US Politics

[bwind22]

Originally Posted by Despare

you'll agree that be you Dem or Rep the people representing you have fallen away from the ideals of the party you're a part of.

Amen to that.

[TheWickerFan]

Originally Posted by Despare

The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner. The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.



Also, does anybody else think it's funny that a UFC joked about wanting to fight Obama and had a visit from the secret service?

Anyway, if you're honest with yourself Wicker, you'll agree that be you Dem or Rep the people representing you have fallen away from the ideals of the party you're a part of.

I am honest with myself; I wasn't one of the people who thought the country was going to be fixed overnight once Barack Obama took office, but I shudder to think what would have happened if John McCain had won. And when it comes to FCC regulations, it's that extremely vocal minority (Tea Party, religious fanatics etc.) who always get their way; what I would accuse both parties of is completely caving to these little groups and not taking the repercussions this will cause into account.


I think the bartender was right; we should probably avoid the subjects of politics and religion.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by TheWickerFan

I am honest with myself; I wasn't one of the people who thought the country was going to be fixed overnight once Barack Obama took office, but I shudder to think what would have happened if John McCain had won. And when it comes to FCC regulations, it's that extremely vocal minority (Tea Party, religious fanatics etc.) who always get their way; what I would accuse both parties of is completely caving to these little groups and not taking the repercussions this will cause into account.


I think the bartender was right; we should probably avoid the subjects of politics and religion.

The democrats want internet regulation the most though... that's what I was showing you.

I don't think we should avoid conversations... just fights.

[TheWickerFan]

Originally Posted by Despare

The democrats want internet regulation the most though... that's what I was showing you.

I don't think we should avoid conversations... just fights.

I thought we were initially talking about censorship, not net neutrality. I'm not sure how much net neutrality would effect HDC.

I don't mind debating with you.:)

[Despare]

Originally Posted by TheWickerFan

I thought we were initially talking about censorship, not net neutrality. I'm not sure how much net neutrality would effect HDC.

I don't mind debating with you.:)

NN regulation would lead to censorship, even before that it would lead to providers having control of websites. Say a Comcast user is searching for a horror site, what would prevent Comcast from directing traffic to Fear.net or some channel they're affiliated with? Anyway, while Republicans are blamed for censorship all the time Democrats consistently push for governmental control over things like movies, videogames, and music (I can even pull former second lady Tipper into that one).

[Karl Kopfrkingl]

Despare - I think you have your argument backwards. Net neutrality would prevent service providers from blocking sites. Companies like Comcast would like to be able to force consumers to use apps from companies who pay them the most rather than ones from companies that don't - net neutrality regulations would mean they couldn't block/censor. Just because it is a government regulation doesn't necessarily mean more government control. I'm not advocating NN. There is a strong argument and precedent that if companies like Google want to pay more to have their content delivered faster they should be allowed to do so. Personally I am suspicious of big business and suspect that if tiered services come into play it will end up costing the end consumer (me) more. But then again, if I want to watch streaming video all day long (I do) perhaps I should pay more than my grandmother who only checks her email and the weather channel.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by Karl Kopfrkingl

Despare - I think you have your argument backwards. Net neutrality would prevent service providers from blocking sites. Companies like Comcast would like to be able to force consumers to use apps from companies who pay them the most rather than ones from companies that don't - net neutrality regulations would mean they couldn't block/censor. Just because it is a government regulation doesn't necessarily mean more government control. I'm not advocating NN. There is a strong argument and precedent that if companies like Google want to pay more to have their content delivered faster they should be allowed to do so. Personally I am suspicious of big business and suspect that if tiered services come into play it will end up costing the end consumer (me) more. But then again, if I want to watch streaming video all day long (I do) perhaps I should pay more than my grandmother who only checks her email and the weather channel.

Right, read my post again and look what the Dems are voting for.

" but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach."

My argument isn't backward, I just mistyped in the beginning of my last post so I see what you mean. I'll fix it. :)

[TheWickerFan]

Originally Posted by Karl Kopfrkingl

Despare - I think you have your argument backwards. Net neutrality would prevent service providers from blocking sites. Companies like Comcast would like to be able to force consumers to use apps from companies who pay them the most rather than ones from companies that don't - net neutrality regulations would mean they couldn't block/censor. Just because it is a government regulation doesn't necessarily mean more government control. I'm not advocating NN. There is a strong argument and precedent that if companies like Google want to pay more to have their content delivered faster they should be allowed to do so. Personally I am suspicious of big business and suspect that if tiered services come into play it will end up costing the end consumer (me) more. But then again, if I want to watch streaming video all day long (I do) perhaps I should pay more than my grandmother who only checks her email and the weather channel.

That's how I interpreted it as well.

There does seem to be a lot of prejudice against government regulation. While too much isn't a good idea (I think Soviet Russia was proof enough that it doesn't work) too little can be equally disastrous (our current economic slump for example). I trust big business a lot less than I trust the government.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by TheWickerFan

That's how I interpreted it as well.

There does seem to be a lot of prejudice against government regulation. While too much isn't a good idea (I think Soviet Russia was proof enough that it doesn't work) too little can be equally disastrous (our current economic slump for example). I trust big business a lot less than I trust the government.

Ah but there you have the issue, you trust citizens who are embracing capitalism less then you trust government officials who fight for power every year. CEOs may be corrupt but the only real power they hold is within their own company.

Another quick thing, how many times have any of you seen temporary regulation or small amounts of regulation either stay temporary or not increase?

[TheWickerFan]

Originally Posted by Despare

CEOs may be corrupt but the only real power they hold is within their own company.

But that's not true. That's why when the banks failed, they took everyone else with them. And I think big business holds a lot of politicians in their pockets, so they can gain a foothold in the government as well.

Government regulation is the only thing keeping large businesses in check. I think the deregulation of the banks was what caused this current mess we're in, and proves that they do not have the public's interest at heart.