Don't let the Internet be socialized!

[TheLandingPad]

Please cite WHERE in the bill you are coming to this wild conclusion. Is it next to the Death Camp Coause?

These are stated explicitly in the bill. The full text can be found here:
http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache...3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=hbuwdMcTTaQpBooFBLn7wg--

The bill is about nine pages long and the parts you're looking for are all throughout it. Read the whole thing.

 

[TheLandingPad]

Many times I find myself envying you non Yanks out there.......your populace can't be as fucking stupid and deluded as us Americans can you?

The loudest morons in America are working class blokes in an outrage because they aren't getting screwed by Corporate America hard enough. The cries of "socialism" and "big gubment" are most often coming from the people being doing the bidding of big business who is legally raping the shit out of them.

Net Neutrality means "keeping the Internet as it currently is" ....a NEUTRAL NETWORK (no preference to content), fucking imbeciles

http://www.mobydisk.com/techres/Network Neutrality.html

Would you care to paraphrase this without the profanity and insults?

I make my points against Socialism without the need to insult anyone, because an argument which holds water doesn't require any personal attacks. Read the bill. All nine pages of it.

Ad hominem arguments are the weakest kind. You don't prove that someone is wrong with a character attack or an insult on their intelligence, you do so with solid information. That is, if you have it.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

You want 100,000,000 to sign your petition?

Good luck with that...

I can see you are well on you're way. Only 999,999,979 to go.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Um, firstly.

You're a moron.

Secondly, net neutrality is an equal access bill, governing Web site blocking, traffic discrimination, and network management transparency. In other words, it prevents companies and providers from imposing tiered access.

Who the fuck would be against that?

Good luck with the petition. Got a feeling it might take a wee while to get all filled up

 

[TheLandingPad]

This "anti-socialism" nonsense that´s being used by people (usually americans) who apparently haven´t got a fucking clue what socialism really means is really starting to piss me off.

Also, you clearly haven't talked to any Americans who were anti-Socialist. If you run into two or three people claiming to be anti-Socialist who don't know what it actually means, that doesn't indicate a pattern.

I have actually read the writings of the creators of the philosophy. I am an American, and I know Socialism, Communism, and Marxism inside and out, as do the majority of Americans protesting these systems. Your apparent belief that a person has to live in a Socialist country to understand it is like saying that a person has to be addicted to drugs before they can understand not to use them in the first place, or that one has to go to prison to learn NOT to be a criminal.

Socialism is based on the idea that the rich are meant to support the poor. Capitalism is based on the idea that all individuals are meant to support themselves.

If you want an excellent example of what Socialism does to a country, do some research on the nations of Finland and Estonia, circa 1939, 1940, and 1991. You'll see the glaring difference in the two neighboring countries as the Communists took over Estonia and Finland remained Capitalist, as well as the recovery in the early '90s.

Socialism destroys countries, plain and simple. The fact that many of us Americans still have the sense to understand that makes me proud.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

If you want an excellent example of what Socialism does to a country, do some research on the nations of Finland and Estonia, circa 1939, 1940, and 1991. You'll see the glaring difference in the two neighboring countries as the Communists took over Estonia and Finland remained Capitalist, as well as the recovery in the early '90s.

One country was better at fighting off the Soviets than the other. Socialism plays nothing into that. Fuck.

 

[TheLandingPad]

Um, firstly.

You're a moron.

Secondly, net neutrality is an equal access bill, governing Web site blocking, traffic discrimination, and network management transparency. In other words, it prevents companies and providers from imposing tiered access.

Who the fuck would be against that?

Good luck with the petition. Got a feeling it might take a wee while to get all filled up

Okay, prove me wrong. And no, that's not what you just did.

You feel threatened by someone attacking this bill, which is why instead of just listing off the reasons why you think I'm wrong, you insulted me twice.

First: Web site blocking and traffic discrimination. Standard free market rules apply. If consumers don't like these, they can find a provicer without them.

Second: Network management transparency. The exact wording of the bill undermines ISPs ability to protect sensitive information about their company.

Third: Tiered access. Providing a certain amount of bandwidth costs an ISP a certain amount of money. If you gas up your car you can't expect to get a full tank for $5.00 when the guy before you had to pay $40.00 and it costs the company $30.00 to provide it in the first place. Don't like tiered access? The you need to improve your own financial condition instead of expecting the government to legalize stealing service so you don't have to pay a fair rate.

You pay more money, you get more service. That's how free markets work. The ISPs are filled with people who have bills to pay and kids to feed. About the nicest thing I can say about people like you who complain about 'tiered access' is that you're incredibly irresponsible and have no idea how a business is actually run.

Here's the basic logic behind *GASP* paying for service:

The ISP has the technology to provide Internet access.
It costs them money to provide users with service.
Therefore, they charge a bit more than it costs them, and they make a living.
People who pay more, get more.

If a business is forced to provide the service for less than it costs them in overhead, they go out of business and nobody get Internet access. Then the government steps in and provides it, complete with censorship and disastrous rates of inefficiency. Think, civil service.

 

[TheLandingPad]

the new net neutrality bill is definitely not meant to keep the internet open and free but unfortunately it seems that most people don't understand that and don't care to

Sorry, just disregard my last response. I thought you said something else.

Quite true, most people don't want to read the bill.

 

[TheLandingPad]

One country was better at fighting off the Soviets than the other. Socialism plays nothing into that. Fuck.

You're missing the point.

Research what happened WITHIN the countries while Estonia was Communist.

Finland and Estonia were virtually identical in politics, language, culture, economy, etc. until Estonia became Communist.

Then, while Finland continued to thrive under Capitalism, Estonia languished under Communism. It's kind of like looking at the same country under different circumstances. In 1991, when Estonia embraced Capitalism, within a few years their economy was repaired and they were almost up to par with Finland.

I wasn't talking about which country was better at fighting off the Soviets, I was talking about what a Communist government does to a country.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Okay, prove me wrong. And no, that's not what you just did.

You feel threatened by someone attacking this bill, which is why instead of just listing off the reasons why you think I'm wrong, you insulted me twice.

First: Web site blocking and traffic discrimination. Standard free market rules apply. If consumers don't like these, they can find a provicer without them.

Second: Network management transparency. The exact wording of the bill undermines ISPs ability to protect sensitive information about their company.

Third: Tiered access. Providing a certain amount of bandwidth costs an ISP a certain amount of money. If you gas up your car you can't expect to get a full tank for $5.00 when the guy before you had to pay $40.00 and it costs the company $30.00 to provide it in the first place. Don't like tiered access? The you need to improve your own financial condition instead of expecting the government to legalize stealing service so you don't have to pay a fair rate.

You pay more money, you get more service. That's how free markets work. The ISPs are filled with people who have bills to pay and kids to feed. About the nicest thing I can say about people like you who complain about 'tiered access' is that you're incredibly irresponsible and have no idea how a business is actually run.

Here's the basic logic behind *GASP* paying for service:

The ISP has the technology to provide Internet access.
It costs them money to provide users with service.
Therefore, they charge a bit more than it costs them, and they make a living.
People who pay more, get more.

If a business is forced to provide the service for less than it costs them in overhead, they go out of business and nobody get Internet access. Then the government steps in and provides it, complete with censorship and disastrous rates of inefficiency. Think, civil service.

Yea, but, I still get my porn? Right :dunno:

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Okay, prove me wrong. And no, that's not what you just did.

You feel threatened by someone attacking this bill, which is why instead of just listing off the reasons why you think I'm wrong, you insulted me twice.

First: Web site blocking and traffic discrimination. Standard free market rules apply. If consumers don't like these, they can find a provicer without them.

Second: Network management transparency. The exact wording of the bill undermines ISPs ability to protect sensitive information about their company.

Third: Tiered access. Providing a certain amount of bandwidth costs an ISP a certain amount of money. If you gas up your car you can't expect to get a full tank for $5.00 when the guy before you had to pay $40.00 and it costs the company $30.00 to provide it in the first place. Don't like tiered access? The you need to improve your own financial condition instead of expecting the government to legalize stealing service so you don't have to pay a fair rate.

You pay more money, you get more service. That's how free markets work. The ISPs are filled with people who have bills to pay and kids to feed. About the nicest thing I can say about people like you who complain about 'tiered access' is that you're incredibly irresponsible and have no idea how a business is actually run.

Here's the basic logic behind *GASP* paying for service:

The ISP has the technology to provide Internet access.
It costs them money to provide users with service.
Therefore, they charge a bit more than it costs them, and they make a living.
People who pay more, get more.

If a business is forced to provide the service for less than it costs them in overhead, they go out of business and nobody get Internet access. Then the government steps in and provides it, complete with censorship and disastrous rates of inefficiency. Think, civil service.

Actually, this is a very reasonable, well-tempered and rational response.

Makes me look like kind of an asshole, actually.

Damn.

Now I have to neg rep myself.

 

[YMIHERE]

Also, you clearly haven't talked to any Americans who were anti-Socialist. If you run into two or three people claiming to be anti-Socialist who don't know what it actually means, that doesn't indicate a pattern.

I have actually read the writings of the creators of the philosophy. I am an American, and I know Socialism, Communism, and Marxism inside and out, as do the majority of Americans protesting these systems. Your apparent belief that a person has to live in a Socialist country to understand it is like saying that a person has to be addicted to drugs before they can understand not to use them in the first place, or that one has to go to prison to learn NOT to be a criminal.

Socialism is based on the idea that the rich are meant to support the poor. Capitalism is based on the idea that all individuals are meant to support themselves.

If you want an excellent example of what Socialism does to a country, do some research on the nations of Finland and Estonia, circa 1939, 1940, and 1991. You'll see the glaring difference in the two neighboring countries as the Communists took over Estonia and Finland remained Capitalist, as well as the recovery in the early '90s.

Socialism destroys countries, plain and simple. The fact that many of us Americans still have the sense to understand that makes me proud.

You use socialism as interchangeable with communism. It sounds like you don't know the difference between socialism and communism. Typically mistake some in America make. I know the difference. Can you tell me what the difference is since you are a self-proclaimed expert?

 

[ForumModeregulator]

Socialism is based on the idea that the rich are meant to support the poor. Capitalism is based on the idea that all individuals are meant to support themselves.

socialism...rich meant to support the poor? i dont think that is right, that is not the fundamental concept of socialism. in fact, socialism doesn't advocate hierarchy, so in those systems there is technically not supposed to be a "rich" and "poor"...but

kind of kills your credibility...

or i could be completely wrong.

 

[Deepcover]

Socialism is the be all and end all.

 

[D-rock]

The standard rules of a free market apply in this matter. If consumers don't like the restrictions, they have the freedom to go to an ISP without them.

Hmmmm....really you talk almost as if people have hundreds of choices for high speed internet. In reality most people either have to work with a monopoly or duopoly in their area that controls it....of course you conveniently neglected to mention that.

The bill does not simply prevent that practice, but forces ISPs to not limit bandwidth allowances based on what a customer pays. That's basically saying that everyone gets as much bandwidth as they want for the same amount of money. Let's just forget how much it costs the ISPs to actually provide it.

Of course they could just price the speed people can download things at...you know like they do now which is more fair and gets the same results with limiting the amount people can realistically download....of course you conveniently neglected to mention that. I also wouldn't have a problem with a properly implemented fair use policy so some people don't hog bandwidth from others...you know like they have now.


Obviously it won't work out like that. Bandwidth will be more limited under the new bill than ever before, and restricted by the government to whichever sites they deem to be higher priority. The text of the bill explicitly states this. Read it.[/QUOTE]

:tinhat:

To be fair it's not like I trust the government either, but putting something that's a virtual critical public resource in the hands of some of the only things actually worse than the government, that being businesses, whos only goal is profit above anything else and whom the people have no say in is even more nonsensical.

I have actually read the writings of the creators of the philosophy. I am an American, and I know Socialism, Communism, and Marxism inside and out,

Hmmm...really?

as do the majority of Americans protesting these systems.

:rofl2:

Capitalism is based on the idea that all individuals are meant to support themselves.

That would be great if:...........................

There was always a reasonable, fair, and ethical means for every individual to support themselves if they were able and willing at all times.
All individuals were born with real equality of opportunity.
All individuals were born with equality of resources.
All individuals had equal say in their government and laws passed regardless of political connections or personal economic wealth.
All individuals where truly equal under the law.
Corporations didn't have more say than poorer individuals and more money to virtually bribe officials.
All individuals had a situation where it was impossible for others to exploit them for the own gain.

Unfortunately when one finally gets out of that fairy tale make believe world they realize that notion about capitalism is laughable. It's morphed into a system where the less wealthy who have less political clout, less wealth, less access to lawmakers, less say in laws passed, less resources, and have a harder time maintaining a means to live and make a living just end up funneling their wealth to the rich, usually though exploitation. So no, what you say isn't true, and isn't believed by anybody that has actual real world wisdom and commons sense. Capitalism is really the false idea that all individuals are meant to support themselves, but it's really ends up being a means for the poorer to support the richer, and almost always at the poorer people's expense.

Yeah, like that so much better than the rich supporting the poor more or a system that's supposed to at least try and limit that stuff instead of people saying, "I got mine, screw everybody else". I mean it's not like the rich have more resources or anything and it's less of a burden on them than anybody else so things can be put in place that vital and for the betterment of the entire society.

Yes those factors also come into play in the other systems also, but at least there is some type of check on them. Capitalism logical conclusion is basically an every man for himself philosophy that ends up...well about how a rational person things that would turn out.

Socialism destroys countries, plain and simple. The fact that many of us Americans still have the sense to understand that makes me proud.

So let me get this strait. The places in the world that are the happiest, have the highest quality of life, have the highest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rates, and the healthiest people are the ones that are destroying themselves. If anything is bringing them down now it's the fact they are slowly becoming more like us because of our intervention and need to meddle with everything.

I would say America is easily outpacing those places in self destruction, and golly gee a gigantic portion of that is our own economic system. Lets see 90% of the U.S. has either gotten poorer or had to work more for the same amount since the 1960s. We have a screwed up health care system based on the market instead of it being a human right. We can't actually seem to be able to make our own stuff anymore. I'm sure from a security standpoint that's going to bite us in the ass someday. Most people will struggle to save for latter in life. Job security is a thing of the past. We have businesses that have raced to the bottom so much they have sold our country and sold it's people out for cheap labor. We put less emphasis on education and our people are dumber that those so called awful socialist countries. More people now than in a long time don't think their lives will be better or equal to their parents. Our income inequality is the greatest in a long time and is going to start approaching the Gilded Age of the U.S. soon at this rate. Oh, and the situation is getting worse all the time, but hey we sure do kick the asses of those socialist countries now don't we? The fact we are turning into a Darwinistic nightmare and people out there don't mind sure is something to be proud of isn't it?


Have you ever thought about the concept that a country should be judged by how it treats it's least well off people and not the most well off?

In any case, I'm kind of curious about that whole socialism killed millions of people thing. I'd like to see you actually explain that.

 

[Rane1071]

I remember reading an article about how the FBI is only able to monitor about 3% of the internet. Beyond that they have to go by what people report and end up in their flagged sites alerts.

I saw something similar about the N.S.A, when certain key-words are used and flagged they'll investigate further. But other than that they can only monitor a fraction of the internet which is understandable considering the volume of traffic and info on the web.