This is seriously nauseating. Goddamn it, is there anything that would get you Obama supporters to turn around and say, "We made a big mistake"? What does he have to do? Walk out of the White House and pee on the flag? Or would that even do it?
posted
You're literally obamaphobic, aren't you? You are terrified of him.
About your link: it is not working for me. Do you have a link to a more neutral source and not a radical political source?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a stupid idea. If enacted, it'd go a long way to making me feel that electing Obama was a mistake. So far, though, it's just a stupid idea from one of his underlings.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in a video interview on the Web site Bloggerheads.tv on Feb. 29, 2008, Sunstein actually goes a little bit farther than that, calling it a "bad idea" he should never have ventured.
There you go. This is something advocated 9 years ago and publicly repudiated 2 years ago. Should we call off the riots?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This is seriously nauseating. Goddamn it, is there anything that would get you Obama supporters to turn around and say, "We made a big mistake"? What does he have to do?
yeah, it sounds like you're linking to something that hasn't even happened and really doesn't look like it's going to happen at all. So I guess the appropriate answer would be "For starters, actually do whatever it is that is making Lisa all emotional and UGH I HATE OBAMA DO YOU PEOPLE REALIZE HOW SICK HE MAKES ME (I AM SCARED OF OBAMA) yet again. But even if he doesn't, you'll still be convinced he's a hideous godawful socialist marxist communist statist president anyway so it's mostly irrelevant to you whatever he does or doesn't do at this point. You can always be linked by radical sources to an infinite number of hypothetical things that will always terrify you about him.
Whatever this is, anyway. Breitbart's stupid site won't let me load the video.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sunstein is a major supporter of real net neutrality though right? I haven't delved deeply into the sides to the argument, but from what I've read, it sounds like a good idea.
What are the arguments against it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You're literally obamaphobic, aren't you? You are terrified of him.
About your link: it is not working for me. Do you have a link to a more neutral source and not a radical political source?
Really. A recording of Cass Sunstein speaking in his own words, and it doesn't count because it's on a "radical political source"? Sunstein is Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
And yes, I'm frikking terrified of Obama. I was before he even won the Democratic nomination, as people here will attest. If you aren't, you're blind.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sunstein is a major supporter of real net neutrality though right? I haven't delved deeply into the sides to the argument, but from what I've read, it sounds like a good idea.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And yes, I'm frikking terrified of Obama. I was before he even won the Democratic nomination, as people here will attest. If you aren't, you're blind.
Your visceral and two-dimensional interpretation of obama is, in fact, great enough to accomplish many things. Here you are a short while after I hit it out of the ballpark demonstrating that your irrationality over the subject of Obama was why you were in all practical senses incapable of reasonably interpreting what Obama's pick for the SCOTUS would entail, ~and~ literally, at the same time, pulling that whole "you're all blind" stuff.
You should really put in for a sandwich board sign. Or just disconnect from politics before obama does, finally, literally make you throw up after your 3,574,367th warning to the world that he is so terrible that you retract to visceral, emotional gut reactions like nausea.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You're literally obamaphobic, aren't you? You are terrified of him.
About your link: it is not working for me. Do you have a link to a more neutral source and not a radical political source?
Really. A recording of Cass Sunstein speaking in his own words, and it doesn't count because it's on a "radical political source"? Sunstein is Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Ok, but look you: He apparently said this nine years ago, and has since realised it was a mistake. No? Surely a politician is entitled to some ill-considered views over the course of a career?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really. A recording of Cass Sunstein speaking in his own words, and it doesn't count because it's on a "radical political source"?
When did I say that it "doesn't count"? I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that your link was not working for me and asked if there were perhaps a link to the story from a less politicized source.
Calm down and actually think this stuff through before you start telling people how blind they are.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once said anti-gay things, less than 9 years ago.
If you look at my current opinions, you'll see that my opinion on the matter has changed. Vastly.
Will you criticize my boss because of what I said a bit less than 9 years ago, and personally retracted years since?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This thread is silly. Not only is this an old, hairbrained idea that includes the word "voluntary" that has nothing to do with policy now or Obama in anyway except that the man with
It's not even that much of a nauseating comment as it's made out to be. It's a ludicrous, absurd and totally unworkable idea, but ultimately it's similar to the "teach the controversy" idea about teaching creationism in schools-- except this isn't targetting children and adults could click through.
And then there's the fact that this was nine years ago. And the guy has changed his mind.
This is seriously nauseating. Goddamn it, is there anything that would get you Obama supporters to turn around and say, "We made a big mistake"? What does he have to do? Walk out of the White House and pee on the flag? Or would that even do it?
Just sickening.
What is the most sicking is your constant demonization of anyone who disagrees with you politically. It's like you are a caricature of a political viewpoint.
I wonder what you would have said if Bush had recommended it, because anyone who disagreed with torture and the war were "un-American" and needed to be educated.
That being said, I obviously am not in favor of any such plan. I bet you can't find anything to show Obama is either, if you actually bothered to look for any.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You're literally obamaphobic, aren't you? You are terrified of him.
About your link: it is not working for me. Do you have a link to a more neutral source and not a radical political source?
Really. A recording of Cass Sunstein speaking in his own words, and it doesn't count because it's on a "radical political source"? Sunstein is Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Ok, but look you: He apparently said this nine years ago, and has since realised it was a mistake. No? Surely a politician is entitled to some ill-considered views over the course of a career?
Nope politicians are not learning computers, they must nail down their points of view and never deviate from them lest they risk betraying their constituency! /sarcasm.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I just read some of it a little bit ago. Part of what I love about Hatrack is that MOST of us can see the other side of issues, and even silly threads like this one can open my eyes to all sorts of things. New info, new positions, interesting moral and ethical questions.....all sorts of things.
Today I learned a little bit about him, and not just though a wiki. I like wiki's because of the reference pages at the end of most articles. It is a convoluted research pattern, but I learn a lot of it a lot of the time. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, the original idea sounded like it's heart was in the right place, but was a little silly. As a government mandate, yeah, I'd be strongly opposed, but as a general recommendation that people should think about providing links to reputable opposing viewpoints to contrast their presented interpretations, I don't really see anything wrong about that. It's a good idea, although pretty impractical.
If I were tasked with achieving a similar goal, I'd probably move towards creating a consensus list of responsible actions and ways of conducting presenting news and advocacy and then another list or rating based on sources' compliance to this list. But, the effectiveness of this is contingent on people caring about responsibility and accurate information in these things, and I don't think that this is something that generally exists.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People say things they later change their mind on. Everyone does it.
I could have said something 20 years ago, but if I run for office somehow it will come up. My position could have changed drastically over those 20 years, but that wouldn't matter, I would be berated for it.
Lisa, if you want a better example of something the Obama administration screwed up on,
They are talking impeachment over this thing concerning the job offer to Bob Sestak if he dropped out of the race. Chuck Todd tried to defend it but in my opinion came out looking like a complete idiot.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that truly is the case, I'd support impeaching President Obama over it. That's a definite abuse of power.
I'm not comfortable with the President trying to influence an election by using the power of his position in any case, but if they directly offered him a position conditional on him dropping out of the race, I think that at least should be a crime, if it isn't already.
posted
Sestak was an effed up situation but it wasn't nearly as bad as that site is suggesting. like, what ..
OH. it's newsbusters, I get it.
But really. Obama needs some juicier scandal. On the whole he's not really done anything that invites lasting outrage except by the people who were committed to outrage from the beginning, and/or were committed to believing that he was an atheist muslim communist nazi fascist who was born in kenya. It's sort of why they're desperately trying to set up the whole gulf coast thing as "Obama's Katrina"
I'm still hoping that he turns out to have appointed, like, a member of al qaeda to his cabinet or something. you know, something REAL. something we can sink our drama-addicted teeth into.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sunstein is a major supporter of real net neutrality though right? I haven't delved deeply into the sides to the argument, but from what I've read, it sounds like a good idea.
What are the arguments against it?
Anyone? Or is this not the thread for it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is newsbusters so I ignore the obviously biased statements they insert, but as a whole the information is good. If the administration did in fact offer a job to someone for dropping out of a race, I'd support impeaching him, just as I would any politician that broke the law.
Sam, I know you are being sarcastic, but I really hope that nothing like what you described ever happens. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, you'd probably need to start a new thread to get much traction.
The main argument against it that I've seen are basically that if an ISP owns the pipes, they have the right to control the traffic. Advocates for this position seem to believe that if the customer doesn't agree with the way the ISP manages traffic, they should shop elsewhere (relying on market forces to correct any overreaching by providers).
My support for net neutrality is basically because it's far too easy to abuse preferential treatment of some kinds of traffic over others in ways that are anti-competitive. For instance, the telcos argue that it's not fair for Skype to take advantage of the infrastructure (for VOIP calls) when the telco built it out hoping to charge $$$ for POTS. But what they are arguing here is that they want to throttle VOIP traffic so that people won't find it as usable as POTS. I think that's a rather anti-competitive strategy and harmful to the consumer.
I'm completely fine with charging for bandwidth or for throughput. Cap traffic at 600 KB/s and 100 GB/month if you want, and charge more for overages or for higher caps. Just don't use that as leverage to sell your own non-ISP services that operate over that connection.
It's a bit murkier when TV and other services are being delivered over the same wire as the Internet access. Should Comcast be able to ensure QoS for its TV packets at the cost of throttling Skype? Perhaps a good answer is that when those services are bundled on one wire, the ISP has to structure it so that the consumer knows up front what traffic gets priority and take a neutral stance for everything else.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I didn't really intend to start a major debate about it. I just wanted a rundown on the other side of the argument. Or at least, something more helpful than what Lisa offered.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sam, I know you are being sarcastic, but I really hope that nothing like what you described ever happens.
There would be an upside to it! That way, the people desperately hunting for a real scandal would finally have something to fixate on with some meat to it, as opposed to doing what they do now, like get all freaked out over whatever tenuous panic-leads they can dredge up (like almost decades-old comments later rejected by even the people who made them and which have nothing to do with current operating policy) and/or inventing things whole cloth with startling pathology.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An upside to it? I don't see it. I think if we ever found out that the government had hired and assisted a terrorist organization into infiltrating our country, we would have a whole lot more to worry about than a scandal.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you see, he's obviously a muslim atheist communist terrorist fascist anyway, so just finding out for certain that he's trying to destroy the country is nothing but upside!
Also, Free Republic would erupt with newfound purpose.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in a video interview on the Web site Bloggerheads.tv on Feb. 29, 2008, Sunstein actually goes a little bit farther than that, calling it a "bad idea" he should never have ventured.
There you go. This is something advocated 9 years ago and publicly repudiated 2 years ago. Should we call off the riots?
Pointing out the truth wont solve the far rights weird phobia.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, you see, he's obviously a muslim atheist communist terrorist fascist anyway, so just finding out for certain that he's trying to destroy the country is nothing but upside!
Also, Free Republic would erupt with newfound purpose.
You left out "Dictator" at the end.
All joking aside, if it was found that Obama had hired say, Osama's right hand man as part of his administration, I WOULD be worried for our country. I would want an investigation to see if the President knew about the person's ties to a terrorist group.
Man, could you imagine though if something like this happened? You know the Republicans would be all over this, tying the Democratic Party to terrorist organizations. It would be plastered all over TV in campaign ads.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The number two Democrat in the Senate, who has close ties to the White House, is urging Rep. Joe Sestak to come clean. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told CNN Tuesday that the Pennsylvania Democrat should fully explain whether Obama administration officials pressed him to drop his Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter in exchange for a job.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Or the Far Left's
Can you honestly say they have not done it too?
First, that's a false equivalency.
But even if it wasn't...so?
If the far left are displaying weird phobias, by all means bring it up. As it is, their phobias have nothing to do with those of the far right. Pointing out one in no way lessens the other.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Snopes has had to correct more false presidential rumors in Obama's FIRST YEAR than in all of Bush's eight years.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, I just came from Snopes... And it's still going on.
(sigh)
Anyway, a WSJ journalist was on NPR's Fresh Air today, and she mentions the arguments about Net Neutrality ( transcript )- aside from what scifibum mentions, she broaches that there's some concern that the FCC, regulatory law, and those in charge of changing it might not have the technical competence to keep up with the technological improvements some of the relevant companies would like to make.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Sterling that was really interesting.
I'm not sure I buy the "technical competence" argument from them. How is that different from any other highly technical industry that the government regulates? You hold hearings, bring in experts, figure it out, and make a decision. Or you set a goal and let them figure it out, like with gas mileage standards. I would agree that it's a concern, but not a crippling one.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: she broaches that there's some concern that the FCC, regulatory law, and those in charge of changing it might not have the technical competence to keep up with the technological improvements some of the relevant companies would like to make.
Egh. Big surprise, right? Regulatory oversight and chairmanship of the internet has been piss-poor for a while now. Until kickback scandal laid him low, the top man in charge of the internet was Ted "a a a a a series of tubes" Stevens. An ancient man representative of our ancient congress. He didn't take the position for any reason other than to hold it for bargaining power to fork large amounts of federal cash to his state.
Ah, and now it's hitting ATM regulation (see: 'i know about the holograms')
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Y'know, I just came from Snopes... And it's still going on.
(sigh)
Anyway, a WSJ journalist was on NPR's Fresh Air today, and she mentions the arguments about Net Neutrality ( transcript )- aside from what scifibum mentions, she broaches that there's some concern that the FCC, regulatory law, and those in charge of changing it might not have the technical competence to keep up with the technological improvements some of the relevant companies would like to make.
Thanks for sharing that. It was interesting. (Also hilariously vague in print - a lot of "like, weird stuff" patter.)
Lyrhawn:
quote:'m not sure I buy the "technical competence" argument from them. How is that different from any other highly technical industry that the government regulates? You hold hearings, bring in experts, figure it out, and make a decision. Or you set a goal and let them figure it out, like with gas mileage standards. I would agree that it's a concern, but not a crippling one.
I mostly agree with this - at least I think the technical competence gap should not stop them from making an effort. Instead of FCC chairpersons talking directly to engineers, they should commission technical people to make policy recommendations. I'm sure they could put together a committee composed of a few prominent nerds and come up with some sensible guidelines.
The real problem here is that they do need *rules* since the FCC can't really enforce principles. How this could go wrong, for example: if you make a rule about how the telecom company has to implement some particular standard, there's a perverse incentive to do something non-standard to get around the regulation of that standard. Rules are likely to become obsolete kind of rapidly.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
