Net Neutrality might end.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Well Surt, as I understand basic principles of logical discourse which you don't, I'd say you should be taking me seriously.

But ignorance is bliss. And the best ignorance is willful ignorance.

Thing is, you just think you understand those things lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at me still not playing your silly little games and equalization tacitcs, Surt. Reminds me, you did similar when a Nazi murdered an innocent women with "but what about Antifa!". How cowardly whataboutary tactics are, imo

I'll answer once you answer my question. Both sides pieces of shit: yes or no?

Originally posted by Surtur
Thing is, you just think you understand those things lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'll answer once you answer my question. Both sides pieces of shit: yes or no?

Answer what? I didn't ask you a question you weirdo.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Given you don't understand these principles, hence why you're blatantly ignoring them, you're in no position to gauge whether I understand them.

Since you yourself lack intelligence, I feel like you saying I don't grasp principles is meaningless.

Originally posted by Surtur
Pot, kettle, black.

Look at this red herring nonsense:

In this way, edge providers are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint... So let’s be clear. They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy.

Response to removing net neutrality from Ajit Pai

YahooNewsFromTechCrunch

Originally posted by quanchi112
?

Do I need to explain what the phrase means or are you just delusional enough to think it doesn't apply to you?

Originally posted by Surtur
ur stoopid

Surtur my dude, as much as I agree with you on some things your weakest point is whataboutism when it's something on the Republican end.

My advice to you is to openly and clearly condemn the bullshit when it comes from the Republicans and Trump so you can say "yeah, I condemned the bullshit on my side, I still think the otherside is just as bad or worse overall, but this specifically is something that can be laid at the feet of Trump or the Republicans, are you all willing to call out the Dems when they pull shit?" And I tell you this because it would be both the moral thing to do, and the strategically smart thing to do because its something you could actually get high ground with because a lot of the time the answer on the other side is no, I've noticed a lot of people on here on the dem side shy away from condemning intersectional bigotry (blatant racism or discriminatory policy towards whites etc) and tend to also shy away from condemning Antifa. Instead of waiting for them to uphold the standard, do it first yourself.

Or maybe Surt should just condemn bad sh!t because it's bad?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Or maybe Surt should just condemn bad sh!t because it's bad?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I tell you this because it would be both the moral thing to do, and the strategically smart thing to do

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes I said that as well if you actually paid attention to what I said:

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Or maybe Surt should just condemn bad sh!t because it's bad?

That’s hilarious coming from you my dude.

You know one of the worst aspects of this:

The govt is supposed to prevent to much consolidated power in business to protect us from lack of competition in the marketplace, price fixing etc etc...........

Both the democrats and republicans have failed in that role, health insurance companies, cable companies are two industries that are clear examples.

By the way wasn't trump supposed to get lobbyists out of DC?

Republicans deserve the sole blame for getting rid of net neutrality as they voted to get rid of it while democrats voted to keep it.

So when I shift from party platititudes to govt responsibilities the response is simply a shift back to party?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So when I shift from party platititudes to govt responsibilities the response is simply a shift back to party?

No, us looking at the specific actions regarding a specific policy that happens to be the topic of this thread isn't a platitude.

"Both sides are bad" is a statement that has been repeated time and time again and could be considered a "platitude".

"Both sides are bad" is just a silly deflection from the actual topic of discussion here.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh, what. The actions of members on specific policy is a"platitude"?

No, us looking at the specific actions regarding a specific policy that happens to be the topic of this thread isn't a platitude.

"Both sides are bad" is a statement that has been repeated time and time again and could be considered a "platitude".

"Both sides are bad" is just a silly deflection from the actual topic of discussion here.

My position wasn't both are "bad" in as much as both are being paid off.

My point is to look at the underlying issue that causes the same problems to come to the surface time and again. Why is it corporations and their billions of dollars are allowed to drive legislation and more importantly why do people consistently assume it's the republicans that are getting all the money?

Pretending there is a good and bad guy is silly and childish, it's a narrative driven by those that react to headlines and spend little time looking at a bigger picture.

Did any of you email/call your Congressmen?

My representative is already against this. So no need. The people who really need to do that are the ones in districts where their representatives are pro ending Net-N.

Originally posted by snowdragon

Pretending there is a good and bad guy is silly and childish, it's a narrative driven by those that react to headlines and spend little time looking at a bigger picture.

That both sides have people paid off isn't an excuse to ignore whose letting being paid off influence their vote on this specific policy.