Republicans want a net neutrality law, but only if it stops the FCC from handling it

[Guest]

Seems fairly liberal of them. Id've expected them to make the entire Internet redirect to foxnews.com

[Guest]

How is blocking sites in the first place "open"? Unless I am misunderstanding what they mean by "lawful services on the network"?

The Democrat; works and fights for people's freedoms, equality and all that jazz, hates a certain group of people and doesn't want them to talk or share their views. Oh Lord. :lol:

That's just perfect! This is why Democrats are a laughing stock to logically sound individuals.  Okay, let's see what the Democrats will say when they are left doing the talking:

I could go on. Democrats have shown—just like any other organized political party set against another—that they are incompetent, racist, sexist and does not support the rights and equality of people they do not like. See the world as it is actually painted, not the way the Democrats have painted it for you.

*cracks knuckles*

 

I don't want to start a war, but you've clearly expressed your opinion, so now it's my turn.

 

Please do not say 'the democrat,' as if we're all carbon clones of each other and all think as stupidly as (admittedly) some of us do. I don't HATE republicans or any other political party, but I do disagree with them on some very (very) fundamental issues in politics and otherwise, though honestly, 7 years of being called a 'faggot' by the backwood hicks during my life in Vermont didn't help put any... I am a special case I guess, but in no way do I hear the word 'republican' and completely shut off; I understand others' opinions. So when you say 'Democrats have shown,' you're saying every single person in the party has stood and said 'I am incompetent, racist, sexist and do not support the rights and equality of people I do not like' and that's both hilarious and sad. In fact, my parents are much more abhorring towards right-wing politics than me, and I'm the gay one

 

On a fundamental basis, a liberal is someone who sits ahead of a conservative in terms of rights and equality (not that there aren't outliers on either side). ​Conservative as a word basically boils down to 'I don't like change,' whether it's in accepting other races, biological/sexual statuses, or otherwise. Though of course not all conservatives think this way.

 

And lastly in contrast, you may be seeing the world in the way republicans have painted it (I don't know you but based on your wording I can assume as much), so we're all at fault with looking through an imperfect lens at people who don't agree with us 100%, me certainly included.

[Albatross]

*cracks knuckles*

 

I don't want to start a war, but you've clearly expressed your opinion, so now it's my turn.

 

Please do not say 'the democrat,' as if we're all carbon clones of each other and all think as stupidly as (admittedly) some of us do. I don't HATE republicans or any other political party, but I do disagree with them on some very (very) fundamental issues in politics and otherwise, though honestly, 7 years of being called a 'faggot' by the backwood hicks during my life in Vermont didn't help put any... I am a special case I guess, but in no way do I hear the word 'republican' and completely shut off; I understand others' opinions. So when you say 'Democrats have shown,' you're saying every single person in the party has stood and said 'I am incompetent, racist, sexist and do not support the rights and equality of people I do not like' and that's both hilarious and sad. In fact, my parents are much more abhorring towards right-wing politics than me, and I'm the gay one

 

On a fundamental basis, a liberal is someone who sits ahead of a conservative in terms of rights and equality (not that there aren't outliers on either side). ​Conservative as a word basically boils down to 'I don't like change,' whether it's in accepting other races, biological/sexual statuses, or otherwise. Though of course not all conservatives think this way.

 

And lastly in contrast, you may be seeing the world in the way republicans have painted it (I don't know you but based on your wording I can assume as much), so we're all at fault with looking through an imperfect lens at people who don't agree with us 100%, me certainly included.

 

 

1. Please read my bit in the post that clearly states all parties have their problems. So I never said you/Democrats are all clones...
2. I take offense to "backwood hicks". You got mad at me for (which of course is not what I was saying) for lumping all Democrats together/treating them in such a way and then you proceed to do the same with "hicks" and use the term in a derogatory fashion? Is it okay to act like this when it pleases a certain person/group/party? :huh:
3. No, when I say "Democrats have shown...." I am saying Democrats have shown. Whether or not all Democrats are the same, they are still Democrats.
4. I think you are restricting what Conservatism can be, but whatever, Conservatives = bad. And Liberals can be just as hypocritical and as intolerant as Republicans etc. If you're a Christian or Republican, the Liberals could care less and that's the truth. There is no denying it. If one does deny it, they are blind.
5. I'm not Republican...I hate political parties. They are corrupt. There should be no left or right. There should just be Americans. I see the world for what it is. I'm not stupid enough to  believe one party is better than the other, like a majority of people seem to believe. I'm not intolerant and ignorant enough to assume all members of a party or any group of people really think the same as their radical counterparts—even in the chance that their radical counterparts are the majority (scenario, not stating anything as fact here). I have known people from the major parties; some were smart, nice and tolerant. Others were ignorant and unable to accept tolerating other people simply for what they believed or didn't believe yet yammered on about the other person/group not being tolerant. Parties are the problem, and electing representatives to speak for said parties' people makes it even worse.

 

In the end, here's what I had meant: Democrats are/can be just as bad as Republicans. No one should identify as a Demo, Repub etc etc. Lumping yourself up with a movement like that, a group that can control and influence millions of people into thinking just like them—even if their thinking is wrong or incredibly biased—is never a smart idea.

 

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order --or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”― Ronald Reagan

 

I hope this cleared my post up. But the discussion tires me now as this is the second or third time someone misunderstood or did not read my post entirely...it is difficult enough trying to get my posts across accurately due to my disorder but it is even harder when my posts aren't even read in the first place. It doesn't help me learn how to explain myself better to others as my content isn't even fully acknowledged. I do appreciate that I clicked onto the notification alerting me to someone quoting me and finding that it was a pleasant reply. That was unexpected and very appreciated, so thank you.

[Techteen14]

Please do not say 'the democrat,' as if we're all carbon clones of each other and all think as stupidly as (admittedly) some of us do. I don't HATE republicans or any other political party, but I do disagree with them on some very (very) fundamental issues in politics and otherwise, though honestly, 7 years of being called a 'faggot' by the backwood hicks during my life in Vermont didn't help put any... I am a special case I guess, but in no way do I hear the word 'republican' and completely shut off; I understand others' opinions. So when you say 'Democrats have shown,' you're saying every single person in the party has stood and said 'I am incompetent, racist, sexist and do not support the rights and equality of people I do not like' and that's both hilarious and sad. In fact, my parents are much more abhorring towards right-wing politics than me, and I'm the gay one

I was about to post something like this, but from my viewpoint as a more Republican-leaning person. I don't hate, say, @AMorassOfPixelz because he's a liberal, or become best friends with @TheSLSAMG because he's a conservative. I honestly don't care what boxes you check on a ballot and choose to form my opinions of people based on who they actually are.

 

On a fundamental basis, a liberal is someone who sits ahead of a conservative in terms of rights and equality (not that there aren't outliers on either side). ​Conservative as a word basically boils down to 'I don't like change,' whether it's in accepting other races, biological/sexual statuses, or otherwise. Though of course not all conservatives think this way.

I stand in the middle, pretty much. I like change, but not necessarily radical change.

There are people on the far right, like my stepgrandfather (correct term?), who actually had the nerve to make racial slurs about MLK Jr, who IMO is up there in the top ten greatest people of all time. Then you have the people on the far left who have free range children and don't want to kill any animals because they're apparently beings who've created their own civilizations and aren't relatively simple and are capable of thinking in a nonprimitive (to us) way. Oh, wait...

 

And lastly in contrast, you may be seeing the world in the way republicans have painted it (I don't know you but based on your wording I can assume as much), so we're all at fault with looking through an imperfect lens at people who don't agree with us 100%, me certainly included.

THIS SO MUCH.

[Techteen14]

• Please read my bit in the post that clearly states all parties have their problems. So I never said you/Democrats are all clones...
• I take offense to "backwood hicks". You got mad at me for (which of course is not what I was saying) for lumping all Democrats together/treating them in such a way and then you proceed to do the same with "hicks" and use the term in a derogatory fashion? Is it okay to act like this when it pleases a certain person/group/party? :huh:
• No, when I say "Democrats have shown...." I am saying Democrats have shown. Whether or not all Democrats are the same, they are still Democrats.
• I think you are restricting what Conservatism can be, but whatever, Conservatives = bad. And Liberals can be just as hypocritical and as intolerant as Republicans etc. If you're a Christian or Republican, the Liberals could care less and that's the truth. There is no denying it. If one does deny it, they are blind.
• I'm not Republican...I hate political parties. They are corrupt. There should be no left or right. There should just be Americans. I see the world for what it is. I'm not stupid enough to  believe one party is better than the other, like a majority of people seem to believe. I'm not intolerant and ignorant enough to assume all members of a party or any group of people really think the same as their radical counterparts—even in the chance that their radical counterparts are the majority (scenario, not stating anything as fact here). I have known people from the major parties; some were smart, nice and tolerant. Others were ignorant and unable to accept tolerating other people simply for what they believed or didn't believe yet yammered on about the other person/group not being tolerant. Parties are the problem, and electing representatives to speak for said parties' people makes it even worse.

 

In the end, here's what I had meant: Democrats are/can be just as bad as Republicans. No one should identify as a Demo, Repub etc etc. Lumping yourself up with a movement like that, a group that can control and influence millions of people into thinking just like them—even if their thinking is wrong or incredibly biased—is never a smart idea.

 

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order --or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”― Ronald Reagan

 

I hope this cleared my post up. But the discussion tires me now as this is the second or third time someone misunderstood or did not read my post entirely...it is difficult enough trying to get my posts across accurately due to my disorder but it is even harder when my posts aren't even read in the first place. It doesn't help me learn how to explain myself better to others as my content isn't even fully acknowledged. I do appreciate that I clicked onto the notification alerting me to someone quoting me and finding that it was a pleasant reply. That was unexpected and very appreciated, so thank you.

It sounds like you have most of the characteristics of a Libertarian, or at least a Swanson.

[Guest]

 

1. Please read my bit in the post that clearly states all parties have their problems. So I never said you/Democrats are all clones...
2. I take offense to "backwood hicks". You got mad at me for (which of course is not what I was saying) for lumping all Democrats together/treating them in such a way and then you proceed to do the same with "hicks" and use the term in a derogatory fashion? Is it okay to act like this when it pleases a certain person/group/party? :huh:
3. No, when I say "Democrats have shown...." I am saying Democrats have shown. Whether or not all Democrats are the same, they are still Democrats.
4. I think you are restricting what Conservatism can be, but whatever, Conservatives = bad. And Liberals can be just as hypocritical and as intolerant as Republicans etc. If you're a Christian or Republican, the Liberals could care less and that's the truth. There is no denying it. If one does deny it, they are blind.
5. I'm not Republican...I hate political parties. They are corrupt. There should be no left or right. There should just be Americans. I see the world for what it is. I'm not stupid enough to  believe one party is better than the other, like a majority of people seem to believe. I'm not intolerant and ignorant enough to assume all members of a party or any group of people really think the same as their radical counterparts—even in the chance that their radical counterparts are the majority (scenario, not stating anything as fact here). I have known people from the major parties; some were smart, nice and tolerant. Others were ignorant and unable to accept tolerating other people simply for what they believed or didn't believe yet yammered on about the other person/group not being tolerant. Parties are the problem, and electing representatives to speak for said parties' people makes it even worse.

 

In the end, here's what I had meant: Democrats are/can be just as bad as Republicans. No one should identify as a Demo, Repub etc etc. Lumping yourself up with a movement like that, a group that can control and influence millions of people into thinking just like them—even if their thinking is wrong or incredibly biased—is never a smart idea.

 

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order --or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”― Ronald Reagan

 

I hope this cleared my post up. But the discussion tires me now as this is the second or third time someone misunderstood or did not read my post entirely...it is difficult enough trying to get my posts across accurately due to my disorder but it is even harder when my posts aren't even read in the first place. It doesn't help me learn how to explain myself better to others as my content isn't even fully acknowledged. I do appreciate that I clicked onto the notification alerting me to someone quoting me and finding that it was a pleasant reply. That was unexpected and very appreciated, so thank you.

 

1. You didn't exactly make that clear, but I'm glad you can agree with that point.

2. No, no, no; by 'backwoods hicks' I'm referring to a very specific group of assholes I dealt with on a daily basis, not a group of people in general.

3. You didn't really clarify. You're saying whether or not we're different, we're still democrats and therefore the same?

4. I agree! And I made the point maybe 3 or 4 times that both sides have people who don't sit with the typical view of lib/con, so don't accuse me of that.

5. I agree to an extent, but without differing political parties, there wouldn't be much need for a democratic society since everyone was on the same page, right? Since we've come this far and still have two distinct 'sides,' it's difficult to not align in one way or another. To be clear, I don't think any less of people who disagree with me, I just find it more difficult to have conversations about anything politics or social justice if they can't see things the way I've been taught my entire life; and it's the same vice versa. No one is 'right' per se, we just see things in different lights.

 

Lastly, believe me, I read your post, I'm not someone who reads a sentence and goes off from there. Differing opinions are healthy! Otherwise, what would people talk about all day?

[Albatross]

1. You didn't exactly make that clear, but I'm glad you can agree with that point.

2. No, no, no; by 'backwoods hicks' I'm referring to a very specific group of assholes I dealt with on a daily basis, not a group of people in general.

3. You didn't really clarify. You're saying whether or not we're different, we're still democrats and therefore the same?

4. I agree! And I made the point maybe 3 or 4 times that both sides have people who don't sit with the typical view of lib/con, so don't accuse me of that.

5. I agree to an extent, but without differing political parties, there wouldn't be much need for a democratic society since everyone was on the same page, right? Since we've come this far and still have two distinct 'sides,' it's difficult to not align in one way or another. To be clear, I don't think any less of people who disagree with me, I just find it more difficult to have conversations about anything politics or social justice if they can't see things the way I've been taught my entire life; and it's the same vice versa. No one is 'right' per se, we just see things in different lights.

 

Lastly, believe me, I read your post, I'm not someone who reads a sentence and goes off from there. Differing opinions are healthy! Otherwise, what would people walk about all day?

 

1. Okay.
2. Okay then.
3. I'm saying that even though I was referring to the bad Democrats, they are still Democrats. That's all.
4. I wasn't trying to accuse you, I was trying to fly through the point as rapidly as I could. My point was that Liberals are just as bad (if not worse at certain times), to try and show that all parties add to the problem.
5. Democracy is heavily flawed. I would welcome a future where we don't need it, so if abolishing political parties and sides brought that along, that's good. Regardless, the parties only create problems, not solve them. Hmm, I disagree on that. People can be right and wrong, but generally those who are in the government or in high office positions saying, "that's wrong/right" tend to not have the moral standings to decide what is right or wrong. For example, most  people in the government or poltiical figures agree that weed should not be legalized and that people should only do with their bodies what the government finds acceptable. They think that is the 'right' thinking even though it is wrong.

But I guess we can just say we agree with each other.

[Guest]

 

1. Okay.
2. Okay then.
3. I'm saying that even though I was referring to the bad Democrats, they are still Democrats. That's all.
4. I wasn't trying to accuse you, I was trying to fly through the point as rapidly as I could. My point was that Liberals are just as bad (if not worse at certain times), to try and show that all parties add to the problem.
5. Democracy is heavily flawed. I would welcome a future where we don't need it, so if abolishing political parties and sides brought that along, that's good. Regardless, the parties only create problems, not solve them. Hmm, I disagree on that. People can be right and wrong, but generally those who are in the government or in high office positions saying, "that's wrong/right" tend to not have the moral standings to decide what is right or wrong. For example, most  people in the government or poltiical figures agree that weed should not be legalized and that people should only do with their bodies what the government finds acceptable. They think that is the 'right' thinking even though it is wrong.

But I guess we can just say we agree with each other.

 

Just to clarify, 'right' and 'wrong' in politics (unless it comes to the decision to nuke someone) are typically subjective, otherwise half the country wouldn't think one thing and the other half another.

 

But I'm glad we could bury the hatchet

[JeffreyEagan]

I could go on. Democrats have shown—just like any other organized political party set against another—that they are incompetent, racist, sexist and does not support the rights and equality of people they do not like. See the world as it is actually painted, not the way the Democrats have painted it for you.

They also do nothing but spend, spend, spend.

[Phillyphries]

It's a good starting point/middle ground that satisfies both sides. I'd rather Congress take responsibility and do the jobs that we assigned them to do, then handing over legislative powers over to a committee that doesn't represent us.

 

Also, a change in FCC heads will never be able to mess with an actual bill passed in both houses of Congress and signed by the President. I'd MUCH rather have that.