gbaji wrote:
How predictable of you!
gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that neither Palin nor Obama are smart enough to make good Presidents? Just checking...
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Well... He's not a math professor...
Well... He's not a math professor...Follow
What, that I took a shot at both parties? Thanks, I try not to be too partisan in American politics.
I'm saying Sarah isn't or she would be. Obama apparently is, or has people smart enough to get him there, which means he was atleast smart enough to surround himself with the right people.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
You know who misspoke way more?
Dubya.
/thread
Dubya.
/thread
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
A President used a hyperbole to get his message across? Never seen that before.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
A President used a hyperbole to get his message across? Never seen that before.
It was an error and not hyperbole. Had it been hyperbole, then gbaji could be legitimately aroused, because "hyperbole with numbers" is better known as "blatant lying."
Senator Daniel P Moynihan wrote:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Heh... Limbaugh was just on about this and started off by saying "Can you imagine if Bush or Dan Quayle had said this?" implying that Limbaugh knew it was a verbal trip and then he went on to discuss it as though it was actually what Obama meant to say 
Of course, five minutes later, Limbaugh was saying that the internet "Net Neutrality" proposal was really a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet and was designed to force search engines to present liberal results to queries such as abortion or health care.
Net Neutrality has nothing at all to do with that, by the way. It's about broadband carriers not giving preferential levels of bandwidth access to select website hosts, etc.
Of course, five minutes later, Limbaugh was saying that the internet "Net Neutrality" proposal was really a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet and was designed to force search engines to present liberal results to queries such as abortion or health care.
Net Neutrality has nothing at all to do with that, by the way. It's about broadband carriers not giving preferential levels of bandwidth access to select website hosts, etc.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
It's about broadband carriers not giving preferential levels of bandwidth access to select website hosts, etc.
It's about a bit more than that, but maybe you got the short version from Wikipedia. It branches in to device & application access as well, imposing mandates on providers to allow access to their networks to lawful content, imposing fee caps limiting the profit that public companies can make on their private investments and denies service providers tools commonly used to manage their networks.
I don't know about the fee caps, but the part just before that is what joph said.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I don't know about the fee caps, but the part just before that is what joph said.
With what, his "etc."? Because "It's about broadband carriers not giving preferential levels of bandwidth access to select website hosts" does not say "device & application access as well, imposing mandates on providers to allow access to their networks to lawful content, [...] and denies service providers tools commonly used to manage their networks."
EDIT: To my mind the applications & devices sections are key. It basically takes away an incentive to improve the robustness of the networks as any TD&H can then come along and piggy back them with a new WiFi VoIP device/application or streaming video device/application hogging bandwidth with no risk.
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:22pm by MoebiusLord
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
It's about a bit more than that, but maybe you got the short version from Wikipedia.
I gave an abbreviated version because I doubt anyone here wants a lengthy discussion about it (who doesn't already know about it).
Quote:
It branches in to device & application access as well, imposing mandates on providers to allow access to their networks to lawful content, imposing fee caps limiting the profit that public companies can make on their private investments and denies service providers tools commonly used to manage their networks.
Sure. Find me the portion that says it'll control what every search engine on the net returns as results (and make sure they're all liberal-approved!) and get back to me. Because that's what El Rushbo was claiming.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. Find me the portion that says it'll control what every search engine on the net returns as results (and make sure they're all liberal-approved!) and get back to me. Because that's what El Rushbo was claiming.
Why would I try and do that? He says as many retarded things as the President does. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm expanding on your first grade explanation of Net Neutrality. The way you put it makes it seem harmless, which it isn't.
"It's about broadband carriers not giving preferential levels of bandwidth access to select website hosts" is the same as "device & application access as well, imposing mandates on providers to allow access to their networks to lawful content"
I ignored the tools comment because it's meaningless. Those two points are different ways of looking at the same issue.
Note that net neutrality is not about me getting a guaranteed rate of download or upload, that I have to pay for, and I buy what I need. One of the primary goals is to stop service provider A making any websites hosted by service provider B run artificially slower, to create a false problem and try and get customers through their superior offerings.
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:41pm by Xsarus
I ignored the tools comment because it's meaningless. Those two points are different ways of looking at the same issue.
Note that net neutrality is not about me getting a guaranteed rate of download or upload, that I have to pay for, and I buy what I need. One of the primary goals is to stop service provider A making any websites hosted by service provider B run artificially slower, to create a false problem and try and get customers through their superior offerings.
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:41pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. Find me the portion that says it'll control what every search engine on the net returns as results (and make sure they're all liberal-approved!) and get back to me. Because that's what El Rushbo was claiming.
Going on precedent, also from Wikipedia -
Quote:
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[34] It could also include "government dictating content policy".
Granted, he's a Republican, but he was appointed by PBO and unanimously confirmed by the senate in 2009.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I don't know about the fee caps, but the part just before that is what joph said.
What Joph said.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I ignored the tools comment because I was wrong in the first place. Those two points say different things about the same issue.
s'what I thought.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. Find me the portion that says it'll control what every search engine on the net returns as results (and make sure they're all liberal-approved!) and get back to me. Because that's what El Rushbo was claiming.
Going on precedent, also from Wikipedia -
Quote:
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[34] It could also include "government dictating content policy".
Granted, he's a Republican, but he was appointed by PBO and unanimously confirmed by the senate in 2009.
Which is a debate about the Fairness Doctrine, not really one about Net Neutrality. Which would probably be why you found it under "Fairness Doctrine" and not under "Network Neutrality". He's speaking in hypotheticals and not about what the actual proposals thus far read.
But it's adorable that you ran off to look it up after saying you wouldn't
Thanks!Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
s'what I thought.
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:42pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Hey, Gbaji's here!
He's probably relieved as all hell that now he can start filibustering over net neutrality and pretend that his asinine OP never existed.
He's probably relieved as all hell that now he can start filibustering over net neutrality and pretend that his asinine OP never existed.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Moebiuslord wrote:
Granted, he's a Republican, but he was appointed by PBO and unanimously confirmed by the senate in 2009.
Which is a debate about the Fairness Doctrine, not really one about Net Neutrality. Which would probably be why you found it under "Fairness Doctrine" and not under "Network Neutrality". He's speaking in hypotheticals and not about what the actual proposals thus far read.
But it's adorable that you ran off to look it up after saying you wouldn't
Thanks!It was a link that came up when I was looking for the text originally.
So your position is that future implications shouldn't be considered when discussing legislative proposals?
EDIT: pwned by quotes
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:44pm by MoebiusLord
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, Gbaji's here!
He's probably relieved as all hell that now he can start filibustering over net neutrality and pretend that his asinine OP never existed.
He's probably relieved as all hell that now he can start filibustering over net neutrality and pretend that his asinine OP never existed.
@Moebius, I was so confused by that post at first. go fix your quotes
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:44pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, Gbaji's here!
He's probably relieved as all hell that now he can start filibustering over net neutrality and pretend that his asinine OP never existed.
He's probably relieved as all hell that now he can start filibustering over net neutrality and pretend that his asinine OP never existed.
You brought it up. /shrug
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
So your position is that future implications shouldn't be considered when discussing legislative proposals?
My position is that hypotheticals shouldn't be stated as the actual (and sole) content of the proposal. I know, I'm totally insane!!!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Note that net neutrality is not about me getting a guaranteed rate of download or upload, that I have to pay for, and I buy what I need. One of the primary goals is to stop service provider A making any websites hosted by service provider B run artificially slower, to create a false problem and try and get customers through their superior offerings.
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:41pm by Xsarus
Edited, Mar 16th 2010 1:41pm by Xsarus
Because you like to edit things after someone has responded...
How does that, in any way, refute, rebut or even address what I wrote? As I noted about Joph's original point, that goal is harmless. The bills as introduced however, expand upon those ideas and go to restricting profits by a private company in a capitalist-based "market" economy.
HR 3458 (2009) wrote:
‘(2) not impose a charge on any Internet content, service, or application provider to enable any lawful Internet content, application, or service to be offered, provided, or used through the provider’s service, beyond the end user charges associated with providing the service to such provider;
Jophiel wrote:
My position is that hypotheticals shouldn't be stated as the actual (and sole) content of the proposal. I know, I'm totally insane!!!
I was listening to him live, and I didn't get the impression that the was stating that was it's sole or actual content. I got the impression he was talking about its design and the implications there of. Maybe I'm not looking for boogy men under every statement, though.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I was listening to him live, and I didn't get the impression that the was stating that was it's sole or actual content.
You're kidding right? Give me your address and I'll mail you a box of Q-Tips.
Quote:
I got the impression he was talking about its design and the implications there of. Maybe I'm not looking for boogy men under every statement, though.
Given your impression, you were too busy skipping through a sunlit meadow, weaving daisy chains and singing to the birds to look for anything
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 313
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (313)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Well... He's not a math professor...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC