you perceive to be supporting a "market rigged by a government." But you won't admit that the market is currently rigged by the government in the first place. Why?
Is this the part where you claim you weren't talking to me or trying to bait me into a false debate and demand that I defend positions and opinions that are not my own? I also clearly did not disparage "him"(you). I admit to disparaging hi...
(continues)
...
Is that what some people really think a capitalist free market is about? It's no wonder we have the president we do with that sort of misinformation going around.
...
Unfortunately, there are many so-called capitalists here who advocate just what the op is saying, even while they say the opposite. Many have this perception of capitalists because so many of them are elitist academics with no knowledge of the real world, who advocate for what most people clearly understand as wrong and detrimental to the market. Until some of these academics get a substantive understanding of corporate law, politics, and how that affects the real market, people will continue to have this perception.
But in my opinion, it's not so much a misunderstanding of capitalism by the general public as it is the failure of capitalist mouthpieces to apply capitalist principles in a way that makes sense. You can talk all day long a...
(continues)
But in my opinion, it's not so much a misunderstanding of capitalism by the general public as it is the failure of capitalist mouthpieces to apply capitalist principles in a way that makes sense. You can talk all day long a...
(continues)
...
Like you said..."in my opinion". Let us know when your opinion matches facts.
...
Zpike said:
I wasn't talking to you. So, if you have nothing of value to add, why reply?
Yes you were. You just happened to hide it by replying to someone else's post. If your criteria for posting is added value, then why do you post here at all?
...
NO, I really wasn't talking to you. In fact, if you really are who you say you are, then I wasn't even talking "about" you. Much of what I said was in reference to planethulk and others who posted here. None of it had anything to do with cainthecavebear. So, if you really aren't planethulk you have nothing to be offended about.
...
Zpike said:
NO, I really wasn't talking to you. In fact, if you really are who you say you are, then I wasn't even talking "about" you.
Here is a link that shows the thread listing.
Clearly it shows that Yes. You were talking to me.
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.p hp?ff=15094
You directly responded to me WHEN I WASN'T SPEAKING TO YOU and began your usual tirade of demonization and misrepresentation of facts.
Much of what I said was in reference to planethulk
You mean you were talking to a guy who you say had his account deleted? To what end? You just like taunting people who cannot respond to you? Judging by your behavior, it would seem you would prefer ...
(continues)
...
Your post exemplifies a one sided, knee jerk attitude.
Here's an analogy:
cainthecavebear: "I like CocaCola".
Zpike: "Why do you hate Pepsi so much? It is obvious you are a crony shill for Coca Cola".
Look, man. I know you have a hard time conversing with people without letting your imagination run wild. You seem to be addicted to attributing thoughts and ideas to people based on your own predjudices instead of what they are actually saying. For example, I say "I believe in a free market" and your knee jerk response is something like "typical crony capitalist. You are nothing but a corporate shill".
A real free market not only requires removal of government influence from the market, but also requires removal of corporate influence...
(continues)
Here's an analogy:
cainthecavebear: "I like CocaCola".
Zpike: "Why do you hate Pepsi so much? It is obvious you are a crony shill for Coca Cola".
Look, man. I know you have a hard time conversing with people without letting your imagination run wild. You seem to be addicted to attributing thoughts and ideas to people based on your own predjudices instead of what they are actually saying. For example, I say "I believe in a free market" and your knee jerk response is something like "typical crony capitalist. You are nothing but a corporate shill".
A real free market not only requires removal of government influence from the market, but also requires removal of corporate influence...
(continues)
...
>>Zpike: "Why do you hate Pepsi so much? It is obvious you are a crony shill for Coca Cola".
Straw man. I said nothing like that.
>>Look, man. I know you have a hard time conversing with people without letting your imagination run wild. You seem to be addicted to attributing thoughts and ideas to people based on your own predjudices instead of what they are actually saying. For example, I say "I believe in a free market" and your knee jerk response is something like "typical crony capitalist. You are nothing but a corporate shill".
Really? Where did I say that? I wasn't even talking to you. Seem's you're the one with the wild imagination.
>>A real free market not only requires removal of government influence from the market, but ...
(continues)
Straw man. I said nothing like that.
>>Look, man. I know you have a hard time conversing with people without letting your imagination run wild. You seem to be addicted to attributing thoughts and ideas to people based on your own predjudices instead of what they are actually saying. For example, I say "I believe in a free market" and your knee jerk response is something like "typical crony capitalist. You are nothing but a corporate shill".
Really? Where did I say that? I wasn't even talking to you. Seem's you're the one with the wild imagination.
>>A real free market not only requires removal of government influence from the market, but ...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:
You, on the other hand, seem to think that only the government is capable of abusing the market.
Lol. Strawman? It took you all of 10 words to do exactly what I said you'd do. This is exactly the Pepsi comment. Thanks for being predictable.
On to your attempt at a relevant point:
Of course government isn't the only entity capable of abusing the market. It is, however, the only entity capable of legalizing such abuse. So you say the corrupt corporations have considerable sway and influence over our government and the laws our government makes? Now your solution is to give more power to said influenced government? Do you fail to notice that all of these corrupt corporations are working wit...
(continues)
...
>>>Zpike said:
You, on the other hand, seem to think that only the government is capable of abusing the market.
>>Lol. Strawman? It took you all of 10 words to do exactly what I said you'd do. This is exactly the Pepsi comment. Thanks for being predictable.
That's not a straw man at all. I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions that these large telecoms are crony capitalist companies that only obtained their market presence through unethical government interference in the market. I have asked you on several occasions for your opinions, and have either been met with silence, insults, or unqualified statements like, "So even though the gov interfered, split the telecoms, and regulated the holy hell out them, the market still found...
(continues)
You, on the other hand, seem to think that only the government is capable of abusing the market.
>>Lol. Strawman? It took you all of 10 words to do exactly what I said you'd do. This is exactly the Pepsi comment. Thanks for being predictable.
That's not a straw man at all. I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions that these large telecoms are crony capitalist companies that only obtained their market presence through unethical government interference in the market. I have asked you on several occasions for your opinions, and have either been met with silence, insults, or unqualified statements like, "So even though the gov interfered, split the telecoms, and regulated the holy hell out them, the market still found...
(continues)
...
1. I am not an anarchist. I am a registered Republican.
2. Your comment was a straw man. When you falsely attribute words or ideas to somene with the intent of using that falsehood to prop your point, that is a straw man.
This, along with your projection of your own behavior onto others is your lone debate strategy.
3. We did not discuss anything months ago.
4. You seem to have me confused with one of the many people who do not share your view point.
5. I commented that you either misunderstood capitalism or you were distorting the definition on purpose. You replied that you "don't do anything that isn't on purpose". Erego my comment Thanking you for admitting your scheme.
6. I refuse to be admonished or lectured about proper decorum b...
(continues)
2. Your comment was a straw man. When you falsely attribute words or ideas to somene with the intent of using that falsehood to prop your point, that is a straw man.
This, along with your projection of your own behavior onto others is your lone debate strategy.
3. We did not discuss anything months ago.
4. You seem to have me confused with one of the many people who do not share your view point.
5. I commented that you either misunderstood capitalism or you were distorting the definition on purpose. You replied that you "don't do anything that isn't on purpose". Erego my comment Thanking you for admitting your scheme.
6. I refuse to be admonished or lectured about proper decorum b...
(continues)
...
I find it rather telling that you addressed exactly 0 of my points relative to the article, but instead opted to make your entire post a misrepresentation of my character. I won't dignify any of you inaccurate psychoanalysis with a response, except to clear up one point where it is possible there is genuine misunderstanding.
>>3. We did not discuss anything months ago.
4. You seem to have me confused with one of the many people who do not share your view point.
So, you say. I have a long list of reasons to believe you are planethulk, returned one or two days after his account was deleted. I find it a very unlikely coincidence that you popped up right after he left- writing and acting almost exactly the same way. I also find it telling...
(continues)
>>3. We did not discuss anything months ago.
4. You seem to have me confused with one of the many people who do not share your view point.
So, you say. I have a long list of reasons to believe you are planethulk, returned one or two days after his account was deleted. I find it a very unlikely coincidence that you popped up right after he left- writing and acting almost exactly the same way. I also find it telling...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:
I find it rather telling that you addressed exactly 0 of my points relative to the article, but instead opted to make your entire post a misrepresentation of my character. I won't dignify any of you inaccurate psychoanalysis with a response, except to clear up one point where it is possible there is genuine misunderstanding.
I could paste my dozens of responses to your points again, but you still won't read them or you will simply insult me again and call me uneducated. And really? This is more of the pot calling the kettle black. You have yet to respond to anything I have said without using an insult or misrepresenting what I have said. And you continue to demand respect and civility from others...
(continues)
...
>>As I said in my post yesterday, I am no longer interested in debating you on anything.
You never were. You have made exactly 0 civil comments to me. Furthermore, it was you who initially engaged me in dialogue. Your comments were aggressive and disparaging from the start. And with this most recent post you have displayed just what kind of malcontent you are.
>>I'd rather just go our separate ways and end further discussions.
That's fine with me. I made one final post to you before I read this one. Having seen this response, it is quite clear that you are incapable of rational discourse or refraining from insults and other personal attacks. You can fell free to decline to respond and I won't be responding to you.
>>That being...
(continues)
You never were. You have made exactly 0 civil comments to me. Furthermore, it was you who initially engaged me in dialogue. Your comments were aggressive and disparaging from the start. And with this most recent post you have displayed just what kind of malcontent you are.
>>I'd rather just go our separate ways and end further discussions.
That's fine with me. I made one final post to you before I read this one. Having seen this response, it is quite clear that you are incapable of rational discourse or refraining from insults and other personal attacks. You can fell free to decline to respond and I won't be responding to you.
>>That being...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:
>>As I said in my post yesterday, I am no longer interested in debating you on anything.
You never were. You have made exactly 0 civil comments to me.
Please list the "civil" comments you have directed towards me and then please explain the social theory that demands that I owe you anything.
Yes. I agree that I never had any intention on debating you. The first post of your I ever read, you were attacking someone and strutting around pretending to be superior. You lack the ability to debate. That was then and is now a fact. Your version of "debate" consists of belittling others and badgering them until they stop replying.
Furthermore, it was you who initially engaged me in...
(continues)
...
>>Nobody insulted you.
Stop lying. You constantly insult me. There are numerous insults in this post alone.
>>Your attempt to claim your comments were not meant for me is hilarious. "Some people" "so called capitalists".
I said I wasn't talking "TO " you. But unless you're now going to quit the facade and admit who you are, why would you think my comments were "about" you? At the time I made that post I had barely even touched on economics with cainthecavebear. Only planethulk would have taken exception at that comment. So, can you now be honest about your identity or do you prefer to continue to lie and pretend you're someone else?
And although most of them aren't as obnoxious as you are, there are others here besides yoursel...
(continues)
Stop lying. You constantly insult me. There are numerous insults in this post alone.
>>Your attempt to claim your comments were not meant for me is hilarious. "Some people" "so called capitalists".
I said I wasn't talking "TO " you. But unless you're now going to quit the facade and admit who you are, why would you think my comments were "about" you? At the time I made that post I had barely even touched on economics with cainthecavebear. Only planethulk would have taken exception at that comment. So, can you now be honest about your identity or do you prefer to continue to lie and pretend you're someone else?
And although most of them aren't as obnoxious as you are, there are others here besides yoursel...
(continues)
...
Oh boy. This entire post is one giant projection of your own behavior onto me.
Lying?
Do you think it has gone unnoticed how often you call someone a liar? Classic projection. Cheaters always accuse others of cheating. Liars always accuse others of lying. Everytime I have disagreed with you, you call me a liar or accuse me of lying. This is because you tend to lie and deceive on a regular basis and use this tactic to draw attention away from that fact.
planethulk? I don't know who that is or even care but it does explain a few of your deluded comments to me if you think that we are the same person. I suspect though that this is another attempt to project your behavior onto me. I have no doubt that, based upon your narcissism, that you...
(continues)
Lying?
Do you think it has gone unnoticed how often you call someone a liar? Classic projection. Cheaters always accuse others of cheating. Liars always accuse others of lying. Everytime I have disagreed with you, you call me a liar or accuse me of lying. This is because you tend to lie and deceive on a regular basis and use this tactic to draw attention away from that fact.
planethulk? I don't know who that is or even care but it does explain a few of your deluded comments to me if you think that we are the same person. I suspect though that this is another attempt to project your behavior onto me. I have no doubt that, based upon your narcissism, that you...
(continues)
...
If empty words, shallow arguments, and overly bloated forum posts were rocket fuel, we could explore the entire universe using nothing but "some people's" posts. 🤣
...
Brad K said:
Is that what some people really think a capitalist free market is about? It's no wonder we have the president we do with that sort of misinformation going around.
Indeed. Propaganda works.
Bankers and cronies call themselves "Capitalist" and pay world leaders and governments to demonize them and offer the salvation of Socialism to the masses. This is nothing more than economic theater designed to entice the public to shackle themselves. This tactic has been used for centuries by world leaders. Anyone with a solid education can, of course, understand that what these corporations and banks are doing(with the help of government no less!) is not capitalism or free market. But what do they care?...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
