New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise"

[villager]

In 2007, at a public forum at Coe College, in Iowa, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked about net neutrality. Specifically, “Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality?”

“The answer is yes,” Obama replied. “I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

If reports in the Wall Street Journal are correct, Obama’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Thomas Wheeler, has proposed a new rule that is an explicit and blatant violation of this promise. In fact, it permits and encourages exactly what Obama warned against: broadband carriers acting as gatekeepers and charging Web sites a payola payment to reach customers through a “fast lane.”

<snip>

This is what one might call a net-discrimination rule, and, if enacted, it will profoundly change the Internet as a platform for free speech and small-scale innovation. It threatens to make the Internet just like everything else in American society: unequal in a way that deeply threatens our long-term prosperity.

<snip>

In 2007, Obama understood all of this. Without net neutrality, the result would be “much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites.” That year, he swore to me personally that he was committed to defending net neutrality. Unfortunately, his F.C.C. chairman is in the process of violating a core promise to innovators, to the technology sector, and, really, to all of us who use the Internet.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html

[1000words]

1. Really curious to see how this will be defended ...

[villager]

2. The sad thing is.. that of course, it will be.

n/t

[cthulu2016]

5. Well... perhaps he evolved. Situation different from 2007. Etc..

A wise man changes his views in terms of new information. (The new information will not be specified.)

Or perhaps some Republican favors net neutrality and this the topic can be hijacked into comparing net neutrality fans to Rand Paul or whoever.

There are ways.

[villager]

9. According to one of the reliable defenders in this thread, "his hands were tied!"

The hilarious thing is, said apologist keeps citing an article which lays out very clearly what the FCC needed to do, in light of the court order -- and of course, isn't what they did at all.

[cthulu2016]

11. He's not a dictator, you know!

[QC]

34. He doesn't have a magic wand! n/t

[Maedhros]

46. ...except when it comes to deciding which enemies of the State are to be killed without due process,

then he, apparently, is acting like a dictator.

[sabrina 1]

105. It's amazing isn't it How little power the POTUS has on the one hand, and the power of a Monarch

on the other.

That's why I am so glad I have simply stuck to what I believed in when Bush occupied the WH about issues and when we were kicking out Republicans in 2008. It's so much easier to remember what it is you are supposed to support.

It must be excruciatinglyu difficult to have to keep switching your views when the person you had faith in lets you down but you don't want to let him/her down, for whatever reason.

The truth never changes so it's easy to remember. If I had to twist myself into a pretzel on all the issues where things 'changed' since we are all so happy and enthusiastic back in 2008, I would simply quit.

[Dragonfli]

110. You make an excellent point

Changing Ideology on a dime back and forth must be absolutely exhausting.

I'm pretty simple, I believed in the Democratic platform that existed when I first became politically aware, not because of personalities, but because of positive results.

Keynesian economics work and there is history to prove it. Building a prosperous middle class works for the entire country as can be proven objectively.

Regarding social issues, well I guess my soul rather than my mind decided that long before I was old enough to vote and my heart has always told me that equality and compassion are the only roads I wish to travel as doing otherwise would make it impossible to like myself, let alone anyone else. I have changed very little regarding my political beliefs these past 40 years so it is quite easy for me to "remember" where I stand on issues, no work required other than pure self expression.

Conservative economics have proven to be not only a failure but a dismal failure and for the life of me I do not understand why the party adopted it so completely since Reagan. It is destroying the wealth and well-being of the country and our party should end the experiment and get back to what had always worked for the country and for the party.

[sabrina 1]

112. Yes, you were right so why change? And we sure have had the proof of how right you were.

The Dem Party principles, if I am to go by DU, have changed rapidly over the past few years. We are all supposed to be so 'tough' on the 'enemy' wherever that enemy is. We have so many enemies!

So I just stick to asking myself the same question 'is this RIGHT or is it WRONG' and the answer is always easy. In a way I feel sorry for those who jump through hoops trying to keep up with what they are SUPPOSED to support this week or next week.

Better to think for oneself even if you don't win. Because from what I can see 'winning' now simply means beating the other team and not much more.

[bvar22]

145. AND.... some enterprising individuals STILL got rich.

Private Enterprise thrived during the years that the Democratic Party helped build the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working/Middle Class the World had ever seen
by using the Programs of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the Great Society.

In fact, Private Enterprise thrived too as Locally Owned Businesses and Mom & Pops were protected from the Big Boxes and pricing scams designed to run them out of business.

We weren't perfect, but moving in the right direction.

The problem is:
"They" already KNOW what WORKS.

[Dragonfli]

156. Of course, rising demand is good for business as well as

being good for those with the funds to be able to afford the goods and services.

We were far from perfect, but the direction we had taken made the country quite prosperous and was historically better for all of the people than anything tried previously. The gilded age sucked for nearly everybody and that is, for some reason, what they now aspire to once again.

[truedelphi]

167. + 10,000 n/t

[Obnoxious_One]

222. Some people have to cling on to their first choice because they can't admit a mistake

So they'll go to extremes and even contort their own beliefs in order to justify their first mistake.

[NCTraveler]

246. Good post sabrina 1. nt.

[bvar22]

144. The Republicans MADE him do this!!!

Its ALL Joe Lieberman's fault,
as we never had 60 votes!!!!


Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC

Tom Wheeler is the former head of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

Those are lobbying groups for the cable and cell phone industry.

This is the guy who made his fortune working in, later investing in, and lobbying on behalf of, the cable industry.

This is the guy who will almost certainly immediately upon leaving the FCC either go work for Comcast as past FCC chairs have done or back to head up the lobbying arms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140

[jberryhill]

37. Hint : see the DC appeal court ruling from January

This OP is just like the other one which leaves out the inconvenient fact that the FCC's net neutrality rules were tossed out by the courts a couple of weeks ago, leaving a void of no regulation at all.

[Super Iridium]

75. No, his hands were not "tied"

Actually, not quite true. The FCC had the power to create a broad rule, but instead chose to issue its original net-neutrality rule under a different section of the statute. All that the FCC had to do in response to the court decision is reissue the broad rule using the statutory authority it already had.

[merrily]

199. Hint: actually read the opinion.

It was based on the FCC's own failure to classify broadband providers in the proper category. That was unfortunate, because, under Genachowski, the FCC had changed its rules It could have included the classifications in that rulemaking process. If it had, it would have either avoided the Verizon lawsuit entirely or won the case, instead of losing it.

All the FCC had to do after "the void" was to fill it by classifying the providers as the court indicated. In February, FFC Chair Wheeler issued a statement saying that the FCC would do exactly that. Recently, however, he said that the FCC would not be changing the rules after all, but would leave the possibility on the table, whatever that may mean.

The likelihood that anyone will pick them up off the table after the providers take advantage of the void seems to me to be remote.

[theaocp]

3. K & R

for exposure.

[RobertEarl]

4. Good bye to the old, hello brave new world

The freedom of the internet we have all come to know and love is now sick and dieing in the capitalist's prison up on the hill.

This may be a case of only new-fangled pitchforks and torches lining the tubes to that prison that ends up with the release of our child from the clutches of the madmen in charge?

Who shall lead us? Warren?

[villager]

6. Presumably, other, freer countries will have more unfettered internet

I wonder what the effects of that will be, longer-term? i.e., the "privatized" web here, and an open one elsewhere?

[JoePhilly]

7. Was this written by the same reported as the one you reference in that

other OP?

This one is funnier because it says ... "Some history may help explain the situation" ... and then the article goes on to ignore an important part of that History ... which is captured here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html

I get the sense this "article" was written by one person, distributed to a set of hacks, each of whom rewrites it a little so it can be reposted across the internet as if multiple people wrote about it. Each some how not mentioning that court ruling.

You should probably give people reading this OP, a link to the other one that references the other "article" so they can "enjoy" both.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4865459

[villager]

8. Your desperate defenses of the indefensible are at once pathetic, and appreciated!

Since, after all, they keep the thread kicked!

[JoePhilly]

12. I didn't defend anything ... and I have no problem kicking this nonsense.

People on DU should get to see how a badly written and misleading "article" can get pushed around the internet, causing people who aren't actually following the movement of some particular issue (like Net Neutrality) to become very angry, even though they don't know relevant facts, and have no idea they're being manipulated.

It fascinating to watch.

[villager]

13. So you think all the different tech writers are like rightwing radio hosts?

I guess you don't really do much reading of tech journalism then.

[JoePhilly]

16. Many of them, yes.

Especially when it comes to politics.

Same story, same framing, no additional digging or details, no additional reporting.

You've posted what, 4 or 5 different versions of this same story today ... not one of them has any additional information in it ... you could read anyone of them and learn everything found in all of them.

AND then add to that ... each one omits a rather important detail in the actual history of this regulation. And the all omit the same exact important detail. Not one reporter knew, or perhaps cared.

I suspect some of them see an initial version of something like this, basically rewrite it ... and then post it as if it were "new".

Take your OPs ... did you add any significant detail to any one of that was not found in the first? No.

You could have mentioned the court case and then attacked the FCC for not doing more ... THAT would have been more honest than any of the "authors" you referenced.

Nope.

Doesn't help with the outrage narrative.

[villager]

24. The only single "narrative" is yours, attempting to corral a range of writers, and a Senator,

into being "deceptive" for not always mentioning the court case, ad naseum, which we all know provided the FCC a choice in how to respond.

And we've seen what their choice is.

You, quite predictably and sadly, vociferously defend that choice.

[merrily]

200. Relevant facts, as I know them, are in Reply 199. What is your version of

relevant facts?

[merrily]

33. The important part of history is a court decision that

said that the FCC rules did not support net neutrality.

That defect in the rules should not have existed because the FCC had revised its rules after Obama was elected.

The court ruling could have been overcome if the FCC had amended its own rules again. It chose not to.

[zeemike]

47. Yes but then they would not have had the excuse of

Our hands were tied and there is nothing we can do...
And of course Obama has that one too...the courts would not let me do it.
Goodbye net neutrality, we hardly knew you.

[merrily]

49. The court did not tie the hands of the FCC.

[Obnoxious_One]

43. Legislation could be enacted and pushed forward

In order to secure net neutrality. A more vigorous defense could be raised for it.

[pscot]

161. since you asked:

Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School and the author of “The Master Switch.” He has previously served as a senior advisor to the Federal Trade Commission and the chair of Free Press, an Internet advocacy organization

If you had visited the link you would not have had to ask.

[merrily]

219. Please. Spare me. How could a law professor and FCC advisor possibly know better than

Obama's Secret Service Keyboard Unit, DU Division?

[rhett o rick]

183. "Was this written...." "I get the sense...." "You should probably...."

Instead of attacking the OP why dont you provide your side of the argument? Do you disagree that the FCC is sandbagging?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Politicans + lies = water + wet.

[stevenleser]

14. The article doesn't seem to address the reality of the ruling of Verizon vs. FCC

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_(2014)

Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission was a 2014 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers. The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety. Because the FCC had previously classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, the court ruled that the FCC had relinquished its right to regulate them like common carriers. The case was largely viewed as a loss for network neutrality supporters and a victory for the cable broadband industry. Of the three orders that make up the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, two were vacated (no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination) and one was upheld (transparency). Judge David S. Tatel wrote the opinion with Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers joining. Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote a separate decision concurring in part and dissenting in part.
.
.
.
The court vacated two parts of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, determining that the FCC did not have the authority to impose these orders without classifying network providers as common carriers. Since the FCC had previously classified broadband providers as "information services" and not "telecommunications services," they could not be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Therefore, the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 regulations, which could only be applied to common carriers, could not be applied to broadband providers. The court upheld the transparency order of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, which it found was not contingent upon network operators being classified as common carriers.

Additionally, the court found that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 "vests the FCC with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure."[5] The court mostly agreed with the FCC's interpretation of section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The court also agreed with the FCC that broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could hinder future Internet development without at least rules similar to those in the FCC Open Internet Order 2010.[6]

The court suggested possible changes to the FCC's regulations that may be more amenable to their opinion

--------------------------------------------
It's difficult for an agency of the Executive branch to overcome a ruling that says some of what they wanted to do was unconstitutional.

Saying this is the President's fault that the FCC is now doing it's best to work within the new constraints put on it by Verizon vs FCC seems like forcing the issue, to put it mildly.

[villager]

15. That is, of course, the official talking point that sprung up today. The ol' "no choice!" defense.

But of course, the FCC could have chosen a different response, and set of rules, to the court ruling.

[stevenleser]

18. When the article doesnt address the ruling at all and suggest how it could be worked around...

... the article itself seems deceptive.

[villager]

20. Again, the "deceptive" line is another of today's talking points. In fact, the FCC had choices

...about what kinds of rules to issue in response to the court, and they chose -- of course -- ones to placate their corporate clients.

[stevenleser]

21. If it's that simple, why don't the articles contain suggestions? Thats a point you cant get around.

The articles of these writers should have been able to come up with those suggestions if its that easy and they know what they are talking about.

[merrily]

52. The writers of the articles are not responsible for this. The FCC is.

The article that you quoted--the last line of the quoted material--says that the court that made the rule offered the FCC suggestions on what the FCC had to do to.

And I am not sure why you mention constitutionality. The material you quoted discusses statutes passed by Congress and regulations that the FCC itself promulgates. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits net neutrality.

The court ruling was based on the FCC's own failure to classify broadband correctly. The FCC could have simply made the classification after the court ruling. According to the quote you yourself provided, the court even made suggestions as to how the FCC might do that. Instead, the FCC has chosen to rule in favor of the broadband providers making even more profit than they do and against speech without extra money.

[stevenleser]

88. If you are going to complain, you should explain what your desired end state is and how to get there

particularly in a situation where there has been a court ruling that poses a challenge.

Anyone can complain.

[merrily]

101. They are complaining about a broken campaign promise. That does not saddle them

with an obligation to give the FCC legal advice, which the FCC does not need. Their article is not about administrative law.

And yes, people can and should complain about broken campaign promises, even if they don't feel compelled to tell a much better staffed and funded entity, the USG, anything else. What the desired end state is that broken campaign promises should not go unremarked.


Things got off the rails here because the issue got deflected here from a broken campaign promise to the excuse that the hands of the FCC are tied. (As if it would have been okay for a Presidential candidate to make that promise without looking into whether it could legally be kept?) And, when some of us said, no, the power is in FCC, we got bogged down in adminstrative law. That does not mean, however, that the authors of the article should have gone down that same silly road.

As for the court ruling, a lot more has been made of that here than seems warranted. Please see Replies 87, 93 and 99. (I may be off on those numbers, but I am referring to Dragonfli's post to me, my reply to her and her reply to me (which I just realized exists--I have not read it yet.

Under all the circumstances, when you said that may nothing in the article could be trusted simply because the authors of an article about a broken campaign had not advised an administrative agency on administrative law, that seemed over the top.

[stevenleser]

130. Any three year old can whine about something. You don't need a journalist for that.

What is becoming clear from the articles and from folks like you who similarly cannot come up with ideas that solve the issues here is that the problems are pretty significant and the administrations detractors certainly can't figure out how to surmount them.

[merrily]

139. Folks like me? LOL.

Big difference between me and the authors of the article--and also big difference between me and the very expensive government: This is my hobby, not my day job or anything I get paid to do. Or collect taxes from anyone to do. Nor promise anyone this board that I would fix things, if only they'd elect me or pay me. So, the scope of my responsibilities is quite different.

That aside, I do offer suggested solutions on the board whenever I can, both to people who mention a personal problem and as to political activism. Moreover, I always try to attack the pervasive problem of political falsehoods on the board, lest folks get misled. But don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise without knowing what you are talking about. Just fling at will.

Remind me: What problems have you solved at DU lately, except trying to deny or rationalize away anything that you imagine might somehow reflect bad on Obama, then go ad hom posters who push back at that?

[pscot]

162. That's despicable

[AgingAmerican]

166. When defending the indefensible

...one must try to kill the messenger.

[merrily]

198. ""Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

It can be a pretty effective tactic. First, you may silence the messenger. If so, mission accomplished. If not you may at least discredit the messenger, at least in the eyes of some. Either way, you're changing the subject, even if the change is only temporarily, second best to totally silencing the messenger.

I knew the New Yorker and I would both get thrown under the bus at some point. The mortal sin of the authors is obvious. They pointed out that Obama had broken a firm campaign promise that means a lot to people who use the internet often.

Apparently, my mortal sin was interpreting a court ruling correctly, instead of pretending that it was a significant obstacle to the FCC.

One of my venial sins was not believing that the New Yorker authors should have STFU about broken unless they also offered the federal government legal advice on how to overcome said non-existent obstacle.

Also, not falling for attempts to change the subject from the FCC's perfidy to the non-existent benefits to consumers of the FCC's perfidy.

Yet, I am unrepentant.

[sabrina 1]

224. Excellent post, thank you. Broken campaign promises must definitely should be noted.

Appointments to key positions in government after an election, should now become as much of a campaign issue as anything else.

Eg, we still have untold numbers of Bush appointees in, eg, National Security, some appointed, others just left there. Any 'three-year-old' to use a comparison already used here, knows that if you keep Bush appointees and nominate more of them AFTER YOU THROW THEM OUT, or thought you had, you are going to continue to get Bush policies

Eg, the FCC. Do we have Progressives in key positions in the FCC?

I know this has become a major issue for many Dems now since we were foolish enough to assume that 'electing Democrats' meant we WON and got to appoint DEMOCRATS to positions of power in every part of the Government.

We were wrong.

[merrily]

228. Thank you.

I always appreciate your posts as well.

If campaign promises can be broken with no consequence, does it really matter what is a campaign issue?

It's not as though this was a minor promise. Nor was strong public option. Nor was most transparent administration ever. Nor was "Just elect me and I'll fix my FISA vote." And so on.

Thing is, I have heard Democratic strategists/pundits and others on TV say flat out, "The left has nowhere else to go." This is usually in response to a question about whether the Dem base can accept something Obama or Congress are doing.

Inasmuch as they believe that--and/or make us believe it--the only upside for them is in courting the Indies and the Republicans. (Remember, in 2008, the term "Obamicans," and converts like Julie Eisenhower?)

That is who they've been after since at least triangulator in chief Clinton/Morris. And, oh look, those policies just happen to fit in with what big money wants from government, too.

And then, there's the Carroll Quigley factor. Bubba said that Quigley, whose class Clinton took, was one of his huge influences, right up there with JFK. And Quigley believes that what financial markets need most of all is stability. Hence, the less change there is from one President to another, the better Wall Street likes it.

So, in the above scenario, liberals are not going anywhere, not Republicans or Indies, whose votes Democrats need, and not good for Wall Street, whose money Democrats need and whose success both of the largest parties need. (The investor class has indeed benefited since Obama. Working class, not so much.)

What do you think the outcome of sum of things in the prior paragraph is likeliest to be?


I am going to add another thought that is even more controversial:

After 1929, the rich feared a revolution; and we got the New Deal. In the 1960s, everyone feared an uprising; and we got not only the Civil Rights Act, which MLK was preaching about, but also the War on Poverty, which MLK was also preaching about. The Great Society-head start, Medicare and more.

MLK had also begun preaching about war and LBJ did run on peace, but never delivered.

NSA, Homeland Security, etc. Federal, state and local governments are pretty much ready for anything--and willing. Look what happened to peaceful demonstrators.

Sorry for ranting, but please think about it.

[JDPriestly]

149. The FCC needs to reclassify internet services as common carriers rather than information

providers. Should be easy if Obama and the head of the FCC really want net neutrality.

Obama has let us down again with his appointment of yet another industry insider to the top post at the FCC. This is yet again a promise, an important promise, broken. There are no two ways around it.

[stevenleser]

158. As several others have responded under this OP, that comes with its own set of issues.

how would you deal with those?

[JDPriestly]

187. I would make reclassifying the internet as a common carrier the top priority.

Net neutrality outweighs everything else.

As for the money, there is lots to be made in a system with net neutrality.

I could see myself abandoning the internet altogether if I found it difficult to get the programming I want, programming, websites for the minority of people I belong to.

Charge consumers to pay for developing the extra bandwidth. That will open up the markets to competition by companies to give the most bandwidth for the least money. Charge extra for gamers.

Net Neutrality means a creative internet. Without it, the internet will be just another cable TV type network with voices like yours heard mostly only on the worst of the worst stations -- like Fox News.

[sabrina 1]

236. I'd start by NOT appointing Cable Lobbyists to the FCC. Wheeler eg.

What would YOU do to make sure Corporate lobbyists with that huge conflict of interest, don't get to be apppointed to powerful positions where they can continue to 'make money talk'. Actually I thought that was the whole point of the 2008 election. To get a government that represents the people.

[stevenleser]

237. He seemed fine to everyone else on your side in this argument in his initial assessment of

Verizon vs FCC.

[sabrina 1]

238. That isn't an answer to the question I asked No Corporate lobbyists are fine

with me personally, the ONLY person I can speak for. 'Side'?? What does that mean? What are these 'sides' you are talking about?

There is what benefits the people and what benefits Corporations. That is the state of affairs in this country right now Money is Speech, etc. Which side are you on since you seem to view this in terms of 'sides'.

[rhett o rick]

177. It seems that the admin defenders are not expressing how they feel about this

situation but merely attacking the OP and those that are not happy with the situation.

It appears to me that the Admin and their Thomas Wheeler arent trying very hard, but then we really didnt expect Wheeler to try.

[merrily]

220. And Genachowski sure didn't.

Folked again.

[Armstead]

104. If the Goddamn Administration and Congress really wanted it, they can do it

Stop making excuses for those pathetic corrupt bastids.

If the WH nd democrats and few reasonable Republicans wanted to actually protect Net Neutrality, they can damn sure organize and plot legislation and fie up public opinion in support o it.

Instead they are taking money from Verizon and the other ISPs with one hand, and blahr on about how helpless they are to protect a basic freedom.

EVEN IF they ere unable to stop the Corporate Facists, at least they will have put up a good fight.

THIS IS PATHETIC!

[stevenleser]

111. Saying it doesn't make it so. You have yet to explain how and you dont have the legal knowledge to

know if it is possible.

[Armstead]

114. over the course of history we have regulated....

environmental protection, civil rights, healthcare, consumer protection laws, all kinds if commerce etc. etc....The government used to regulate broadcasting.


I realize the Corporate Centrists Democrats don't like regulation much better than Republicans do - or else they are afraid to try. But don't tell me there is no way to keep what has basically become an essential public utility as a resource that is protected and operated in the public interest.

i and plenty of others have ideas for how it could be done. But unless the "realists" in the Democratic Party actualy want to stand up the Corporate masters, nothing will get done, and the apologists will continue to offer excuses for their cowardly ineptitude and/or corruption.

[merrily]

116. Then take the word of the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

[stevenleser]

131. Ah, so you accept Tom Wheeler as a truthteller then? Excellent. Here is more recent stuff from him

"There are reports that the FCC is gutting the Open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong," Mr. Wheeler said in a statement late Wednesday defending his proposal. "There is no 'turnaround in policy.' The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original Open Internet rules, and consistent with the court's decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted."

[merrily]

147. I accept him as someone who said one thing in February about changing rules and an entirely

different thing only two months later. So, no, not as a truthteller at all.

I do, however, accept him as someone who said that the court ruling that you seemed so very concerned about for most of this thread not only did not prevent the FCC from re-classifying, but gave the FCC a green light. I thought you'd be relieved to know there was no obstacle whatever to reclassification, according to a source you might finally admit was correct about the opinion of the D.C. Circuit.

But, oh look:

"There are reports that the FCC is gutting the Open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong," Mr. Wheeler said in a statement late Wednesday defending his proposal. "There is no 'turnaround in policy.' The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original Open Internet rules, and consistent with the court's decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted."

Amazing that you can post that without question, given your concerns about the court ruling and his February comments. The court ruled that the FCC had to reclassify providers or STFU.

In February, Wheeler said that he'd be changing the rules consistent with the court's decision. Only two months later, though, he says, he is not changing the rules, but, consistent with the court's decision, consumers will not be affected.

Now, I am not saying that none of that hangs together. I am just saying that it does not seem internally consistent. Yet, someone who went on and on about the barriers erected by court opinion, Constitutional even, and would accept no explanation to the contrary, finds nothing to even question in the above? No reclassification, no problem?

Cool. Maybe you can explain it to me this time.

To me, it sounds as though he is saying that the problem will be only for companies like Netflix and not for consumers. If that is what he is saying, since when to increased costs to a company like Netflix never impact a consumer? And since when is basing access by a provider to the internet on what the provider must pay no problem to the consumer in terms of which companies may be priced out of the internet?

But, I jumped ahead. Again, please explain.

[stevenleser]

160. What a huge surprise. You blindly accept those words that support you and blindly reject those that

do not.

[merrily]

165. First, huh? Second, are you implying that is NOT what you have done all over this board?

Nor what you were doing on this thread when you questioned the hell out the claim that the FCC could reclassify if it chose, but posted Wheeler's comments, very puzzling under the circumstances, triumphantly and without any question whatever?

Third, I didn't blindly accept anything. I posted Wheeler's statement saying the FCC could reclassify because you were a broken record about the court opinion and refused to believe anything until I posted that. Funny, how your characterize my posting an impeccable source for my claim as my blindly accepting what supports me. Twist much?

Fourth, I rejected squat. I noted that there seemed to be inconsistencies in the situation without more info, took my own shot at resolving them, but awaited your explanation. (Where is it by the way?)

Aren't you the same pot poster who has been insulting me in post after post for not responding to what people "actually" post and not repeating people's "exact" words? And the only reply you've got after I addressed Wheeler's statement is yet another personal insult? Not a word of substance, as usual.

Please stop accusing me of your own posting behaviors. They are certainly not mine.

[woo me with science]

178. What surreal horseshit, day after day. An Orwellian carnival of propaganda.

Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2014, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Just breathtaking, the constant bids to pretend that the corporate sellouts we witness in front of us EVERY SINGLE DAY are not really happening.

These INCREDIBLE posts that pretend the betrayals have not been relentless and consistent. That this administration has not sold us out, over and over, across virtually every area of policy in which the One Percent hold an interest. Betrayal after betrayal, we are met with shocked indignation that we would even dare to suggest that corporate politicians intended this all along. We are to pretend that each new sellout is a complete surprise, fluke, aberration, or misunderstanding.

That's how weird, creepy, and corrupt the messaging has become. The existence of this 24/7 propaganda machine shows how sick and corrupt our political landscape has become.

We are to deny this administration's own repeated, relentless actions. We are to pretend not to see the pattern that is glaringly evident before our eyes. We are to ignore the daily, proactive, aggressive efforts of this administration and all corporate pols on behalf of the One Percent. We are to nurse the ludicrous fiction that this administration and this President are merely obstructed by teabaggers or cirumstances beyond their control and are actually valiantly trying to represent us. We are to pretend all this, even though their actions on a daily basis - appointing corporatists and Wall Street traitors to every area of government and pushing policies that enact their predatory agenda in every policy area - scream a different agenda.

We are treated like fools by the propaganda machine. This ludicrous, reality-defying fiction that is dispensed like a drumbeat insults our intelligence. This constant fiction that attempts to detach the President and his administration from its own behavior and policies is shameless. And it doesn't sell anymore.

Let's be blunt and honest. This has been a corporate, Trojan horse presidency, just as the next one will be unless we can find a way to throw ourselves into the gears of the corporate machine. Barack Obama pretended to be a champion of the 99 percent during the campaign, but the overwhelming thrust of his administration has been to protect and expand Bush corporate policies in every single area of policy important to the One Percent. And that will be the thrust of the next purchased administration, too. This is the cancer that infests our system now. This is the effect of corporate money in politics.

Today's vicious betrayal is net neutrality. No, it's not just about internet pricing. It is the dismantling of perhaps our last opportunity to fight back against the corporate takeover of this country. It is a deliberate handing of control over information and communication to the corporations. Another campaign lie.

And it follows a long line of other critical, devastating betrayals re: protecting criminal bankers; installing corporatists at all levels of government; imposing vicious austerity on the people while protecting corporate wealth; deregulation; pushing for this massive, predatory "free trade" agreement that will sell out national sovereignty re: worker protections and regulations and force Americans to compete with Third World laborers; implementing corporate education policy; entrenching for-profit health insurance cabals; expanding drilling and fracking; growing the unconscionable private prison system and waging the marijuana wars and ugly deportation system to support its profits.

This administration has claimed the right to imprison and murder without due process; it campaigned on transparency but defends a system of secret laws and secret courts; it seeks to lie in response to FOI requests, even to the courts; it persecutes whistleblowers and has twisted the Espionage Act to criminalize investigative journalism and intimidate our free press; it criminalizes and responds brutally and militarily to Constitutionally protected protest, and it surveils and maintains lists of protesters. Our government invasively gropes those who seek to travel and maintains secret lists of those to be denied travel, that cannot be challenged and need not be defended in a court. Federal grants are militarizing our police forces. This administration defends the trashing of the Fourth Amendment and the transformation of the United States of America into a surveillance state. And a propaganda and smear machine has been put into place, targeted at Americans.

But the Third Way can depend on their army of propagandists to deny, minimize, deflect from it all. And to deflect from the result: the hollowing out of this country, the steady stream of people falling out of the middle class and into poverty, the doubling of the wealth of billionaires just since 2009 as a result of policy, and the steady plummeting of the US on virtually every measure of well-being.

We are to drift from betrayal to betrayal, smiling and pretending that it's all *only* the fault of Republicans. No Democrats, much less this administration, have had a hand in any of it, even though we watch those busy hands every day. We are to embrace delusion merely because the President has a "D" after his name.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. 2+2=5. The chocolate ration has been increased. And anyone who expresses concern about plutocracy...about corporatocracy...about the purchase of our elections and our government and our political parties by corporate interests can expect the immediate, predictable swarming and guffawing from the predictable, ever-present few who incessantly, robotically deny it all and mock that anyone would acknowledge reality.

[1000words]

182. Thanks

Righteous rant, directed appropriately.

[woo me with science]

185. Thank you. It's crazy. It's the textbook definition of crazy,

treating these constant propaganda bids for delusion as though they have merit.

It's GARBAGE. It is an attempt to create a shared partisan psychosis, and it's sick and malignant to the party and the country.

We have all been here the whole time. We see the reality of corporate corruption and what it is doing to all of us. Civility does not require that we agree to label what is clearly horseshit as something other than horseshit.

[merrily]

211. Crazy, or first stage of grief (denial), or knowing which side your bread is

buttered on.

I think at least some posters, perhaps even on this very thread, somehow profit financially, whether directly or indirectly, from those whose interests they so consistently espouse in their posts.

I have to believe that accounts for the blind devotion, denial, and the over the top character of the posts--the whole thing--or I have no other explanation with which I can sit. (And I can barely sit with that one.) I think peer pressure plays a role, as well, as with tweens (also prone to semi-hysterical hero worship, too, e.g., Beliebers)

Meanwhile, I really enjoy your phrasing, like "Orwellian carnival of propaganda." I hope you are saving them somewhere.

Thanks.

[westerebus]

209. Excellent post.

[merrily]

221. The FCC can do it. In February, Wheeler promised to do it. In April, he

decided not to do it.


Seems that something happened between February and now that made him change his mind his thinking on the subject evolve. Whatever that was, I don't think Obama or Congress will be making him do it any time soon.

[sabrina 1]

226. The people came up with the solution, or so they thought. They elected Democrats

because they knew what Republicans would do. Or are elections NOT a solution? Is that what you are saying? That when campaign promises are made, we should expect them to be broken and come up with our own solutions? I thought OUR job was to elect representatives to do that job, to pay them for that job. Since when did we elect journalists to solve these problems?


Maybe if we had Democrats in key positions in the FCC rather than one of Obama's Republican appointees, a cable lobbyist no less, Wheeler, things might be different. Are the people to blame when those they elect return the party they threw out to key positions of power, such as Wheeler eg? Just imagine of when we win we get a Democratic government?

[stevenleser]

235. We're not talking about "the people" we're talking about the journalists who are complaining.

If they know enough to complain, they should know enough to propose a complete solution.

[sabrina 1]

239. YOU are talking about turning Journalists into politicians, not WE. Journalists should not be

proposing solutions to political problems. Wow!

Fyi, the job of a journalist is to report facts, that is all. Since when were they given the job WE GAVE in accordance with our Democratic system of government, to those we elected.

I hope this isn't the solution you are offering, because if it is, then what is the point of voting for people who ASK FOR the particular job of 'proposing a complete solution'.

I must be misunderstanding this, because it is simply ludicrous to demand that journalists should NOT report facts unles they can offer a 'complete solution'.

[bobduca]

127. Well that proves one thing..

You know that the talking points have been distributed and assimilated when Mr Leser's clipboard gets a-pasting.

[bahrbearian]

135. Good One

[woo me with science]

184. Indeed. nt

[merrily]

207. My money is on another candidate.

Nothing your guy posted contains much beyond insults. As talking points go, his posts don't stand up to statements along the lines of What we should really be discussing here are the advantages of not doing what is require to ensure net neutrality.

[bobduca]

214. Endorphins caused by active contortions

I suspect his reward is a rush of endorphins when he successfully contorts into the next position required to defend Obama's next corporate-friendly policy. A Third-way Yoga of a sort.

[pnwmom]

233. What set of open internet rules could have satisfied that court? n/t

[JoePhilly]

17. None of the articles being referenced do.

Multiple OPs on DU ... different articles ... all omit that ruling.

Apparently it never happened.

[stevenleser]

23. It makes it hard to take them seriously.

Everything seems to have changed as of that ruling. If you are going to discuss Net Neutrality and what 'should' be happening, you have to address that case.

[Armstead]

108. It's hard to take the damn politicians seriously

Call me foolish optimist, but I believe where there's a will there's a way.

And Obama and the Congress have no will to actually figh this thing. they'd rather take their money from the ISPs and cry crocodile tears.

[JDPriestly]

150. The ruling simpy advised the FCC that it had to reclassify the internet as a common carrier

if it wants net neutrality. The FCC has thus far failed to reclassify and now is using its erroneous classification as an excuse to gut net neutrality.

That is an obvious double-cross, yet another one on the part of the Obama administration.

Obama chose an industry insider to run the FCC. That is how he double-crossed us. Had he instead chosen a consumer advocate for the post, we would have no problem.

[truedelphi]

170. If only this was the only double cross... n/t

[merrily]

41. The FCC had to reclassify before it could regulate.

From your post:

Because the FCC had previously classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, the court ruled that the FCC had relinquished its right to regulate them like common carriers.

In other words, the FCC created the problem itself, and could fix it itself.

It is especially inexcusable that the problem existed at all because the FCC had already altered its regulations. It could have addressed the issue then, but did not. It also could have addressed it after the court decision, but instituting a new rule-making process, in order to change the classification so that it could regulate broadband carriers. Obviously, it's chosen not to do that, either.

[msanthrope]

53. The FCC directive from 2002 would have to be changed...tell us your legal argument

for doing so.

[merrily]

56. According to the material that Leser quoted in his post, the court gave the FCC suggestions.

But, you're the lawyer, msanthrope. Why don't you tell us your legal argument for not changing the 2002 directive instead of playing this game you seem to love to play.

[msanthrope]

80. I think you've read that incorrectly. nt

[merrily]

212. Nope. I nailed it.

[merrily]

63. Just for kicks, do you happen to mean the 2002 directive that WAS changed in 2009?

[msanthrope]

79. It wasn't. Perhaps we think of different directives? nt

[merrily]

81. I know there were significant changes in FCC regs about not long before the lawsuit.

Two years before is stuck in my mind, but I would not swear to the time period. There were, however, changes.

[msanthrope]

82. Again...I reference the 2002 designation and the subsequent Verizon case. Start there. nt

[merrily]

83. Cute. The Verizon case is what we've been discussing.

The "2002 designation" is what I asked you about after you, the lawyer, requested that I, a non lawyer give you a legal argument for changing "the 2002 directive. I replied by asking you to provide a legal argument for not changing it.

I take it you mean the Bush administration's relieving the internet providers of 80 years of regulations of carriers like the telephone company?

The layman's argument for changing it is that, supposedly change is necessary for net neutrality, which Obama unequivocally promised America when he ran 2007-08. Maybe you should have asked him and his legal staff for their legal argument for changing Bushco's pro-provider directive.

Or ask the FCC now for their legal argument for not revising the regs to give us net neutrality.

[msanthrope]

84. No....I'm referencing the 2002 Verizon case and the 2002 directive. This ain't

Verizon's first rodeo.

[merrily]

86. This game is tiresome. See you on another issue.

[stevenleser]

89. Not surprising that you can't outargue that person, they are an attorney and know better. nt

[merrily]

107. Thing is, she didn't really present any argument, legal or otherwise.

Just kept saying I was wrong and referring as obliquely as possible to documents that supposedly proved her right. When I see lawyers make claims like that, I see them cite chapter and verse. Hell, I see lay posters do that and I often do it myself.

When someone seems willing to spend more time not saying something than it would take to say something helpful, I'm pretty sure some kind of game is being played.

Besides, I've known lawyers who are not as smart as they would like you to believe and/or lawyers who are not as straightforward as I would like them to be. Most of them are usually good at bluffing, though. Condescension, too.

And, as to whether she knows better than I about this particuar subject, apparently, she must also know better what the FCC can or can't do than the FCC does because the FCC seems to be under the impression that whether the FCC reclassifies or not is up to the FCC.

[Lasher]

115. Msanthrope's fallacious argument from authority does nothing to justify the FCC's betrayal.

OK, argumentum ab auctoritate since lawyers are impressed by that kinda shit.

Candidate Obama promised to appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality. Then last year he appointed Tom Wheeler as the FCC chairman - the same Tom Wheeler who had stated he was not opposed to prioritization of traffic by service providers - the same guy who had worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry.

I think that was all fucked up from the get-go and I'd like to see a compelling writ of pastrami that proves otherwise.

[merrily]

118. The FCC thought it had the authority. Says a court said so.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

[Lasher]

126. Two words: Orly Taitz

[merrily]

202. Well, trying to get any information useful to a lay person WAS like pulling teeth.

(humor attempt: Orly is also a dentist-and a former real estate agent. The whole package, LOL.)

[JDPriestly]

151. Regulatory agencies such as the FCC are there to write and change rules. That is their job.

If that were not the case, if a decision once made were eternal, we would not have seat belts in cars or airbags on both sides of cars, and our air here in Los Angeles would be unbreathable due to pollution.

The problem is that Obama appointed an industry insider to the post of the head of the FCC. That is how Obama broke his campaign promise. Ultimately, Obama is responsible for this. He could have appointed an advocate for net neutrality to that post. He did not choose to do so.

The internet needs to be reclassified as a common carrier. Takes care of the problem with the court decision. The FCC has the authority to do that. They should get started because the process might take some time.

We are being lied to by the Obama administration and its apologists. That is my opinion.

[Dragonfli]

154. I called the "The FCC is as weak as kittens" meme they would resort to before they started

dishing it out yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4863389

[JDPriestly]

159. Thanks. Yes. Another Obama twist and turn as he does the campaign-money-dance

right before our eyes.

[merrily]

203. Presidential libraries cost a lot, too

[merrily]

195. What was your point about 2002?

The 2002 case had to do with telephone rate setting for Verizon. The FCC won most of of the case. Didn't seem that relevant to interpreting the 2014 case though. Never found what you call the 2002 designation. But, I guess that doesn't matter, either, because according to the head of the FCC, I was right about the 2014 case to begin with.

Next time you ask me to make a winning legal argument for my interpretation of a case, I might press my counter request for you winning legal argument refuting me a bit harder than I did this time. Just saying.



Thanks, though because the 2002 case was good to see.

Can't say I read every word of the 2002 case, but it delved into the days when Ma Bell was a monopoly and the D of J broke it up. One of my relatives was part of the inhouse legal department at main corporate headquarters. Not the head, but relatively senior. He worked on both the antitrust suit and the two year break up. Ma Bell/ATT compensated those that did the latter very well and gave them their choice of Baby Bells to work for after the break up. He chose Georgia.

What the public may never have known then was that Ma Bell wanted that break up. The operating companies, which it agreed to spin off, were very costly to operate and the long distance operation, which the D of J "let" Ma Bell keep, had been subsidizing them.

Grew up hearing that story from him. He'd laugh and laugh every time he told it. He passed a few years ago and reading the case brought good memories. So not a total waste of my time by any means.

[sabrina 1]

240. And did you think that putting a Corporate Cable Lobbyist at the head of the FCC was going

to anything about that??

[merrily]

245. I am sure the failure to reclassify before

attempting net neutrality, or during the same rulemaking process, or even after the FCC lost it's first lawsuit on this, was a good faith oversight. Just like going tiers instead of trying to reclassify now.

Reading the Court opinion was rough, but I had the definite sense that even the Court was impatient with the FCC.

among other things, the opinion starts

"For the second time in four years, we are confronted with a Federal Communications Commission effort to compel broadband providers to [use net neutrality].

At one point, the Court says something like "After all, even a federal agency is entitled to some pride."

And about six times, the Court cited an issue that the FCC attorneys had forfeited (on behalf of the American people, mind you) because they had not raised it in their brief. (One time I think for Verizon, too, to be fair).

Whodda thunk filling the FCC with lawyers who used to lobby for broadband providers would turn out that way? You'd think seeing it from both (?) sides of the fence would have resulted in briefs that were near perfection.

[jeff47]

55. Except there's other effects of declaring them common carriers.

The largest of which is it makes it more difficult for the ISPs to offer "tiers" of service, which reduces their incentive to upgrade their networks - it kills their ROI.

Common carrier isn't a magic fix-all - There's good and bad parts to it. Whether or not the good outweighs the bad is a debate we should be having. But we can't when the only way the topic is brought up as "OBAMA IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!". Because that is frankly irrelevant to the debate we should be having.

[merrily]

59. Yes, I heard you the first time.

You said the silliest, most transparent things the last time we discussed the court ruling. And now, you are doing a 180 and will say anything again to support this position.

BTW, another lie. Not one of my posts says Obama is terrible. Please stop lying about me.

My posts have all been about the court ruling and the regulations because Leser said some incorrect things about it. Did the FCC let us down? you bet. Is it part of the Obama administration? Yes. But that has not been the focus of my posts.

Please stop the dishonesty.

[jeff47]

60. Well, when you reply in 3 different places, you're gonna get 3 different replies.

BTW, another lie. Not one of my posts says Obama is terrible. Please stop lying about me.

Apparently, you need a mirror.

Because you'll note I never said you made that claim. I said that ends up being the discussion instead of the debate we should be having. And even the most cursory review of this thread should show you that we are in that situation.

[merrily]

62. Excuse me for assuming that something you posted to me was intended to apply to me.

If you have a complaint about the content of someone else's posts, kindly direct it to the person or persons you think is responsible.

I replied to the same post of yours three times in three different places? And that forced you to repeat yourself? Really?

[jeff47]

64. Well, if you'd actually read it

You'd have notice that I was talking about the overall subject being brought up. You did not bring up the subject. You're the one who injected yourself.

[merrily]

66. I ask again, please stop lying about me.

I did read the post, which had to have been perfectly obvious to you because I replied to it. You and I had been going back and forth about the FCC. Your post then said that said a discussion was hard to have when posters only wanted to hate on Obama.

As I already told you, I assumed, as most people would, that something you posted to me applied to me. Maybe to other people, too, but certainly to me. Most people with whom I am disagreeing heartily don't complain to me about why it's hard to discuss a subject with people other than I. It's a perfectly normal interpretation.

But again, in the future please direct your complaints about other posters, which complaints do not refer to me at all, to the posters to whom they refer. I can't help you with other posters.

[merrily]

61. PS, the "whatever is, is good" and "there's nothing to see here" approaches are not great for

authentic debate either. Neither does moving the goalpost wherever you must to hide the Emperor's lack of clothing. I know you claim you don't do that, but it's all I ever seen of your posts.

I'll tell you what does further debate. Making your case, instead of dragging out the tired Ooooh Obama haters gotta hate" line.

The largest of which is it makes it more difficult for the ISPs to offer "tiers" of service, which reduces their incentive to upgrade their networks - it kills their ROI.

Let me understand this. Your contention (now not some weeks ago) is that broadband providers, who already make lots of money, should be able to make one of the last remaining sources of free flow of info we have that does not depend on the wealth of the publisher/speaker because that will allow them to give us better service, out of the goodness of their hearts?

Please, spare me. As far as not being able to offer tiers of service, who benefits from their offering tiers of service? They do,

[jeff47]

68. You continue to do an excellent job of reading that which is not present in the posts

But I suppose that helps ratchet up the outrage nicely.

Let me understand this. Your contention (now not some weeks ago) is that broadband providers, who already make lots of money, should be able to make one of the last remaining sources of free flow of info we have that does not depend on the wealth of the publisher/speaker because that will allow them to give us better service, out of the goodness of their hearts?

Nope. My contention is that it costs money to run the hardware to support faster Internet connections.

Oooo, how......sinister.

The question becomes which will benefit us more: Faster overall speed, or ensuring that the maximum speed is available to all sources.

If we go from ~10Mbps to ~15Mbps, throttling back Netflix to 80% of that is a loss.
If we go from ~10Mbps to ~1000Mbps, throttling back Netflix to 80% of that is still an enormous win.

Please, spare me. As far as not being able to offer tiers of service, who benefits from their offering tiers of service? They do,

Actually, there's a broader benefit. Sure, it means they make more cash, but that also gives them the reason to build out higher connections. That lowers the cost of the next build out. So yes, Time Warner makes out very nicely charging a metric shitload for 100Mbps. But it also gets the hardware in place for them to bump everyone else - in fact, Time Warner's "normal" service recently went from 10Mbps to 15Mbps.

You take away tiers, and they no longer have a reason to roll out equipment to provide faster service. They are, after all, business bastards out to pillage everything they can. They aren't going to upgrade out of the goodness of their hearts.

I'd prefer public utilities for all utilities - water, power, telephone and Internet. But that's going to be a much longer fight. So in the meantime we have to figure out how to best optimize what we do have - getting us the most speed for the lowest cost.

[stevenleser]

90. There is a lot of that going on, i.e. the "his hands are tied" meme which none of us said.

When those against us have to use straw man arguments, that is as good as an admission of defeat.

[villager]

98. "When those against us have to use straw man arguments, that is as good as an admission of defeat."

Exactly so.

[merrily]

121. So, no one claimed that the court ruling was a roadblock for the FCC?

No one on this thread claimed anything like that?

How odd. Because it sure seemed to me that a lot of THAT was going around. And not only from you.

[stevenleser]

128. Creating a strawman to get you out of a strawman? How about using people's actual arguments?

Is that really so difficult?

[merrily]

148. So, you didn't claim the court ruling was an obstacle to reclassification?

Cause a court ruling might well tie someone's hands.

As far as answering people's actual arguments (or their statements, or petulant insults), I almost always do. Did it all over this thread. I am doing it right now, in fact.

I just try not to fall for bedazzling attempts. And at least two posters on this thread seem to rely often on bedazzling as a posting strategy, with side orders of disingenuosness and condescension. And, when they persist, I sometimes finally lose patience with that. Mea culpa.

I don't usually find replying to things people say especially difficult. Especially when a poster has no agenda, rather than employing the "Say Anything" technique. I guess they think they're some kind of message board Secret Service Squad?

But, don't take my word for it. Try it yourself sometime and see how easy it is.

[stevenleser]

157. Why do you find it so hard to use people's actual words? Is that really so hard for you? nt

[merrily]

164. I might well ask you the identical question.

First time I noticed your name on this board, you were mischaracterizing one of my posts.

Much fun as this has been (not), it's clearly devolved even further. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't continue replying to each of your additional ad homs.

[jberryhill]

152. What I find most amusing in this

...is that I follow this issue pretty closely, and responded in one of these multiple threads on the basis of my own knowledge of the backstory which, unfortunately is more complicated than a black/white Manichean drama.

EVERY story on this - all of which sprung forth like mushrooms after the rain on a single day from multiple sources - omits the same historical context.

But then, anyone whose been following this issue, and says, "Umm... there are some facts missing here" is immediately tarred with parotting the "talking points".

Kinda interesting that.

[stevenleser]

155. It is amusing. There are a group of Obama critics here who don't care about facts they just want

the latest outrage du jour on which to heap criticism on the President.

[jberryhill]

181. After the fifth or sixth time Obama gutted social security...

...then you'd think they made their point already.

[merrily]

213. The only bad facts and bad interpretations on this thread did not come from critics of the FCC move.

The ones who apparently got the impact of the opinion and the alleged need for solutions wrong were you, jberryhill, and msanthrope. Yet two of those three are posting to each other that all the other people on the thread who got the facts right don't care about facts.

Your ad hom posts on this thread are among the most substance-free, fact-free I've ever seen on any political board I've posted on and I've been posting on them since 2003 or 2004. Kudos for standing out. Of course, the posts in which you did attempt substantive statements were wrong, despite attempts by many posters to set you straight.

Rather than admit your error, or simply move on, you doubled down on personal insults and sit here claiming to another poster who got the impact of the court case right that the people who got it right are the ones don't care about facts.

Newspeak and Doublethink on steroids.

[merrily]

216. What I find interesting is that you claim to follow this

pretty closely, yet don't seem to have actually read and/or understood either the January 2014 court ruling or the statement issued about it by FCC Chair Wheeler in February.

[treestar]

206. What underlies the resistance to all reality is the concept

that Obama should act as if he is above the laws if they prevent him from doing what I want dammit! And I'll rent my garments with emotional words like "betrayal!" Notice it's everybody who says that anyway, no matter what the issue. A new bandwagon to jump on.

[merrily]

217. What laws? What resistance to reality?

The only resistance to all reality on this thread in on msanthrope, jberryhill, Leser and Jeff47. Most of the length of the this thread comes from people trying to set them straight, or members of one group shaking its head about the other. And now you, too. (I apologize if I left out any of the other resisters to all reality. I have not checked out some of the posts yet.)

If you don't choose to take the word of anyone on this thread about applicable law, read the January 2014 court opinion yourself and then read the statement that FCC Chair Wheeler made about it in February. Both are linked somewhere on this thread and, if you don't see them, it an easy and quick google. Then contrast Wheeler's February statement with the one he made in this month.

[JDPriestly]

153. Introduce net neutrality and the internet service providers will have to compete based on net

neutrality. We consumers will gain in the end. I remember when we had few choices for phone services. Hey! I remember when all we got was Ma Bell. As long as we do not have net neutrality, internet provider start-ups will have trouble. Once the internet is opened, the money to fund broader band will also be found.

Right now, my husband and I pay extra to have more bandwidth. We use Netflix and Hulu instead of subscribing to cable TV. We take the money we would have to spend to get a decent cable service and put it into extra bandwidth. Why not charge consumers like us for the bandwidth?

Makes sense to me. I do not want content providers having to pay for the additional bandwidth. First, that system will lead companies to invest less in bandwidth improvement since they would be able to make good profits by lessening bandwidth availability. Second, if consumers rather than providers pay for the bandwidth increase, that puts the choice in the hands of consumers.

Also, if net neutrality is the rule, we will get innovative small companies find cheaper ways to provide more bandwidth.

Net neutrality makes sense for consumers.

The FCC should reclassify the internet as a common carrier and see what happens. They can change their minds once they have tried it if it does not work out.

Ultimately, the government should invest in universal bandwidth and lots of it for everyone because if the US does not lead with regard to net neutrality and a content neutral internet, some other country will. We can't afford to lose out on this point of competition.

[Maven]

72. Correct.

Some here will continue to deny this reality because their usual refrain of "THEY HAD NO CHOICE!" is all they have left to sell.

[merrily]

223. Yep. Day 4 of denial of reality and counting.

Wonder when they'll admit their mistake?

I kid, of course.

I rarely see posters admit a mistake. If they finally get they're wrong after a heated debate, they just quietly leave the thread and never return.

You have to admire the consistency.

[Dragonfli]

87. The FCC can at any time choose to reclassify broadband as a public utility

As Reported by Mother Jones

....The FCC's proposal would allow some forms of discrimination while preventing companies from slowing down or blocking specific websites, which likely won't satisfy all proponents of net neutrality, the concept that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. The Commission has also decided for now against reclassifying broadband as a public utility, which would subject ISPs to much greater regulation. However, the Commission has left the reclassification option on the table at present.

So Google and Microsoft and Netflix and other large, well-capitalized incumbents will pay for speedy service. Smaller companies that can't—or that ISPs just aren't interested in dealing with—will get whatever plodding service is left for everyone else. ISPs won't be allowed to deliberately slow down traffic from specific sites, but that's about all that's left of net neutrality. Once you've approved the notion of two-tier service, it hardly matters whether you're speeding up some of the sites or slowing down others.

It has the solution on the table and has actively decided not to use it, I imagine fortunes will be made from that profitable DECISION.

The usual conservatives here are spreading bullshit, everyone including the commission knows it has the option to reclassify, but money and future jobs have trumped the people as usual.

The obvious and easily cleared up bull being pushed by those here that are anti-net neutrality is starting to make me sick. How about you?

You sound a little sick of the bull as well, or are you still in frustrated mode by the obvious lies being spread?

[stevenleser]

91. And as many under this OP have pointed out, that comes with its own set of problems.

this is why no one has done a thorough article that is able to explain how to get to where all of us would like to be because there are problems at every turn.

[Dragonfli]

92. The main problems are money is to be made by this move

Future jobs as well, I am sure, but by all means rationalize how it would be better to allow the big dogs to purchase all the bandwidth leaving all other traffic to stall out.

God I fucking hate conservatives....

[merrily]

124. I think only Jeff47 said there were problems and the ones he cited were makeweight.

Less profit for carrier like Comcast, mainly. Inability to offer service tiers, as though that's a bad thing for us, LOL. Supposedly, more profits will encourage providers to do better things for us, out of their generosity, of which we've seen so much in the past, including the lawsuits to stop net neutrality. (Funny, I thought the free market was supposed to get them to give customers good service.)

Even if that were not so, the problems of NOT having net neutrality are significant, as 2008 candidate Obama told us when he promised us net neutrality. So, as between problems for broadband providers and problems for broadband users, the FCC chose the for the providers.

As best I know Jeff 47 is the only one on the thread claiming problems with net neutrality.

Funny, I thought your issue all along was that the FCC could not legally ensure net neutrality. We get past that and, now, it's that the FCC should not ensure net neutrality?

Any port in a storm, I guess.

[merrily]

93. Good find. Thank you.

That was exactly my impression when I read the 2014 case when it was originally discussed here, soon after the decision. Well, read selectively, to be 100% accurate.

Also, shortly after the 2014 decision came down, the FCC reportedly said that it was considering reclassification. Not a word then about how the FCC had no power to reclassify.

Funny how Obama can firmly promise net neutrality (surely he did not do that without first having his team look into it to see what was involved?). Then, the court can talk about classification without mentioning that the FCC has no power to reclassify, even if it would like so to do. Then, the FCC can claim to be considering reclassification. Then the FCC can claim it's leaving reclassification on the table for future reconsideration. And, all the while, the law allegedly prohibits reclassification. Sounds implausible.

Future reconsideration, after Comcast and others have it their way? Yeah, that'll happen. Another lie from the USG.

[Dragonfli]

99. Everyone except those who's job it is to polish turds for the 1% pretty much knew

the FCC has all the power in these matters. The last commissioner, the one that set up the pins for this apparently planned move, miraculously went directly from that post into a very high paid job in the industry as I recall. The current one who came from the industry was no doubt fully expected to make the final moves and will also no doubt return to the corporate cesspool that spawned him with many perks, a grand salary and likely a very large bonus.

It is easy to spot the bull because it always takes them so damn many words, circular arguments and false axioms to spin the web, you caught on right away, the only mistake you made was believing they may be arguing in good faith, I always look to the simple base facts first because I have "trust issues". I find my trust issues have served me quite well over the past thirty years

A simple rule of thumb, those that cultivate spin for a living, be it as a fox news invited speaker (even the neoliberal ones) or a third way attorney, can only be trusted to do one thing and that is spin for their clients or those they would like to woo as clients. They are on the job 24/7 and they just spin and spin and spin.

You have argued well, even while being tricked into playing their game, you made them have to twist their BS narrative seven ways from Sunday just to keep up with you. For that you have my sincere admiration.

[merrily]

113. Genachowski was the first. Seemed like a good choice, except for having had a lot to do

with FOX News's coming into existence.

I knew very well that everything from some posters was about finding some reason it was okay for Obama to break another firm campaign promise and nothing was about getting to the facts. It's not the first time I've seen either the posters or the behaviors.

I don't persist because I think they are trying to get to the truth, no matter what is it is. I persist because I think it important not to leave certain things on the board unaddressed. And sometimes, I even learn something in the process, which I always enjoy. For example, I learned from you about the existence of the Mother Jones article.

I did think for a bit that msanthrope just might know something on point. But, then, it got so tedious that I couldn't make myself care anymore if she did or not.

Thank you for the compliments. I am flattered. However, you came up with proof, which trumps everything. And, you took the time and effort to post it and to support me. So, you have my admiration and my gratitude. Thank you.

[merrily]

125. If you are interested, here is the FCC's 2014 promise of net neutrality, all of

two months ago. http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

Silly chairman said that court said he could change the rules and he promised he would. Thank heaven DU posters know better than the DC Circuit and the FCC chair, huh?

[jeff47]

140. Yes, common carrier is an option, and that gets us Net Neutrality

But it does a lot more than net neutrality.

When talking about ISPs, the big loss is making it much more difficult for ISPs to create tiers of service. Doesn't sound like much, right? Who cares if they have to offer everyone the same 10 Mbps?

It matters because we don't get network upgrades. Those cost money. And companies rolled out upgrades in order to support the higher-speed tiers. Those rollouts make the next set of upgrades cheaper - the hardware becomes "common", and they figure out the best way to do the upgrades.

It's kinda like Tesla's model: The insanely-expensive roadster let them figure out how to make the cars cheaper, resulting in the slightly-neruotically-expensive sedan. Which will let them figure out how to make a model that is merely "pricey", and so on.

Time Warner cable used to offer 10Mbps as their service. That was all you could get. Then they started tiered service - if you want to spend a shitload of money, you could get 100Mbps. That required TWC to upgrade their network. That hardware upgrade let them change their 10Mbps "normal" service to 15Mbps. Same cost, or at least cost on the same growth that the 10Mbps service was following.

So is net neutrality worth losing tiers, and thus upgrades?

If "normal" goes from 10Mbps to 15Mbps, then no.
If "normal" goes from 10Mbps to 1000Mbps, then yes - even the throttled data would be much faster.

What speed would we realistically get? Hell if I know. We'd need some coverage that wasn't "OMG!!! FCC SUX!!!!!" to find out what the most realistic result would be. From there we can figure out which route is better for us.

[merrily]

201. "So is net neutrality worth losing tiers, and thus upgrades?" Yes. As YOU said, NN is the ideal.

Besides, the meme that service will be bad with NN is something someone made up. The market forces that conservatives are always trying to protect do, after all, have some impact. So does regulation, if used for the benefit of something other than big business. Oh, and phone companies somehow manage to have tiers (unfortunately).

We have TV tiers now, and people have to pay hundreds of dollars a month to get the best. That's what you want for consumers of broadband? Tiers? Tough on poorer people and good stuff for the rich in yet another form?

And that overlooks the people who have to pay more and more for access to internet. That's never going to cause a problem for consumers, especially poorer ones right? (I have a feeling that is the myth that Wheeler is trying to sell--no impact on consumers because broadband providers will only raised prices on people who want to put entertainment and other things on the net for consumers to see.)

No problem with the free flow of information to and from those who are less able to pay, either, right?

And that's the conversation you keep saying we should be having?




You've done your level, albeit transparent, best to, to use Dragonfli's term, to polish this turd and change the direction of the thread from the OP. Still, no one but the Secret Service Keyboard Squad is buying that your makeweight arguments convert the turd into a silver lining.

Guess your options now are keep kicking the thread to keep trying to sell this "silver" lining to people other than the members of SS Keyboard Squad or some other comment on some other thread that you think may reflect badly on Obama. Then you can try to refute that or change the subject of that thread.

[jeff47]

243. No, those market forces are greatly reduced

The mechanism by which market forces have brought us faster Internet is via tiers - having some people pay shitloads per month for super-fast Internet to pay for the initial roll-out or upgrade that makes those speeds possible. Then the tech becomes cheaper, gets rolled out more widely, and is offered to us "little people".

With common carrier, any tiers have to be approved by the FCC. Which means it will be very rare that an ISP bothers. Instead, they'll compete by giving us the same shitty speed they currently do.

Take a look at land-line telephone and the glacial pace at which it was upgraded. That is what we get with common carrier.

We have TV tiers now

Not common carrier.

That's what you want for consumers of broadband? Tiers? Tough on poorer people and good stuff for the rich in yet another form?

Let's take a look at what Time Warner cable did.

They used to offer service at about 5Mbps. That's all you could get from their consumer network. Then they started rolling out tiers - and some rich bastards paid shitloads to get 100Mbps service.

As a result, TWC rolled out hardware upgrades to support those higher speeds and paid for them via those more expensive tiers. After a while, they upgraded the common folk to 10Mbps because the hardware was already in place. More recently, they upgraded the common folk to 15Mbps.

It's a little like Tesla's model: Some people bought the roadster for "oh my god you spent HOW much?!". That funded the R&D that allowed them to make the "insanely" priced sedan. Supposedly a car that is merely "really expensive" is in the works, and their long-term plans are to keep driving the price down.

No problem with the free flow of information to and from those who are less able to pay, either, right?

Throttling is not blocking.

If we assume the proposed regulations are the limits of what they can do with throttling, a large speed boost would mean we are better off - if speed for we mere mortals goes from 10Mbps to 100Mbps and throttling is capped at 80%, we're still better off. If speed goes from 10Mbps to 15Mbps we are worse off.

Longer term, we need Congress to pass a law giving ISPs a different version of "common carrier" that gives us net neutrality as well as giving them tiers, so that we get upgrades.

[merrily]

244. No new law needed. Despite all the attempts of the

Secret Service Keyboard Division, DU Unit, the FCC/Executive Branch really does have full statutory power to re-classify broadband providers from information services to common carriers. And Verizon v. FCC (2014) does not prevent that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

So, let's not keep pretending it does, shall we? In fact, let's stop pretending, period, not that I ever have been.

What's your stake in this? Clearly, you have one and clearly, it's not sheer love of truth. Spotted that when you tried to convince me in January that the FCC's losing in court in Verizon v. FCC was not only a good thing, but actually preferable to its having simply re-classified under Genachowski, when it was in a rulemaking proceeding anyway.

Or, as I have since learned, maybe after the FIRST time it lost in the same Court on this same issue for the same reason? Gee, it's almost as though no relevant people in government are that sincere about his alleged zeal to deliver net neutrality to Americans.

Never before or since heard anyone claim losing a costly lawsuit for taxpayers was a good thing. It was actually hilarious for a second, but not after you kept trying on and on to defend the statement.

It can't be only cable providers or the FCC, which, candidly, I started to wonder about after this thread.

Honestly, you're probably wasting your time. I and people who share my views are not buying; those who share your views sure don't need a sales pitch; and probably not many others are looking at this thread anymore, even if it's kicked. I see no reason to continue, do you?

BTW, these are purely rhetorical comments and questions. I don't actually expect you to tell me the only thing I would respect.

[jeff47]

247. Reading. Try it!! It's fun!!

the FCC/Executive Branch really does have full statutory power to re-classify broadband providers from information services to common carriers.

Please point to where I say it can't.

Just to save you some time, I don't say the FCC can't turn ISPs into common carriers. What I am saying is converting to common carriers does a lot more than just net neutrality. And those other factors will hurt.

Let's put it this way: For the first 20 years of my life, there were absolutely zero upgrades to landline telephone technology. Why? Common carrier.

The goal of common carrier regulations is to make the service available as widely as possible. Give everyone the same shitty service, so at least they have service.

When you're talking about basic telephone service, that's a good thing. But when you're talking about Internet service, that's a bad thing. Because we'll continue with our current, slow Internet speeds for a very, very long time.

A new law would let the FCC give us net neutrality as well as mitigate the downside of common carriers. Hey look! We get both! Clearly that is some nefarious plot to destroy freedom.

So, you have two options: you can drop the "Secret Service Keyboard Division" stupidity and actually read the posts, or you can look like a moron who can't understand basic English.

And I will be astounded if you do not chose the latter option. It's what you've been doing so far.

[merrily]

248. Right back atcha.

So, let's not keep pretending it does, shall we? In fact, let's stop pretending, period, not that I ever have been.

What's your stake in this? Clearly, you have one and clearly, it's not sheer love of truth.

And

Honestly, you're probably wasting your time. I and people who share my views are not buying; those who share your views sure don't need a sales pitch; and probably not many others are looking at this thread anymore, even if it's kicked. I see no reason to continue, do you?

BTW, these are purely rhetorical comments and questions. I don't actually expect you to tell me the only thing I would respect.

You said a new law was needed. And you had previously said that NN was ideal. But, then you said you moved that goalpost and claimed that Congress needs to pass a new law. I said no new law was needed (to get you what you had previously said was ideal in your eyes).

Congress pass a new law to make broadband providers perform their duty to the public? Not bloody likely--and you know that very well. So, how about, first, the Executive Branch does its job, protects the American public and delivers on Obama's campaign promise, all iin one fell swoop?

How about the FCC does that first, instead of putting tiers into place, and then sends Congress a new law to pass, if that is necessary. And, then, we'll still have net neutrality while unconditional fans and defenders of the administration, to whom I like to refer to sometimes as the Secret Service Keyboard Unit, DU Division, sit there posting and blaming Republicans for not passing that law.

You keep trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the Executive Branch has screwed us and also trying to polish FCC turds into a silver lining. As I said, not buying it.

See? I not only read, I get it.

Speaking of replies, this will be my last to you on this thread. Catch you on some other thread.

[truedelphi]

169. Thanks for this explanation. So the FCC situation is one

Very much like the drug wars, drug penalties, clinic shutdowns and drug sweeps - the agency itself has the authority to make the situation right.

But how much easier it is for officials to serve their Masters by saying "there is not one thing we can do."

DOJ head Holder could simply re-classify the ganja, and FCC could simply undo its own rules.

Meanwhile the Great and Elevated and Annointed One could prod them to do the right thing, but he invokes "separation of powers" whenever the public needs him to act.

[merrily]

173. You are more than welcome.

Last edited Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't even going to look when I saw another reply on this thread, but I am so glad I did. Your post is a nice surprise.


Yeppers, no courts, no Republicans, no conservadems obstructing poor Obama's liberal desires, no voters (assuming that matters), no judicial branch for Obama to chastise for tying speech to money (which we know Obama hates because he said so about both Citizens United and net neutrality).

Just the Executive Branch. Well, the Executive Branch and the lobbyists who want to (further) tie internet speech to money.

Four years of solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, during the last two of which Democrats also held the White House. And, if almost nothing can be accomplished unless we also always have a filibuster proof majority of liberal Democrats, we are in for a long, long, long dry spell. (Rip Van Winkle giggles, "Compared to that, I did not even blink.&quot

Center right Democrats have as little use for liberals as they have for Republicans. Probably less, actually. So, fasten your seat belt.

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

[truedelphi]

174. Merrily - I know exactly that sensation of dread

sensation of dread when you get another reply, and then figure it too is negative.

Progressives are always on the chopping block.

When Allende was killed, who did the Death Squads go after? Not people supporting either major party there in Chile - but the Progressives.

Same in Argentina and every other nation on earth.

I can only imagine how happy the Democratic Party leadership would be if those of us with Progressive leanings were rounded up and taken away. No longer would there be the annoying voices saying, "Hey you can't blame Republicans for what has happened in the last five years with Monsanto - Obama supported Monsanto where it counts, with his appointments."

And ditto the annoying remarks we Progressives make about the economically enslaved appointments that tie Obama to the Criminal Financial officials and Big Shots.

The one thing that has allowed hope - real hope - to spring up in my inner being is the Community Rights movement. It is really creating change with regard to local issues. (And if enough communities catch on,then they will make this a national movement.) Get a bunch of local activists enthused about something, and then they collect enough signatures to get a ballot initiative or ordinance and Blam, the Corporate State is being dismembered in county after county.

Already a community in New Hampshire has blocked a major utility based in Canada from sweeping through their community. Not only that, they accomplished this without the support of either party's leadership, and in defiance of what the governor and other elected officials wanted.

Same thing has happened with city of Pittsburg PA and fracking.

Another community back east blocked a pig farm with its 14,000 pigs from coming in and destroying their water, soil and from making their air stink like pig poop. And some other community stopped Nestle Inc cold in its efforts to take away their water for the purpose fo filling up Nestle water bottles.

My county is about to effect major change as I type this. We are stating that the right to plant a seed, any seed, is inherently a human right, and that no federal/state agency officials can harass us, nor can housing associations tell us that we can't have tomatoes in the front yard etc.

[merrily]

179. Wow. THANKS.

I have from time to time, read of this community victory or that, but it did not dawn on me that I was not reading about isolated events. I bookmarked your post before I even began my reply.

I think, in Boston, it almost has to go by neighborhood or at least by city, not county. We do have strong neighborhood associations, but they don't tend to put things on ballot often. One recent and notable exception: the location of gambling casinos was on ballots where relevant, but I am not sure who got it on the ballot.

Speaking of hope, another DU poster told me about Bold Progressives. I feel awful because I had totally forgotten about it, until this morning, when I cleaned up my sent mail folder and saw a reference to it. Putting it into this bookmarked post will ensure I look into it when I research Community Movement. It is supposed to be more liberal than the usual. http://boldprogressives.org/ But, I love the Community Movement!

I am psyched to see if it is alive and well in Massachusetts.

Again, THANKS.

[merrily]

197. PS. It was not so much a sense of dread as just finding some

posters disinguenous, and making up in personal insults for the utter lack of substance or truth in their posts.

At some, point, it's just too tiresome for words. Literally. So, at some point you don't want to see anymore.

Unfortunately, these are the same ones who don't get that they are not doing themselves any favors by multiplying that kind of post endlessly.

Hence, when I saw the yellow signal and saw that it was yet another reply on this thread, I wasn't going to check. So glad I did, though!

[Xyzse]

19. People have tried to defend this earlier, saying this isn't a big deal.

Then putting the onus on Netflix rather than Comcast.

I think hearing the discussion about these from NPR was my last straw with them. I actually called in, asking how some guy could say that the European internet is far below the US when the US is ranked 26th in the world for connection speed and reliability.

I did not get to hear any explanation from them.

[merrily]

193. Maybe the same way Republicans can say the US is first in the world in health care?

[Demo_Chris]

22. It's Obama. He's PT Barnum without the big top. nt

[whatchamacallit]

25. Bamboozled n/t

[pa28]

26. I guess we'll hear all about how powerless the FCC was to sidestep the ruling.

Their lobbyist/chairman really wanted to preserve net neutrality. Really he did.

[villager]

27. Are you kidding? It's already being apologized for thusly in this very thread!

It's today's "quit complaining!" talking point from backpedaling crowd.

[stevenleser]

28. What would be helpful is suggestions for the FCC that are Constitutional.

I am not a lawyer, let alone the specialty that would be able to understand exactly the full ramifications of the DC Court of Appeals ruling and whether there are feasible workarounds, and I am guessing you are not one either.

These lawyers do exist and I am sure there are some that would be willing to go on record. The fact that the articles did not attempt to contact any of these folks to get legal opinions that address this very important part of the discussion makes what they are saying close to meaningless.

We might as well complain about why Obama can't impose campaign finance limits in the wake of Citizens United and McCutcheon, and I would answer it the same way. OK, where are the expert legal opinions that describe how the President could do that in the wake of those decisions.

If you don't have that, your article or proclamation is hopelessly inadequate.

[pa28]

31. The decision gave Chairman Wheeler quite a bit of latitude to re-write and re-classify.

I was pleasantly surprised by his comments in February indicating he would use that latitude to protect net neutrality.

What I'd really like to hear is the reasoning behind his decision not to use it.

[jeff47]

38. Not really.

While the ruling did not say they could not regulate at all, the same logic in the ruling destroys pretty much any other realistic non-common-carrier regulation.

[pa28]

45. The FCC is powerless.

Got it.

[jeff47]

50. No, but it is a whole lot easier to incinerate that strawman.

The FCC has the power to declare ISPs Common Carriers, and thus enshrine net neutrality.

The downside of this approach is that it weakens the ability for the ISPs to charge more as they develop higher speeds, which reduces the incentive for the ISPs to upgrade their networks.

[merrily]

67. Which of course, is very different from saying the ruling all but prohibited the FCC from

reclassifying, which you claimed only a post or two ago.

[jeff47]

70. No, I said they had two options. Common Carrier or no net neutrality.

You know, for claiming you are not a stalker, you are spending a lot of time attacking me in every place you can.

Here, why don't you make an angry reply to this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=68361

[merrily]

122. Again, I am not following you from thread to thread, even if you ask me to do so.

I've had that done to me here. I have never done it to anyone on any board. However, if I am on a thread anyway and I see something that I want to reply to, I will reply to it, whether it is posted specifically to me or not. Perhaps especially if it seems disingenuous or part of the "Say Anything" syndrome. Always have, always will. I've done the same to other posters on this thread. Other posters have done the same to me. Never occurred to me to whine abut it or to call it stalking. Poster up.

[merrily]

225. The FCC has chosen to exercise its power to enrich broadband

providers, despite a firm campaign promise by Obama, exactly as the OP article claims.

This enrichment of the providers will be no boon to consumers, but at least richer consumers will have the option to pay more, much as they do when they add premiium channels or better packages to their very basic cable TV. IOW, this ruling will help broadband providers, hurt all consumers, and hurt those who need access to the internet to provide content to consumers (e.g., Netflix). And those who provide content will probably have to start charging, or charging more; or go out of business. And that, too, will hurt consumers. However, as always, wealthier members in the groups that are hurt will be able to ease some of their pain by throwing more money at it.

Anything to the contrary on this thread is either a huge but honest mistake or deliberate bullshit.

[pa28]

227. I'm going with deliberate bullshit.

[merrily]

229. Who am I to try to change your mind? .

[merrily]

65. Kindly elaborate with some specifics.

[sabrina 1]

241. Start by not appointing Republican, Cable Lobbyist to head the FCC.

Had that not happened, we wouldn't be dealing with HIS NEW RULES, would we?

[jeff47]

29. Yes, it's not like there was a SCOTUS ruling in 2014 or anything.

Clearly the 2014 ruling would mean statements made in 2007 are 100% unchanged!!!

Next, we should go after Obama for not imposing strict campaign finance limits in the wake of McCutcheon.

Yes, the FCC could just declare them common carriers. There's some upsides and some downsides to that. They couldn't charge extra per site, but they also lose a lot of incentives for figuring out how to boost speed.

[stevenleser]

30. Technically the DC Court of Appeals, but your point stands. Exactly right. nt

[jberryhill]

35. Is the court ruling even mentioned in the article?

I'm pressed for time today, but I'm curious whether this report even bothers to mention that the FCC NN rules were shot down.

[jeff47]

39. Nope. Article doesn't bother.

They even have a paragraph that starts with "Some history may help explain the situation.", but they didn't bother to mention that little bit of history.

[TheKentuckian]

218. Why do you think it needs to? The goal was net neutrality. There was no goal of maintaining tiers

The path to the actual stated mission is clear so if you wish to abandon the mission in favor of maintaining tiers then it is entirely on you to make such a case rather than to insist neutrality minded make your case for you.

Personally, I don't give a shot if the pipe is a terabyte a second if the content I actually want is throttled down to dialup or some other useless speed. So, it is my argument that it is up to tier advocates to prove that the greater public benefit is with this path.

I'm not arguing for tiers, you are so make the argument. Go ahead and explain how you are guaranteeing 100mps and that the most anything will be throttled is 80% of pipeline.

You must also explain why I should care when the FCC can go net neutral and actually impose standards and if not for corporate capture could make them productive as we saw them fail to do with HDTV standards that are quickly falling behind the tech curve even as less foolish governments set standards that caused providers and even governments themselves to actively to strive toward them.

If you want to argue tiered versus net neutral you are free to do it, you may change some minds but it isn't anyone else's job to make that argument for you or the FCC and I would think if it was of overriding importance then somebody over the last decade would have stressed the importance because the possible need to clarify Internet providers as common carriers was always not just possible but plausible but be that as it may, net neutrality advocates are in no way required to navigate a path that includes maintaining tiers at least until they are convinced of their value as above neutrality as you and the FCC infer here to have cause to say the promise was disregarded.

If the ruling caused you to come to a decision branch off that abandons neutrality then speak up but no one else is required to have a similar change to heart on the issue or to negotiate some middle path that is now cut off and was always tenuous.

[jeff47]

242. It could work out well, or it could work out poorly.

We don't know what a realistic speed effect is, because all the media coverage is either "FCC SUCKS!!!" or "BUSINESS RULES!!!". So we can't make a reasonable decision between the short-term options.

I'm not arguing for tiers, you are so make the argument. Go ahead and explain how you are guaranteeing 100mps and that the most anything will be throttled is 80% of pipeline.

Already included in the proposed non-net-neutrality regulations.

You must also explain why I should care when the FCC can go net neutral and actually impose standards and if not for corporate capture could make them productive as we saw them fail to do with HDTV standards that are quickly falling behind the tech curve even as less foolish governments set standards that caused providers and even governments themselves to actively to strive toward them.

They aren't imposing a standard. ISPs are free to transmit the data any way they like. In fact, the actual transmission of data is wildly different between cable, fiber-based telephone, DSL, the two 4G standards, or satellite.

If you want to argue tiered versus net neutral you are free to do it, you may change some minds but it isn't anyone else's job to make that argument for you or the FCC and I would think if it was of overriding importance then somebody over the last decade would have stressed the importance because the possible need to clarify Internet providers as common carriers was always not just possible but plausible but be that as it may, net neutrality advocates are in no way required to navigate a path that includes maintaining tiers at least until they are convinced of their value as above neutrality as you and the FCC infer here to have cause to say the promise was disregarded.

So because it didn't come up before now, that means it couldn't possibly come up.

If the ruling caused you to come to a decision branch off that abandons neutrality then speak up but no one else is required to have a similar change to heart on the issue or to negotiate some middle path that is now cut off and was always tenuous.

The ruling makes net neutrality impossible without common carrier. But common carrier does much more than just net neutrality. For example, it imposes evil HDTV-like standards you find so vile. As well as the tier issues I'm talking about.

What we really need is new law that provides net neutrality without the downsides of common carrier. That's going to have to be the long-term fix since Congress is dysfunctional. Short-term, we'll either lose net neutrality, or our Internet service will continue to fall further behind the rest of the world. Which is worse in the short term requires a debate more coherent than "FCC SUCKS" or "ISPs ARE AWSOME!!".

[merrily]

42. Please see Reply 41.

[merrily]

44. Hmm. I seem to remember your posts after the court ruling. They were nothing like this one.

[jeff47]

51. Sweet! I have a stalker!!! (nt)

[merrily]

54. Non-responsive and utterly untrue.

You and I argued about that court ruling at the time. My remembering that on board debate does not equate to my stalking you. But you knew that.

Of course, none of the above addresses is that you seem to have changed your talking points position on net neutrality just about 180 degrees since our last conversation about it. But, you knew that, too.

Far easier to say something about me that is totally untrue than to explain away how your sincerely held positions change so much so quickly.

[jeff47]

58. You do an excellent job of reading things that are not there.

Net neutrality is the ideal. The 2014 ruling provides a lot less wiggle room to get it in a permanent way. Common carrier works for net neutrality, but there are other downsides. The FCC can always come up with new regulations, but they'd probably be struck down by the courts just like the last case.

We should have a debate about whether the downsides are worth the benefit - will we get more by having a "fatter" overall pipe, or by net neutrality? And how impossible would it be to get Congress to help? New law would give the FCC more room to act. Will lobbying by ISPs outweigh lobbying by content producers? Sure, Verizon's got plenty of cash, but Hollywood has more.

Instead of having that debate, we get gotcha quotes and similar stupidity.

[merrily]

73. Baloney, but you excel at moving goal posts and saying anything. Anything at all.

Here's an example.

The FCC can always come up with new regulations, but they'd probably be struck down by the courts just like the last case.

You pulled that out of nowhere. The FCC can regulate, provided it does not exceed its the authority Congress gave it, but it must act in accordance with its own regulations. That's not rocket science, is it? A cop can't rightfully arrest you if there is no law against what you were doing. That's due process 101.

The FCC failed to classify broadband carriers properly. That is the reason the court said it could not regulate them.

What about that says that a court will strike down a reclassification? Please be specific.

And how impossible would it be to get Congress to help?

You're kidding, right? Surely that's a rhetorical question. And why even open that can of Repubican and RW Dem worms when the FCC had the power to act on its own? To take the onus off the Executive Branch, which messed this up in the first place?

And why even talk about Congress in light of the fact that the FCC has just come out anti neutrality.

As far as your having posted to me that net neutality is the ideal, also untrue. In post after post, you've said nothing but that absence of net neutrality has its ups and downs. Never once did you suggest net neutrality was the ideal.

[jeff47]

138. Again, you excel at reading things that are not there.

You pulled that out of nowhere. The FCC can regulate, provided it does not exceed its the authority Congress gave it, but it must act in accordance with its own regulations. That's not rocket science, is it? A cop can't rightfully arrest you if there is no law against what you were doing. That's due process 101.

The FCC failed to classify broadband carriers properly. That is the reason the court said it could not regulate them.

What about that says that a court will strike down a reclassification? Please be specific.

Golly, if only you'd paid attention to the rest of the post. Then you'd realize this was talking about new regulations where ISPs are not common carriers. An attempt to split the difference, just like the last regulations, which were struck down.

Again, common carrier has both good and bad effects. Net neutrality is the good effect. If that means we keep having extremely slow and extremely expensive Internet service, that's probably not a net gain for us.

You're kidding, right? Surely that's a rhetorical question. And why even open that can of Repubican and RW Dem worms when the FCC had the power to act on its own?

Hrmmm...if only there was some sort of "downside" that I kept talking about to just using common carrier under current law. Then maybe there might be a reason where new law would be beneficial......

As far as your having posted to me that net neutality is the ideal, also untrue. In post after post, you've said nothing but that absence of net neutrality has its ups and downs. Never once did you suggest net neutrality was the ideal.

Nope, only in your mind. But that is very helpful when railing against someone. It's much harder to actually read what they write, and respond to that.

Over and over again, I have said it is common carrier status that has ups and downs. The up being net neutrality. If that isn't a positive, why would net neutrality not be the ideal?

[merrily]

142. If that means we keep having extremely slow and extremely expensive Internet service, that's

probably a net gain for us."


You keep making claims like that, but that doesn't make them true. The topic of this thread is a broken, firm campaign promise to give America net neutrality. If a slower progression toward very expensive internet is preferable to net neutrality, great. Seems counter-intuitive, but tell me how it's better.

Over and over again, I have said it is common carrier status that has ups and downs. The up being net neutrality. If that isn't a positive, why would net neutrality not be the ideal?

I see. Let me see if I have you position right.

Classifying broadband providers to the common carrier category is the one and only way that we can get net neutrality. However, common carrier classification has--according to you-- down sides. You said that common carrier, the one and only route to net neutrality, has down sides, but you never said that America keeping/getting net neutrality has down sides. That is a totally different concept; and my mistake.

Is that your position?

If that means we keep having extremely slow and extremely expensive Internet service, that's probably not a net gain for us.

You mean the extremely slow and expensive neutral Internet service that we have now, that Obama promised we could keep? That most people seem to want very much to keep? You will also have to mention what is going to make companies speed up the internet (mine is fast enough) and lower the prices. Also why those goals, if it should be achieved at all, can't be achieved in other ways.

[stevenleser]

129. Exactly. I guess its easier for people to set up strawmen then talk through the challenges.

So they dont bother dealing with the challenges and go right for the blame.

[TheKentuckian]

204. There is no strawman. Strawman is not an acronym for objectives. The objective is net neutrality

Now if what you want to do is discuss the downsides and obstacles of a firm course to that objective then great, have at it but don't set yourself up as so me paragon of facts and truth when what you are doing is blowing off the objective because of "obstacles" that you don't really articulate nor does the FCC (granted jeff does but that is a different debate about the desirability of the objective not if it is obtainable).

If you folks were saying something like "in light of the court ruling preventing a middle path which makes us choose between net neutrality and the ability for companies to set up tiers, is net neutrality still the objective?", I bet the discussion would be different in it's tone.

However, that isn't seemingly what the objective is because since the FCC isn't actually trying to have that conversation with the public but has instead decided that it is most important to retain tiering, you're stuck defending that position so it becomes a tedious game of "look over there!" because some folks believe it is their job to paper over the punting on the goal, most pretending that the court makes it impossible when it does nothing of the sort.

When the hell did we make tiers a policy priority? Never, which is why you find yourself backing into that your actual argument is their importance despite never saying it, boxed in by logic due to jumping in and forcefully arguing for nothing other than don't blame the administration.

I also think it is dishonest to be demanding folks "offer solutions" to your scarcely articulated concerns. The court laid out the solution, if you have problems with the effects of the clear solution then have at it but how does it make any sense to expect people that haven't moved from their objective to make your argument?

To utilize this debate tactic effectively you must first get buy in from the opposition on your obstacles because until you do they have no obligation to make them any priority at all, much less take down their own primary objective.

Understandable if the prime directive is defense of the administration as their response didn't provide enough breathing room to be intellectually honest and consistent in a manner that accepts that reality, kinda leaving you flailing from a weird position that must pretend we had a set up debate that left us with two conflicting goals in light of a court ruling and further, we had decided that the more important of the two was tiering.

[stevenleser]

205. There are several easily demonstrable strawmen being peddled by those attacking the administration.

I've illustrated them in several posts under this OP.

[TheKentuckian]

208. Well, it sure isn't that net neutrality had to be abandoned. That is a choice.

A choice with effects but nonetheless a choice so what are these demonstrable strawmen?

Why do you think you win the argument by just saying they are there but with no duty to identify them leaving the audience to guess?

[merrily]

210. Very impressive post.

Leser's demand for solutions arose from the his mistaken belief that the February 2014 court ruling had to be gotten around somehow, and also that the FCC could not get around it if it chose.

His view of the ruling was totally wrong, but seemed unwilling to accept that.

So, he was demanding that the authors of the article (and I) offer up a solution for a problem that never existed, except in his mind. My solution was to try to convince him that the court ruling was not a problem, to no avail.

He must have finally realized his mistake when I posted the comments f the FCC chair in February, but, of course, never admitted it and never apologized. I doubt anyone had expected him to apologize anyway. Instead, he went on the attack about any issue that he could trump up.

IMO, all the talk about the beauty of tiers and the court ruling and the ad homs from various posters were all about one thing: attempts to direct the thread away from the issues raised in the article in the opening post.

I also note that many people on this thread commented on the impact of the court ruling. Of all who commented, I think only Leser and the two lawyers on the thread got the impact of the ruling wrong, or seemed to. 100% of the lawyers on the thread, Leser and none of the non-lawyers. Odd.

[merrily]

69. The ruling did not prevent the FCC from reclassifying and it was not a SCOTUS ruling.

The bit about the campaign finance is not relevant.

Other than that....

[jeff47]

71. You know, you were just complaining about replies in multiple places

And yet here you are, saying the same thing over and over again in several places. While claiming to not be a stalker.

[merrily]

76. No, that was you. You complained about my posting replies in multiple places.

Here s what I did; I posted that "I heard you the first time" because you had posted the same thing a few posts apart.

As far as my being a stalker, you made that claim because I remembered your position on net neutrality from when the court ruling was first under discussion here. That is not being a stalker. It's simply remembering an argument you and I had. I told you that before.

As far as this thread, I've been trying to read it top to bottom, as I do with any thread. And, if I see something along the way that I disagree with, I am going to say so. That is not being a stalker, either. I have never searched the site for your name or taken any other action that would enable me to pursue you from thread to thread. That would be stalking, but I have never done it. But you know that, too.

For the third or fourth time on this thread, please stop lying about me. Thanks.

[sgtbenobo]

32. And that number is 1 888 225 5322

Tell the FCC what you think of this FFC attack on Net Neutrality.

Soylent Green Is People!

Carry On. Loudly.

[merrily]

48. The FCC KNOWS that most Americans want

net neutrality? It also knows that Obama promised NN unequivocally when he ran for office. They don't seem to care about either. "Most Americans" equals about 350 million people. Also, I very much doubt that the FCC overruled Obama's campaign promise all on its own, without any communication with the White House.

A boycott might work (excluding internet activity in which people absolutely need to do to earn a living).

[sendero]

36. This isn't remotely the first "promise"..

.... he's abandoned and it won't be the last.

[840high]

74. Correct.

[DeSwiss]

40. "Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." ~I.F. Stone

K&R

[merrily]

103. Then we should end political campaigns. Huge expenditure of

time, money and distraction, especially if we are not entitled to believe anything they tell us.

We sure act like every syllable matters during the campaign, though, don't we?

[DeSwiss]

109. We're not too bright...... :-/ n/t

[merrily]

120. Seems we're not very authentic sometimes, either.

And by "we," I, of course, don't mean you or me.

[DeSwiss]

186. !

[OnyxCollie]

57. Sold out.

The 10th and 18th top contributors to Obama's 2012 campaign were Time Warner ($442,271), and Comcast ($337,628), respectively.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

[merrily]

232. It's amazing how relatively little we get sold out for.

In Congress, sometimes, it's $1000 or less.

[Amak8]

77. Craven betrayal

Especially when combined with the Comcast-TW merger.

[merrily]

78. Amazing thread. An article says that Obama broke a firm campaign promise.

So, what happens on the thread?

[WillyT]

94. I'm Not Allowed To Say...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

96. Over time, it has become clear that there are no depths to which some won't sink

...in order to hold the President blameless on any and every issue. Doesn't mean they're right, of course. They're not.

[Blue_Tires]

85. He isn't alone -- Google pulled a hypocritical 180-turn as well

on net neutrality and mass data collection...

[merrily]

100. When did Google campaign for President by firmly promising America net neutrality?

Sorry, Obama is indeed alone. The duties of a Presidential candidate when making and keeping promises by which he hopes to win the Oval Office is nothing like what Google did.

[Blue_Tires]

133. I think you're grossly underestimating google's political reach...

hey; bash Obama all you want on the issue -- But don't be so naïve to think that there aren't some other really influential players in this game...

[merrily]

146. I think you're vastly overestimating the similarity between Google and a POTUS.

Tell me which action you took based on Google's original promise to you that it would ensure Americans have net neutrality?

Did you walk to the polls and vote for Google to head the country? Did you pay to make a google search because of that promise?

Did google even promise you net neutrality, to begin with, or did it simply express a favorable view of it?

And now that google has flip flopped on ya, what will that cost you? Do you have to do without net neutrality now? Pay more for broadband?

hey; bash Obama all you want on the issue

*rolls eyes*

Kindly point to a post on this thread where I "bash" Obama. Is saying that the FCC can reclassify broadband providers, but has chosen not to do so, bashing Obama, or even the FCC?

In your eyes, is bashing simply replying to a poster that the firm, but broken promise of a Presidential hopeful to America is not really comparable to google's simply saying that it likes net neutrality, then later saying it doesn't?

But don't be so naïve to think that there aren't some other really influential players in this game...

Wow, I never dreamt that lobbyists, big business and billionaires have clout! Thanks.

But what does that have to do with my post to you pointing out that google's opinon is not really comparable to a POTUS's campaign promises?

[Blue_Tires]

190. So show me one politician anywhere who is batting 1.000 on his campaign promises?

then read this and get back to me....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

[merrily]

191. Not the point.

Sigh.

[rhett o rick]

234. I think this is the first time I've seen the "he cant get everything right" excuse. nm

[sabrina 1]

106. We didn't vote for Google.

[Blue_Tires]

132. But if you use google, you're indirectly contributing to the problem

[sabrina 1]

136. That's why we elected Democrats, so they would ensure that the internet would be

protected.

If we eat, drink, drive to get to work, wear clothes, etc etc we are contributing to out of control greed and power and control.

Which is why we elect people to make sure that there are protections against corruption, you know, like passing fair labor laws, that sort of thing. The stuff that makes a country civilized and democratic.

That was really a weak attempt to shift the blame to the voters I have to say. One of the weakest I've seen yet.

[WillyT]

95. K & R !!!

[Jesus Malverde]

97. Thats what was said back there, what matters is whats said forward...nt

[merrily]

102. Sure. Presidential candidates should be able to make any promise they wish

until they get what they want from the American voter. After that, let's forget about it. Great political policy, that is. The next time anyone runs for office, we should just flip a coin then because what they tell is pretty much irrelevant.

You're funny.

[Lasher]

117. Call it pragmatism.

It sounds much better that way.

[merrily]

119. Thanks. I'll add that to my list of things I call it.

[Jesus Malverde]

141. No Your funny

OK we're both funny.



(its about your and you're) to the clueless.

[merrily]

143. See I told you, you're funny and I was correct.

[99Forever]

123. Breaking campaign promises...

... is an art form with this administration.

[woo me with science]

134. K&R This is America under corporate rule.

And the predictable propaganda attempts at defense in this thread are just more evidence of how sick and corrupt our system has become.

Our government is purchased. We don't have time for pathetic Orwellian propaganda that urges us to nurse delusions about well-meaning, helpless Democrats. This betrayal is wholly consistent with the relentlessly corporate direction of this administration.

Put the propaganda on ignore and face reality. Republicans and the Third Way don't work for us. They are systematically removing every avenue we have left to fight the corporate coup of this country. Control of information and communication has just been handed to the very corporations that are destroying us.

We need to fight this and every corrupt politician who enables it. We are in a fight for our lives and the future of this country.

[Doctor_J]

189. too true, woo. WHile the president can rightfully be blamed for running a campaign of lies,

blaming him for these policies is silly. He is just the salesman.

[merrily]

230. Damn, woo. I am bookmarking your Reply 134.

Our government is purchased. We don't have time for pathetic Orwellian propaganda that urges us to nurse delusions about well-meaning, helpless Democrats.

I doubt it could be said any better.

Can I ask you please to read my Reply 228? It's not as brilliant as yours, but I think they are related. (Same song, different verse)

[Doctor_J]

137. Candidate Obama was also committed to a public option for health care, fixing NAFTA,

public schools, unions, and protecting the environment. President Obama is a completely different person. That's why the party is in such desperate condition compared to 2008

[pa28]

163. Obama ticked all the boxes during his big campaign rallies in 2008.

I suspect the big donors in quiet rooms were hearing a very different message.

CTV, Feb. 27: Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/the-facts-about-nafta-gate/

Next time I'll be looking for a candidate with one message. Sometimes known as "the truth" about their intentions.

[truedelphi]

175. Know something? I never believed in alien abduction until I

Witnessed the complete turnaround of this individual, between his progressively outspoken speeches during campaign days in October 2008, and his fascistic decisions regarding appointments in December 2008. His whole administration has been about enabling the corporate control of everything, through appointments. Yet the Democratic Party leadership has hypnotized its inner core of believers into thinking everything bad regarding Wall Street, Big Banks, and Monsanto has come about because of the Republicans.

[merrily]

231. To borrow a line from Colbert, "It's funny, 'cause it's true.""

Then again, it's not funny at all.

Bushco briefed him on terra and Axelrod and everyone else on his own side brief him on getting votes and raising campaign funds. Badda Boom Badda Bing, bait and switch.

Yet the Democratic Party leadership has hypnotized its inner core of believers into thinking everything bad regarding Wall Street, Big Banks, and Monsanto has come about because of the Republicans.

When politics posting is a hobby, it's easy to "misunderestimate" how many voters are clueless about those things.

Also, when politics posting is a hobby, it's easy to assume that all posters post in good faith, as opposed as having soe incentive to be fake. I find it very hard to believe that the over the top posters are sincere.

[merrily]

192. Maybe TPP is his fix for NAFTA?

Most transparent adminstration ever

Will fix his telecom immunity Senate vote after he gets elected

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=0

In 2007-08, I posted on a board whose owner allowed all political views. She, a Hillary supporter, and one of her mods, a member of First Nations, collected a list of all Obama's campaign promises, including those made to First Nations, on the theory that he would break a lot of them. The board got ugly after Obama got the nomination so I left. Wouldn't mind seeing that list, but I won't go back.

[Douglas Carpenter]

168. the New Yorker is a libertarian rag! Fuck Ron Paul and all of his followers!!

[villager]

171. Why does the New Yorker love Putin!?

n/t

[Dragonfli]

172. Fuck Ron Paul!

Oh, and enimas for all!

[Doctor_J]

188. And when you're done fucking Ron and Rand Paul, fuck Greenwald! And all his followers!!!

[merrily]

194. Yes, that's it. I don't know how I missed it.

I guess their articles threw me off.

[IronLionZion]

176. Punish him by electing more liberal Democrats at every level

Give him a more liberal Dem controlled congress to force his hand. Give him more liberal state legislators and governors to force him left.

Punish!

[merrily]

196. We punished him in advance that way in 2008

[woo me with science]

180. Huge K&R

Shame on the propaganda brigade. No more delusion about what is being done to us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4870981

This country cannot survive four more years of Third Way and Republican policies.

[bobduca]

215. Candidate Obama where did you go?

How do the republicans keep making Obama appoint all these industry insiders?!?!?