We're fucked.

i'll see yall when I see yall. LMAO.

----------

IG @h_n_z

I’ve only seen arguments for it, what are the arguments to have this repealed??

"government needs to get it's hands out of everything"

A bunch of bullshit.

which = "government regulations do not allow us to fuck the commonfolk out of every dime they have"

Fucking worthless pieces of shit. If the rumors are true and the internet starts getting bundled like cable I am very, very liable to actually go and shoot up a Comcast or Verizon building out of principle.

I mean that's definitely never going to happen (I don't think ?) but just the thought of this makes my blood fucking boil.

with the premium package, at premium prices, for the internet we all currently use.

.

.

to make sure this doesn't fuck us up too much.

and prevent states from issuing their own versions of net neutrality.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net-neutrality-blocking-states-183468

legally, a lot of this shit is up in the air tho. so we are in for prolly a good few years of court battles.

so i understand the uproar and the want to preserve net neutrality from that perspective.

but ive always wondered, how is it "fair" (i understand "fairness" is not a real thing but it is part of the motivation of the ISPs in this case) for Google, Netflix, FB, Amazon, etc to build billion dollar companies on the "pipes" of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, to the point where they're worth MORE than those companies in some cases, without having to contribute a dime? was that ever gonna be sustainable?

the outright repeal of Net Neutrality clearly causes waaay more problems for consumers than it solves for business. so i hate it. but based on how business is generally conducted in America, its been damn near a miracle that we've gotten to treat the internet like a public utility for this long in the first place.

That's like saying how is fair that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast are making more money than the inventor of the internet LOL

That is a very nonsensical argument. As technology advances its not everyones else fault that they didn't pivot or invest or create other things to offer to a consumers. Just because you provide the platform doesn't mean you cannot be outdone business wise nor is it their responsibility.



----------

IG @h_n_z

>That's like saying how is fair that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast
>are making more money than the inventor of the internet LOL
>

no its not.


>That is a very nonsensical argument. As technology advances
>its not everyones else fault that they didn't pivot or invest
>or create other things to offer to a consumers. Just because
>you provide the platform doesn't mean you cannot be outdone
>business wise nor is it their responsibility.


what man? part of the problem is they DO provide content and services and feel like their competition is using THEIR pipes to deliver theirs. and if they own the means to deliver competitors content and services for free, of course they're gonna be salty about it.

again, im FOR regulation. but given the history of how business is typically done in this country, im surprised (but pleased) that govt hadnt yielded to the demands of ISPs over the last 20 years.

>what man? part of the problem is they DO provide content and
>services and feel like their competition is using THEIR pipes
>to deliver theirs. and if they own the means to deliver
>competitors content and services for free, of course they're
>gonna be salty about it.

You can't enjoy being a monopoly with respect to controlling the pipes for that last mile and then cry about content providers using your pipes because of said monopoly. I mean we broke up Bell and let the pieces come right back together. And we allow Cable companies to be regional monopolies. And to top it all off, we allowed companies that weren't content providers to buy up content providers. Why allow Comcast to have a stake in Hulu? So they complain about Netflix getting a free ride later, come on...

in our economy and govt.

case in point:

>I mean we broke up Bell and let the pieces come right back together.
>And we allow Cable companies to be regional monopolies. And to top
>it all off, we allowed companies that weren't content providers to
>buy up content providers.

i dont mean moral fairness, i mean how the ISPs perceive the situation from a business and regulatory perspective

themselves to such heights on the backs of the water and power companies? Surely Google is worth more than your local water district...

Keep in mind, Google paid for their higher usage of electricity and water, and likewise net neutrality didn't force ISPs to charge a flat rate for unlimited bandwidth. If Google uses tons more data purchased through ISPs, the ISPs are allowed to charge Google more for those tons more data.

To my understanding net neturality simply regulated internet as a utility whereby the ISP can't evaluate how much each user makes off their products and adjust their charges accordingly. They have to treat all bandwidth, and all customers, the same.

If Google uses a terrabyte, the ISP must charge Google the same price for that terrabyte they charge you or me (or their corporate partners).

Imagine if the power company could selectively charge each user based on the user's income? If you get a raise, the power company raises your bill, and a really successful business could in essence be extorted by these entities, which would not serve the communities or the economy. But of course, the power companies alone would make more money.

Previous generations of politicians were wise enough to forbid such practices by utilities, and through net neutrality, by ISPs as well.

maybe its been decided. but seems like there's been fence straddling on that. and i dont think the ISPs agree at all.

this was super helpful tho. appreciated.

and is using part of the water company's infrastructure to deliver it, wouldn't the water company (if it didnt consider itself to be a public utility) be inclined to ask for an arrangement to be made?

They make significantly more per unit from these water sales than the local water company does selling Wal-mart the water it vitally needs to run its stores.

By providing Wal-mart with this vital water to run restrooms, kitchens, sprinklers, etc, the water company is enabling Wal-mart, in a sense, to cut into the water companies' own potential profits.

But Wal-mart is protected by the utility status of the water company from said water company gauging them on water prices as a "competitor".

As it should be, and this is also the way the internet should be regulated imo.

it's gonna be a hard sell convincing Comcast that they're the water company lol. but maybe they should be.

this is actually the scariest part of all of this to me: https://twitter.com/JonesOnTheNBA/status/941398538843328512

streaming services like netflix, amazon, hulu, youtube, sling, etc. are now *direct* competitors with telecoms, especially with cord cutting growing at the rate its growing.

so your competition is using your infrastructure and distribution network free of charge to drive your customers away from your service.

no doubt the first move is to charge them ransom for fast lane access (which they will have to pass on to consumers and increase prices).

by startups, potentially limits free speech, etc. so i hate it. but from the telecom perspective, OF COURSE they hated the regulation and see it as unfair.

and their "pipes" were built on the foundation of the government.

>and their "pipes" were built on the foundation of the
>government.

this is a great point. never/rarely stopped these privileged corps from feeling entitled and getting their demands met in the past tho.

never/rarely stopped these privileged
>corps from feeling entitled and getting their demands met in
>the past tho.


True

verizon took government money for innovation years ago,
should have expanded broadband but decided that was too hard...
so they just wired new constructions and pocketed profits

even though there would be no point to my car without gas.

my tv company doesn't pay my electric company even though i need electricity to use my tv.



*we* pay for both separately.

just like most of us pay for internet access and internet services separately.

verizon, etc. already make money off of google and Facebook and netflix existing. how many more people are paying for data and leasing iPhones in 2017 than 2007?

but we kinda discussed above.

>even though there would be no point to my car without gas.
>
>my tv company doesn't pay my electric company even though i
>need electricity to use my tv.
>


good point:

>verizon, etc. already make money off of google and Facebook
>and netflix existing. how many more people are paying for data
>and leasing iPhones in 2017 than 2007?

to people making the "fairness" issue the crux of their support for the repeal.

DAMN!

he got "goons" and a dumb ass look on his face

that's about all the credit i'd give him.

we = the desi coalition

Or is that bullish!t?

It's true

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


thanks Obama

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Obama appointed him "at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell"

That's not how the FCC works

and that's not a Republican he had to pick.

Thanks Obama

and who could get Senate confirmation.

If only Obama had appointed you to the position of White House Unicorn Czar.

with Mitch McConnell's choice, the guy who said he wanted to make him a one term President. You know some heavy lifting.

Thanks Obama and Hillary's stan

If Trump needs to replace a Democrat, he'll get the recommendation from Chuck Schumer.

Calm down. Democrats aren't out to get you. Obama appointed the chairman who enacted the rules being overridden today. Pai was being overruled in the term when he was appointed by Obama.

You had no idea how this works 45 minutes ago, and now you're raging out of your ass.

>
>If Trump needs to replace a Democrat, he'll get the
>recommendation from Chuck Schumer.

LOL

>Calm down. Democrats aren't out to get you. Obama appointed
>the chairman who enacted the rules being overridden today.
>

You must be talking to somebody else because I'm not excited. You do know that Obama could say no Mitch recommend another person ?

>You had no idea how this works 45 minutes ago, and now you're
>raging out of your ass.
>

LOL typing a response is raging ? I hope you say the same to whites that disagree with you. You can stop making excuses and just admit it was a bad choice.

Obama didn't make him chairman. Obama made Tom Wheeler chairman, and Wheeler's FCC came up with the rules that were repealed today.

Obama was required by law to appoint a Republican, and constrained by standard protocols to take a recommendation from the Senate leader of the other party. I don't know how you think he could have found the rare pro-net-neutrality Republican.

But it wouldn't have made any difference if he had! The board passed strong net neutrality rules DESPITE Pai's objection. When Pai was appointed as a minority member, his complaints were as toothless as the complaints from the Democrats on the board today.

There is now a Republican majority on the board, NOT because of any decision that Barack Obama made, but simply because a Republican is President. Trump could have nominated anyone he wanted to the chairmanship, just like Obama did. Obama's appointment of Pai to a minority seat had absolutely nothing to do with him now being chair.

We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the White House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the White House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming there wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

You said "Obama didn't make him chairman."

I never said Obama made Pai chairman.

You "Obama made Tom Wheeler chairman, and Wheeler's FCC came up with the rules that were repealed today."

I never said Tom Wheeler was not chairman and I never said Tom Wheeler's FCC didn't come up with the rules repealed today.

Before you say it, I will knock this straw man down too, I am not saying Michael was not appointed to the FCC by Bill Clinton and made chairman by Bush. Now with that out of the way, back to what you said

<<Obama was required by law to appoint a Republican, and constrained by standard protocols to take a recommendation from the Senate leader of the other party. I don't know how you think he could have found the rare pro-net-neutrality Republican.>>

smh I never said Obama had to find that rare pro-net neutrality Republican. What is the straw man thing all about, you are writing about something I never said over and over ? How about tackling the words on the screen. Does "constrained by standard protocols mean he is legally required to take the oppositions recommendation ?

<<But it wouldn't have made any difference if he had! The board passed strong net neutrality rules DESPITE Pai's objection. When Pai was appointed as a minority member, his complaints were as toothless as the complaints from the Democrats on the board today.>>

So put anybody on the board because they will be toothless since Democrats will always be in the majority.

<<There is now a Republican majority on the board, NOT because of any decision that Barack Obama made, but simply because a Republican is President. Trump could have nominated anyone he wanted to the chairmanship, just like Obama did. Obama's appointment of Pai to a minority seat had absolutely nothing to do with him now being chair.>>

I never said Republican's are the majority because of Obama. LOL This is ridiculous look my problem is with Obama taking McConnell's recommendation, so you can save the how the FCC works fyi.

I'm going to take a chance and talk about something that might make you create more straw men, but try to hold back.

Trump picked two incompetents for the federal bench. Sen. Charles Grassley from Trump's party pushed back and now they will not be seated. That's all I'm saying is Obama could have pushed back on Pai. Now let me add this disclaimers for your straw man that's coming. I know federal judges are not the FCC board. I know Trump is not the opposition party making a recommendation.

<<We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the White House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the White House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming there wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.>>

LOL yeah a Republican in the White House helped repeal net neutrality, I agree with that, but the rest of your comments sound like the progressives you have a problem with who always blame Hillary for Trump winning, just switch dem establishment for "progressives" and "no difference between..." for she was the only one who could win.

I assumed you were either trying to say something relevant to the current discussion, or at least making a broader point about political strategy. If you were doing neither, if you were just randomly stringing words together, then I stand corrected.

> You said "Obama didn't make him chairman."
>
>I never said Obama made Pai chairman.
>
>You "Obama made Tom Wheeler chairman, and Wheeler's FCC came
>up with the rules that were repealed today."
>
>I never said Tom Wheeler was not chairman and I never said Tom
>Wheeler's FCC didn't come up with the rules repealed today.
>
>Before you say it, I will knock this straw man down too, I am
>not saying Michael was not appointed to the FCC by Bill
>Clinton and made chairman by Bush. Now with that out of the
>way, back to what you said
>
><<Obama was required by law to appoint a Republican, and
>constrained by standard protocols to take a recommendation
>from the Senate leader of the other party. I don't know how
>you think he could have found the rare pro-net-neutrality
>Republican.>>
>
>smh I never said Obama had to find that rare pro-net
>neutrality Republican. What is the straw man thing all about,
>you are writing about something I never said over and over ?
>How about tackling the words on the screen. Does "constrained
>by standard protocols mean he is legally required to take the
>oppositions recommendation ?

Yes. He was required by law to appoint a Republican to the position. The Republican party was his opposition, not Mitch McConnell.


><<But it wouldn't have made any difference if he had! The
>board passed strong net neutrality rules DESPITE Pai's
>objection. When Pai was appointed as a minority member, his
>complaints were as toothless as the complaints from the
>Democrats on the board today.>>
>
>So put anybody on the board because they will be toothless
>since Democrats will always be in the majority.

No, put whoever you have to on the board, consistent with the legal rules, and pay special attention to the people in your own party. Because Democrats will always be in the majority for as long as a Democrat is president, and Republicans will always be in the majority when a Republican is president.


><<There is now a Republican majority on the board, NOT because
>of any decision that Barack Obama made, but simply because a
>Republican is President. Trump could have nominated anyone he
>wanted to the chairmanship, just like Obama did. Obama's
>appointment of Pai to a minority seat had absolutely nothing
>to do with him now being chair.>>
>
>I never said Republican's are the majority because of Obama.
>LOL This is ridiculous look my problem is with Obama taking
>McConnell's recommendation, so you can save the how the FCC
>works fyi.
>
>I'm going to take a chance and talk about something that might
>make you create more straw men, but try to hold back.
>
>Trump picked two incompetents for the federal bench. Sen.
>Charles Grassley from Trump's party pushed back and now they
>will not be seated. That's all I'm saying is Obama could have
>pushed back on Pai.

Why? What difference do you think it would have made to pick such a fight? Wheeler's rules would have still gone into effect. They would have still been repealed today. And for all we know, Trump would have still named Pai chairman of the committee even if he'd never served on it before. At any rate, whoever Trump chose would have definitely been just as interested in tearing down net neutrality regulations. Even if Obama had found the magical Republican who supports net neutrality, Trump would have had the authority to remove him or her and replace them with whoever he likes. So what are you trying to argue?


>Now let me add this disclaimers for your
>straw man that's coming. I know federal judges are not the FCC
>board. I know Trump is not the opposition party making a
>recommendation.

^ Listen everybody... That's the sound of a guy realizing that his own arguments are specious but failing to go back and improve them.


><<We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the White
>House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the White
>House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and
>logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming there
>wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama
>or Hillary Clinton.>>
>
>LOL yeah a Republican in the White House helped repeal net
>neutrality, I agree with that, but the rest of your comments
>sound like the progressives you have a problem with who always
>blame Hillary for Trump winning, just switch dem establishment
>for "progressives" and "no difference between..." for she was
>the only one who could win.

You're just completely discombobulated at this point.


Look, there's no shame in admitting that you spoke before you knew what you were talking about. This is OKP, we all do it. Yeah, it sounds shocking to hear that Barack Obama appointed Ajit Pai. I'll admit, I was surprised by it when I heard it. But surprises are supposed to be opportunities for learning. We all learned something today about how the FCC board works. Good for all of us.

I still think you spoke before you thought. But there was no need for me to respond so aggressively.

>
>I still think you spoke before you thought. But there was no
>need for me to respond so aggressively.

You think wrong. Stop being scared and getting defensive.

As the saying goes, I don't suffer fools gladly.

And you, friend, just don't want to stop trumpeting the fact that you're a fool.

the internet.

>
>As the saying goes, I don't suffer fools gladly.
>
>And you, friend, just don't want to stop trumpeting the fact
>that you're a fool.
>

smh

"We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the White House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the White House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming there wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton."

>I assumed you were either trying to say something relevant to
>the current discussion, or at least making a broader point
>about political strategy. If you were doing neither, if you
>were just randomly stringing words together, then I stand
>corrected.

You assumed all of that from my reply which was

wth, Its true, a link to Pai's wiki page and thanks Obama.

Sounds like you are putting a lie together on purpose to cover.




>
>Yes. He was required by law to appoint a Republican to the
>position. The Republican party was his opposition, not Mitch
>McConnell.
>

A Republican, not only Mitch McConnell's Republican


>No, put whoever you have to on the board, consistent with the
>legal rules, and pay special attention to the people in your
>own party. Because Democrats will always be in the majority
>for as long as a Democrat is president, and Republicans will
>always be in the majority when a Republican is president.
>

The power will eventually flip so you shouldn't ignore the minority member you appoint.



>
>Why? What difference do you think it would have made to pick
>such a fight? Wheeler's rules would have still gone into
>effect. They would have still been repealed today. And for all
>we know, Trump would have still named Pai chairman of the
>committee even if he'd never served on it before. At any rate,
>whoever Trump chose would have definitely been just as
>interested in tearing down net neutrality regulations. Even if
>Obama had found the magical Republican who supports net
>neutrality, Trump would have had the authority to remove him
>or her and replace them with whoever he likes. So what are you
>trying to argue?
>

Are you that defeated and beaten ? I know Dems are scared but it sounds like even the foot soldiers would rather run than fight. Pai brought his aide with him. You got Republican's doing worse and you don't think that Obama should've push back against McConnell's recommendation. I'm arguing fight, stop being scared.


>
>^ Listen everybody... That's the sound of a guy realizing that
>his own arguments are specious but failing to go back and
>improve them.
>

No it's the sound of a guy who was just bombarded with arguments based on assumptions.

>><<We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the
>White
>>House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the White
>>House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and
>>logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming
>there
>>wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama
>>or Hillary Clinton.>>
>>

>
>You're just completely discombobulated at this point.
>

LOL The topic is net neutrality and you are talking about why Hillary lost. I know any criticism of Hillary means go on the attack against Bernie Bros, progressives, but I guess that includes any criticism of Obama.

>Look, there's no shame in admitting that you spoke before you
>knew what you were talking about. This is OKP, we all do it.
>Yeah, it sounds shocking to hear that Barack Obama appointed
>Ajit Pai. I'll admit, I was surprised by it when I heard it.
>But surprises are supposed to be opportunities for learning.
>We all learned something today about how the FCC board works.
>Good for all of us.
>

Practice what you preach. Go to the top and read where you admitted to making assumptions, then go back and look at the all the words you typed based on those assumptions. Don't waste time and lie when all of your words are right here. Stop being scared and getting defensive when Hillary or Obama's name come up and the discussion is not about worshiping them. Take the cape off put the shield down.

And he crashes the car back into the brick wall. Okay.


>>I assumed you were either trying to say something relevant
>to
>>the current discussion, or at least making a broader point
>>about political strategy. If you were doing neither, if you
>>were just randomly stringing words together, then I stand
>>corrected.
>
>You assumed all of that from my reply which was
>
>wth, Its true, a link to Pai's wiki page and thanks Obama.
>
>Sounds like you are putting a lie together on purpose to
>cover.

The "lie", specifically, that I thought you were trying to construct a meaningful sentence? You're not good with sarcasm, are you?

Or are you saying that you really WERE just randomly stringing words together?

From the rest of your discussion, it looks like you're actually trying to argue, despite a clear and complete ignorance of how this process works, that Obama did something wrong in naming Pai to this irrelevant position. Let's talk that out...


>>Yes. He was required by law to appoint a Republican to the
>>position. The Republican party was his opposition, not Mitch
>>McConnell.
>>
>
>A Republican, not only Mitch McConnell's Republican

Did you stop for a MOMENT and ask why he "went with Mitch McConnell's suggestion." Do you have any idea how this process is legally required to work? Clearly not, as you've shown it at every stage of the discussion. I don't either. I'll admit, I learned a few things from this discussion. There were other people who spread nice little seeds of knowledge while you were spreading ignorance.


When you were surprised by that one sentence on Wikipedia there were two obvious paths to take. Sometimes logic is like a choose your own adventure novel!

a.) Figure out what Pai's significance was as a minority member on the committee, realize that he had no power in that position and that that appointment had nothing to do with his eventual appointment to the chairmanship. Then you could just keep it moving.
(That's the route I took.)

b.) Be shocked and appalled that Obama would cooperate with the loathsome turtle-man from Kentucky, then look up how this process works, what the legal restrictions are, and hopefully find out WHY Obama would accept the recommendation of the guy who'd just said his first priority was to get him out of office.
(That's the route you should have taken, but it would have required some actual effort, which apparently you couldn't muster.)

Instead you tried to invent a third option:
c*.) Play dumb, try to spread your own intellectual laziness to others, and play the victim when someone calls you out on it.


>>No, put whoever you have to on the board, consistent with
>the
>>legal rules, and pay special attention to the people in your
>>own party. Because Democrats will always be in the majority
>>for as long as a Democrat is president, and Republicans will
>>always be in the majority when a Republican is president.
>>
>
>The power will eventually flip so you shouldn't ignore the
>minority member you appoint.

Again, here's that intellectual laziness. You're probably not aware, I guess, that the President has the authority to disband the committee and appoint everyone from scratch, are you? Pai's earlier membership on the committee was not relevant or necessary in any way for his eventual chairmanship or the pushing of this repeal.

Imagine that, somehow, Obama was able to stack the committee entirely with net-neutrality supporters. Imagine that Obama disbanded the committee, played a back and forth with McConnell (wasting political capital along the way) until McConnell finally gives him the names of two Republicans who fully supported the net neutrality measures.

What difference would that have made?

Well, for one thing, the net neutrality measures that we got out of the Wheeler years would have been endangered, because we likely would have just been sitting with an empty board for years.

And then, of course, when Trump takes power, he would remove these unicorn Republicans anyway, and we'd be in exactly the same place.

This is why it's important that the people who are actually representing progressive positions in government are not reactionary idiots like you.


>>Why? What difference do you think it would have made to pick
>>such a fight? Wheeler's rules would have still gone into
>>effect. They would have still been repealed today. And for
>all
>>we know, Trump would have still named Pai chairman of the
>>committee even if he'd never served on it before. At any
>rate,
>>whoever Trump chose would have definitely been just as
>>interested in tearing down net neutrality regulations. Even
>if
>>Obama had found the magical Republican who supports net
>>neutrality, Trump would have had the authority to remove him
>>or her and replace them with whoever he likes. So what are
>you
>>trying to argue?
>>
>
>Are you that defeated and beaten ? I know Dems are scared but
>it sounds like even the foot soldiers would rather run than
>fight. Pai brought his aide with him. You got Republican's
>doing worse and you don't think that Obama should've push back
>against McConnell's recommendation. I'm arguing fight, stop
>being scared.

It doesn't count as fighting to shoot yourself in the head.



>>^ Listen everybody... That's the sound of a guy realizing
>that
>>his own arguments are specious but failing to go back and
>>improve them.
>>
>
>No it's the sound of a guy who was just bombarded with
>arguments based on assumptions.

Yes, the assumption that you're interested in figuring out why you're wrong. Apparently you're not.



>>><<We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the
>>White
>>>House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the
>White
>>>House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and
>>>logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming
>>there
>>>wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack
>Obama
>>>or Hillary Clinton.>>
>>>
>
>>
>>You're just completely discombobulated at this point.
>>
>
>LOL The topic is net neutrality and you are talking about why
>Hillary lost. I know any criticism of Hillary means go on the
>attack against Bernie Bros, progressives, but I guess that
>includes any criticism of Obama.

It includes anyone who claims to stand for my positions, but who is wilfully so ignorant and illogical about the structures and functions of government that if they gained any power or influence whatsoever, they could only hope to set those positions back. Here's another non sequitur: idiots like you are the Roy Moore's of the left.


>>Look, there's no shame in admitting that you spoke before
>you
>>knew what you were talking about. This is OKP, we all do it.
>>Yeah, it sounds shocking to hear that Barack Obama appointed
>>Ajit Pai. I'll admit, I was surprised by it when I heard it.
>>But surprises are supposed to be opportunities for learning.
>>We all learned something today about how the FCC board
>works.
>>Good for all of us.
>>
>
>Practice what you preach. Go to the top and read where you
>admitted to making assumptions, then go back and look at the
>all the words you typed based on those assumptions.

Again, the only assumption I made is that you believed what you said. I'm sorry if it confused you when I admitted to that. But from the size of your reply it's pretty clear that you at least want people to think you believed what you said.



>Don't
>waste time and lie when all of your words are right here. Stop
>being scared and getting defensive when Hillary or Obama's
>name come up and the discussion is not about worshiping them.
>Take the cape off put the shield down.

The problem is not that you criticized Obama. You didn't criticize Obama. You just said something fucking stupid. Multiple people tried to correct you on it, and you're fighting it to the end. You fight for the sake of fighting, whether you're right or (clearly, utterly) wrong. It's a good thing you weren't working in the Obama White House, or you'd have been telling him to pick pointless battles there too. Like battles over irrelevant positions on the FCC board.

>And he crashes the car back into the brick wall. Okay.
>

Yeah that works, your previous reply was an escape route. Admitting that you are dick who made assumptions was an escape route for me.


>The "lie", specifically, that I thought you were trying to
>construct a meaningful sentence? You're not good with sarcasm,
>are you?
>

The lie that everything in your reply to me was about anything more than defending Obama from "progressives"

>Or are you saying that you really WERE just randomly stringing
>words together?
>

I answered a question that was asked you went down the rabbit hole and made a counter argument against somebody in your head. If you want to call that stringing words together, ok.

>From the rest of your discussion, it looks like you're
>actually trying to argue, despite a clear and complete
>ignorance of how this process works, that Obama did something
>wrong in naming Pai to this irrelevant position. Let's talk
>that out...
>

I covered this already but let me do it again since you need extra help. I never said Obama made Pai FCC chairman. Now instead of offering something(how this process works) I didn't ask for, explain why you didn't say this "the President has the authority to
disband the committee and appoint everyone from scratch" the first 100 times you explained how the process works ? Was it ignorance on your part ? Did you miss something else ?


>
>Did you stop for a MOMENT and ask why he "went with Mitch
>McConnell's suggestion." Do you have any idea how this process
>is legally required to work? Clearly not, as you've shown it
>at every stage of the discussion. I don't either. I'll admit,
>I learned a few things from this discussion. There were other
>people who spread nice little seeds of knowledge while you
>were spreading ignorance.
>

Maybe you should stop and ask how the process works since you said you learned from this discussion and didn't add the part about the President disbanding the board until your last reply. Is that all or did you leave something else out ? I will wait for your intellectual laziness to catch up with your ignorance. If you are going to go on and on about something you should have all the facts otherwise it make you look like even more of a hypocrite.

>When you were surprised by that one sentence on Wikipedia
>there were two obvious paths to take. Sometimes logic is like
>a choose your own adventure novel!
>

Thanks just what this was missing, a long ride to nowhere talking about nothing.

>a.) Figure out what Pai's significance was as a minority
>member on the committee, realize that he had no power in that
>position and that that appointment had nothing to do with his
>eventual appointment to the chairmanship. Then you could just
>keep it moving.
>(That's the route I took.)

Here's a clue, maybe I wasn't so invested in defending Obama, that I had to figure out why this info was busting the Obama bubble and prepare an aggressive defense like you.

>b.) Be shocked and appalled that Obama would cooperate with
>the loathsome turtle-man from Kentucky, then look up how this
>process works, what the legal restrictions are, and hopefully
>find out WHY Obama would accept the recommendation of the guy
>who'd just said his first priority was to get him out of
>office.
>(That's the route you should have taken, but it would have
>required some actual effort, which apparently you couldn't
>muster.)
>

Wrong again, that route(straw man) is for someone who does not know that Obama bent over backwards begging the Republicans to work with him. Only someone who worships Obama, Hillary and the Dems would be "shocked" and "appalled". Well you seem to be short on effort yourself since you left something out despite the fact that you keep typing and typing and typing about how the process works.


>Instead you tried to invent a third option:
>c*.) Play dumb, try to spread your own intellectual laziness
>to others, and play the victim when someone calls you out on
>it.
>

Don't project your ass backwards incompetence on me. How much did you write about something I never said because of an assumption you made ? You admitted to being a dick and aggressive ? You wanna talk about playing the victim yet you are still typing about something I didn't say and blaming me because you overreacted to criticism about Obama.


>
>Again, here's that intellectual laziness. You're probably not
>aware, I guess, that the President has the authority to
>disband the committee and appoint everyone from scratch, are
>you? Pai's earlier membership on the committee was not
>relevant or necessary in any way for his eventual chairmanship
>or the pushing of this repeal.
>

Here is the "aggressive" defense with a slice of hypocrisy thrown in from you. If the imaginary guy in your head says Obama can't disband the committee or Obama made Pai the FCC chairman. Make sure you counter with the paragraph you typed.

>Imagine that, somehow, Obama was able to stack the committee
>entirely with net-neutrality supporters. Imagine that Obama
>disbanded the committee, played a back and forth with
>McConnell (wasting political capital along the way) until
>McConnell finally gives him the names of two Republicans who
>fully supported the net neutrality measures.
>

Now you are way off the deep end. You should name the imaginary guy if you are going to do this. I'll throw out some names. Scarecrow, straw man.

>What difference would that have made?
>

Get some help.

>Well, for one thing, the net neutrality measures that we got
>out of the Wheeler years would have been endangered, because
>we likely would have just been sitting with an empty board for
>years.
>
>And then, of course, when Trump takes power, he would remove
>these unicorn Republicans anyway, and we'd be in exactly the
>same place.
>
>This is why it's important that the people who are actually
>representing progressive positions in government are not
>reactionary idiots like you.
>

Seriously look at what you just typed. I mean you are throwing all of these insults out, but your head couldn't be further up your ass if hulk tried push it. All of that is insane, you created some crazy scenario and argued against it. I said fight, don't be scared. I didn't say turn into a nut.


>
>It doesn't count as fighting to shoot yourself in the head.
>

Is that what happen to you ? Did you hurt yourself after the election and that's why you offer exits, so people can get off the crazy highway you are on ?


>
>Yes, the assumption that you're interested in figuring out why
>you're wrong. Apparently you're not.
>

You need to figure out why you typed out all that crazy above.

>
>>
>>LOL The topic is net neutrality and you are talking about
>why
>>Hillary lost. I know any criticism of Hillary means go on
>the
>>attack against Bernie Bros, progressives, but I guess that
>>includes any criticism of Obama.
>
>It includes anyone who claims to stand for my positions, but
>who is wilfully so ignorant and illogical about the structures
>and functions of government that if they gained any power or
>influence whatsoever, they could only hope to set those
>positions back. Here's another non sequitur: idiots like you
>are the Roy Moore's of the left.
>

You mean the position where you are a dick, aggressive, hypocrite, and can't move on from Hillary's lost ? I'm Black so I could never be Roy Moore but you are Alex Jones. Your stupid is off the charts.




>
>Again, the only assumption I made is that you believed what
>you said. I'm sorry if it confused you when I admitted to
>that. But from the size of your reply it's pretty clear that
>you at least want people to think you believed what you said.
>

LOL yes I believe Obama appointed Pai to the FCC board.

>
>
>
>The problem is not that you criticized Obama. You didn't
>criticize Obama. You just said something fucking stupid.
>Multiple people tried to correct you on it, and you're
>fighting it to the end. You fight for the sake of fighting,
>whether you're right or (clearly, utterly) wrong. It's a good
>thing you weren't working in the Obama White House, or you'd
>have been telling him to pick pointless battles there too.
>Like battles over irrelevant positions on the FCC board.
>
>

Lmao you saw the question about Obama appointing Pai and went looking for a fight. When I answered the question you overreacted and went off the deep end. The rest is just your pathetic attempt to save face.

because you're a fucking expert on the commission.

I don't give a fuck what podcast or youtube video got you thinking you know some shit, but maybe study a little.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

How he was a lobbyist and someone who raised big money for Obama before he was picked to be FCC chairman but this is about Pai and net neutrality.

In other words, the REAL net neutrality regulations that we just lost.

Lobbyist or not, he did the right thing, so he was the right choice for the position.

It's ridiculous for anyone to get banned when you act like you have no home training.

try to engage with someone who has a much better familiarity with this than you do.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>try to engage with someone who has a much better familiarity
>with this than you do.
>

The board is bad enough don't make it worst.

He had to nominate a Republican, only three can be of the same party.

Trump made him chairman and shifted the balance in favor of Republicans

I saw it on twitter and was skeptical anyway.

Had no idea how the FCC works and I was definitely
scratching my head as to why Obama would make
a Guy like that chair.

Like I said, thank you

Trump made him chair.

EDIT: Deacon Blues beat me to it with a more complete answer.

I bet if those Trump voters had known that they wouldn’t have voted for him.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5djd7/motherboard-and-vice-are-building-a-community-internet-network-to-protect-net-neutrality?utm_source=mbtwitter

We will have to be innovative and think outside the box to beat the Trump agenda.