Democrats will use the Congressional Review Act to force a Senate vote on the restoration...

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
I'd suggest avoiding TV and social media. The ads recently have been nothing but candidates attacking each other. The only thing that it's good at doing is splitting Americans apart from having actual discussion.
What part of Americans not actually wanting, or can't handle a reasonable discussion do you not understand?

Political values, and objectives are packaged in two sets, Democratic and Republican, then Wall Street takes over from there. Simultaneously lying, while pandering to people's emotional needs, is a science taught in universities. It's called "Political Science", or, "polysci", for short.

Avoid social media? Yeah right. How many users does Facebook have right now. Even scandal and theft of personal data can't scare them away, and you think people will leave voluntarily?

I'd much rather they spend that TV ad money and coordinate smaller debates with people from the campaign. That way people can actually connect. We could cover more topics if we stopped attacking each other for a moment.
\That's not about to happen anytime soon, which is the reason my finger is always on the mute button. :D

The "Bill of Rights", was supposed to turn the USA into a utopia. It hasn't happened yet, and more than likely, never will. There's a ugly, divisive, self serving, all consuming force which gets in the way. I think they call it, "human nature".
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Sure but you can't call it neutrality if you step in at all.
You realize this is a semantic point you're arguing. Which is ironic, since it is a bit pointless.

If it were suddenly called, "governmental internet oversight", with all the suspicion of the government and its motivations that nomenclature would induce, no one would want it, even those who are for "net neutrality" now.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
You realize this is a semantic point you're arguing. Which is ironic, since it is a bit pointless.
Yes I do, and it is not pointless. People need to realize it is not neutrality they are asking for. And if they accept one regulation I can promise you it will not stop at one. If you are going to fight for Net Neutrality then keep it neutral.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Sure but you can't call it neutrality if you step in at all.
Technically that's correct but it's not like Internet Freedom from corporate control rolls off the tongue. Power always collects where the money is and if the government doesn't do anything about it you might as well be in a plutocracy.

The naming of NN might be slightly hypo-critical to corporations but to American citizens it isn't. I know there are better ways to implement what NN's goal are but there doesn't appear to be anyone else who even wants to attempt to make something better.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Yes I do, and it is not pointless.
Yes, it is.
People need to realize it is not neutrality they are asking for. And if they accept one regulation I can promise you it will not stop at one.
See, this is where you go off into a fantasy built out of unobtanium.. Democracy doesn't offer you the choice between absolutes, as in right or wrong, good or bad. It offers you the choice between the lesser of two evils, as seen from democracy's, "victim's" point of view.

If you are going to fight for Net Neutrality then keep it neutral.
Basic human nature will not allow ideals to survive en vivo. Man's reach always exceeds his grasp, in everything from picking apples to building utopia.

Get over it. Seriously dude, you're going to hurt your head if you think about it too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince