Topic: Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi are right (Read 3876 times)

Technically Warren and Pelosi are Left, hahaha.

I agree that corruption happens on both sides of the aisle. The problem is that neither Repbulicans or Democrats really give a shit about getting anything done (that includes Pelosi). Warren seems like she might actually shake things up, which would at least set a nice example for all politicians following.

The voters need to get so upset that they vote out all incumbents that do nothing in office. If Politicians don't realize they can lose their job they'll never be motivated to do what the voters want them to do.

Keep voting!

BTW, do you agree with Pelosi's stance on wanting to bomb Syria a few months back?

jaysabi,

The pot calling the kettle black.

You're right. I stated a straight up non-fact, which I believed to be based on common-law decisions related to neutrality dating back to telegrams, applied to telecoms, and then applied to the internet in the 1990s. This is not accurate. And yet, you still haven't a valid point, and you still can't present your ideas without being the worst type of human being imaginable, as evidenced by the fact that all your posts are full of name calling and posturing to obfuscate the fact that your point is weak and your fear mongering unwarranted. People with weak ideas have to resort to those tactics for the attention their shitty ideas so desperately need, because you can't sell people on them based on the merits. All the bluster and posturing just makes you look like a dick, and attempting to converse with you confirms it. Unfortunately for you, your shitty ideas were discredited ten years ago when people as equally misguided and wrong as you also tried to pitch the same distortion of facts based on all manner of fear mongering about destroying the internet, and were roundly defeated by people who actually have the credentials to publicly sound opinions on the topic. You were wrong ten years ago, and you're wrong now.

That some internet pioneers have sounded off on how wrong you are is relevant to the extent you tried to invoke your technical expertise to bolster the credibility of your opinion, which carries no weight without the delusional grandiosity you assign to it. According to you, everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist pig. But more accurately stated, it's everyone who is smarter than you. Don't be jealous you're on the losing side, mate. I'm sure if you think up some new names to call us all, you can restore the badly damaged reputation you've brought upon yourself by shilling for such garbage.


No, it's you who doesn't realize how stupid you are. How embarrassing for you to claim to have invented the internet, therefore your opinions matter more, only to have the people who actually invented the internet say your ideas about it are wrong. But I guess you can save face on this one by claiming that the people who are smarter than you and actually invented the internet are just socialist pigs. I wonder if Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf would consider you a "dumbshit snot." Odds are pretty good based on how inferior your accomplishments are to theirs, but then again they're probably too upstanding to tell you.

Don't try obfuscate that you still haven't refuted that you lied above.

Socialism pigs are always the same. They lie and obfuscate their lies.

I won't let you escape from this humiliation. Go ahead and try, but I will just keep repeating your lie. Now you can throw a hissy fit.

P.S. that some internet pioneers were socialist pigs have nothing to do with our original discussion.

That's funny, here you are making your case with the underpinnings of what  a technological expert you are, when there are people with real internet pedigrees who have dismissed your arguments almost ten years before you made them.



Please go on with your tired corporate-shill arguments and what an expert you are and how you're defending the internet from gub'ment regulations. The people whose opinions I should actually pay attention to heard your arguments when this debate was had 10 years ago, and it turns out they're still as stupid and irrelevant now as they were back then. If you're attempting to win this argument based on an asshole attitude and your self-proclaimed qualifications, I'm afraid you've already lost both battles. 

Amazing that Wikipedia, Google, and I are ostensibly unaware of any such legal framework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_law#Historical_precedent

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/economy/a-brief-history-of-internet-regulation-2/

Let me make sure you haven't lost the context:


I know socialist pigs will lie to keep their propaganda alive. Always entertaining though.

Really? I'll restore the full quote since you're distracted by all the lost context.


Net Neutrality (regulation by the government) has been in place since 1995. Now, I believe you were in the middle of defending your dumbfuckery before I interrupted with reality. Please continue so I can continue to not take you seriously.

You do realize that the intelligent Libertarian (or Anarchist) readers know by now that you are a Dunning-Kruger doofus.  The more you go on, the more obvious it is for more readers.

I did not maintain the net neutrality is not the way it has been. Can't you fucking read? I wrote that net neutrality was an implicit result of the free market, and that you want to change from a free market to a government regulated system and I stated that there is no example in the history of the world where government regulation was not corrupted by the people they were suppose to be regulating.

Quoting one sentence from me above while erasing the rest of the context of what I wrote, is obviously your feeble attempt to obfuscate and change the meaning of what I wrote.

But let's play along with your propaganda tactics and assume the above sentence was all I wrote.

So young snot idiot, where is the system that enforces or even tracks net neutrality? TCP/IP has no parameters for enforcing or tracking net neutrality. All I see is network protocols for data exchange and a free market of cooperating internet nodes. I mean you are such a dumb fuck, you go spouting off your ignorance without even first gaining a basic level understanding of how the internet works.

sys·tem
ˈsistəm/
noun

    1.
    a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
    2.
    a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.

sys·tem·at·ic
ˌsistəˈmadik/
adjective
adjective: systematic

    done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

If you're too stupid to understand basic facts, there's no reason reading what you write. Continuing to maintain that net neutrality hasn't been the way it's been doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, you have no facts on your side. But please, keep going on... you're so close to making your non-facts true.  

Is your small brain incapable of the basic logic of recognizing that you've equated two orthogonal categories?

There has been no system of net neutrality in place. The internet has been a free market and grew to serve a billion people with private corporation competition and no regulation of the government.

To the extent that the corporate providers of the internet infrastructure have provided net neutrality up to now, this was due to free market realities and incentives that made it so, not by any form of government interference in the free market.

You are advocating Obama's call to regulate the internet as a public utility. What we know from the history of the world and even the recent history of Obama (e.g. using the carbon tax to shut down utility power plants of political enemies and rewarding new licenses to his political supporters), is that regulation is always corrupted.

So not only have you conflated two orthogonal categories in that pea brain of yours, but you are also delusional about the fact that regulation has always been corrupted and there is not a single example in the history of man where it was not. You try to present an example, and we can slaughter your example with numerous citations of corruption in your example.

Offer your crying and whining temper tantrums to your corrupt, enslaving Big Brother about your ignorance. He will surely provide the slavery you seek.

P.S. you highly underestimate the hackers and technologists (such as myself, who helped invent the internet) who will never allow the monopolists (nor the government) to take over. We are actively developing technological paradigm shifts to render impotent any of their attempts to monopolize. This is why the internet is net neutral and will remain so. Whereas, if the users of the internet call for the government to take over the internet, then the people will be fighting against us and the free internet (and then the global economy will bifurcate and the Knowledge Age will win and the Big Brother and his minions will fall into the economic collapse abyss as they enslave themselves along with the monopolists).

It is really annoying when a dumbshit, young snot such as yourself tries to tell the older people who invented the internet and are doing the programming and design work to keep it freedom directed. Do you not realize how stupid you are?

All of your fear mongering is countered by the fact that net neutrality is the system we've had all along. But I bet you're right, keeping the system that's been in place since the beginning of the internet is the boogeyman. 

And when net neutrality regulation ends up with ISPs merged into mega-telcoms and the mega-telcoms sleeping in bed with the government, then you will ask for more regulation to regulate to the regulators or some other endless set of excuses, always failing to recognize that the generative essence of the problem is THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1].

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

We already have the system being proposed. The proposal is to keep it. If all the doom and gloom you're predicting hasn't happened yet, that's a pretty strong indication your fears are overblown. The internet will be less free and more expensive under a pay-lane scenario. We've already seen how big ISPs will throttle companies they are in negotiations with (Netflix/Comcast, Netflix/Verizon) in order to extort more money out of them. There's no doubt in my mind now that they've seen that it works, we'll see far more of it in a pay-lane system. Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

I am not sure what you are saying.

Pre-bold - It isn't illegal for corporations to donate to specific campaigns.  That is the whole point of the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission decision.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

I'm not sure why you are asserting otherwise...

Actual Bold - Kind of true.  That is how our system is built - a representation of the people and there are three categories of politicians - those who vote (in Congress) based on what they think their constituents want, those who vote based on the authority that they believe they were elected for and those who vote specifically for the party that they are affiliated.  The three categories do not represent an even ratio and as such it cannot be said that "members of congress" vote for what is best for the country...especially since the aforementioned classes are defined as such in basic political science and do not factor in corporate influence (which is quite influential).

Finally...the post bold...


I don't quite get why that would even be an assertion from someone who is paying attention to modern politics...it is an easy effort to list the amount of campaign contributions from an entity (https://www.opensecrets.org/) and then determine their influence based on the types of bills that get passed.

Further, if corporate interests are the ones writing the bills...then why would the taxpayers knowingly fund it?  Especially when there are many instances of legislation being passed under the radar and under the threat of government shutdown (budget bills)?

My point is, I don't think that you have a viable grasp of what is going on to be asserting what you are asserting...

Like I said the money goes to issues, not individual campaigns. Your article says that money goes to campaigns however this is not true because it is illegal for corporations to donate to specific campaigns.

The laws that are written and enforced are not done so by popular vote, they are written and voted on by members of congress who vote based on what they think is best for the country. Members of congress are not required to take a poll of their constituents each time they vote for a particular bill. If a constituent has a certain feeling towards a certain bill they should let their representative know (as well as the reasoning behind their opinion). Just because a bill is written by a certain entity does not mean that it was "paid for" by that entity

I think this misses a larger point.  The entire population does not have the money to donate to campaigns.

One of the things that I find lacking in the "money in politics debate' is the fact that the major PACS have the money and time to research the demographics of their position in order to muscle it through (convincing people is done through misleading ads/rhetoric).  Everyone else has money to get through the day and perhaps glance in to the news in order to gain a feel for what is going on currently - certainly, it can not be said that there is a consistent societal effort to accumulate information to gauge societal and political trend (which has changed slightly due to the onset of the internet).

Point is, if people are focusing on how to pay their bills and take care of their families than an attention to politics and the how/whys of decision making in those forums are not going to be on the personal radar.  It's the opportunity cost of attention - and that is why portions of the media can rely on straight up lies in their reporting and on a larger extent rely on distractionary techniques to dissuade attention - because people don't generally have the time to do everything that is necessary.  It's one of the reasons the economy is so important.  If people had the money to divert their attention to things other than their day to day maintenance to ensure continuance of such, there would be more people paying attention and keeping track of events.


That doesn't even make sense.  If both sides are putting out their 'one sided story' than how is there an equal chance for everyone to hear both sides?  You're not factoring in regional attention, media manipulation and the level of effort it takes to wade through the bias in order to 'equally hear both sides'.  If we factor in what I mentioned previously (opportunity cost of attention) than there is very little chance that we can assume that each side is heard equally.  For what it is worth, I haven't yet mentioned the psychological difference in hearing "accusations" vs "statistical data"...media manipulation vs considered research.  The mainstream media relies more heavily on the former and to a very large degree in recent memory.  The likelihood of a casual attention to politics remembering an accusation because of fear is greater than remembering or even mentally attending to status quo (there is actually quite a bit more we can discuss regarding media psychology).

Point is - There is no equal chance of hearing both sides since obfuscation is the name of the game.


The issue is not about forcing people to spend money on politics...it's about unrestricting the amount of money in politics.  Allowing unlimited spending (which we are on the verge of) allows people with more money to dominate the talking points within the media which ensures that a lot of time gets spent debating misrepresentations, fallacies and just plain old irrelevant bullshite.  While we do that, Congress passes bills that were written by their corporate lobbyists and we find ourselves debating within a smaller constraint then we were previously.  Rinse and repeat.

That's the issue.

You know there are several ways to bypass such limits - but if not, see a few examples here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/14/wall-streets-money-is-flooding-congress.

But out of curiosity, if you really, honestly believe candidates aren't under "undue influence" from big money interests, what's your explanation for, for example, the section dealing with the repeal of the Dodd-Frank derivatives rule (of which 70 of the 85 lines of text were, for all practical purposes, written by Citigroup). Now, I'm under the impression most people aren't happy about that section, so what happened - the people didn't pay them enough for them not to do it?


Such an "average" amount won't even begin to compare to how much they currently receive from wealthier donors - read the above link. Also, as the article I had linked in a previous post put it: reading that study, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the US is pretty much an oligarchy. Again:


It's not like people aren't organizing and trying to make their voice heard - it's that they're simply not able to compete.

Over the years they have become more and more harder to tell apart.