Does Ted Cruz not understand Net Neutrality?

[YALE]

Still doesn't say anything about creating a Department of Veteran's Affairs. Show me where it specifically says that.

[Forever_frost]

National parks. While we're at it, isn't the VA pretty fucked up? We should do away with that. Where in the constitution does it say we have to take care of veterans? Was the USDVA created with an Article 5 convention? Was it ratified properly?

National parks, you mean the national parks that were shut down and had armed police guarding from anyone visiting when Obama got upset about a budget issue? And what is to keep the internet from being the same? "Oh, the budget is due and so and so won't give in so we can't afford to enforce regulations on the internet so we're shutting it down."

The constitution calls for "raising and supporting Armies" (Article 1 Section 7). Paying to care for veterans injured during war is part of supporting. The Department of Veteran's Affairs can find it's roots as far back as 1776 with benefits paid to troops. Fulfilling an actual power of Congress is mandated in Article 1 and needs no amendment.

Tell me you knew that already. Tell me you already knew the constitution calls for the raising and supporting of armies which means paying when they're injured.

Also, you are making my point about the government fucking up.

[YALE]

Then show me one instance of where the government stepped in and did not fuck it up. Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? ACA? Department of Defense? Oh I know, Amtrak.

National parks. While we're at it, isn't the VA pretty fucked up? We should do away with that. Where in the constitution does it say we have to take care of veterans? Was the USDVA created with an Article 5 convention? Was it ratified properly?

[Forever_frost]

I am with you on this, but honestly fuck it, this country is gone dude, no one cares. Let them do what ever they want, stop bothering the trendies with all this constitution stuff, they have no time for it.

I really wish I could let it go but I can't.

[Forever_frost]

You're jumping to conclusions. One doesn't compare to the other.

Then show me one instance of where the government stepped in and did not fuck it up. Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? ACA? Department of Defense? Oh I know, Amtrak.

[YALE]

This is how I am looking at it, since it seems so foreign to some. Social security was meant to be voluntary and only 1% max of your income, until they decided to change it. When you grant the federal government the ability to regulate something, outside of the constitutional mandate, you grant them authority to do as they wish with it. Today may be telling ISP's that they must do this or that whereas tomorrow they decide that any site criticizing the government should be blocked.

If you want open and honest internet, you keep government out of it. Government doesn't fix things, they make it more expensive and more complicated.

You're jumping to conclusions. One doesn't compare to the other.

[racrguy]

This is how I am looking at it, since it seems so foreign to some. Social security was meant to be voluntary and only 1% max of your income, until they decided to change it. When you grant the federal government the ability to regulate something, outside of the constitutional mandate, you grant them authority to do as they wish with it. Today may be telling ISP's that they must do this or that whereas tomorrow they decide that any site criticizing the government should be blocked.

If you want open and honest internet, you keep government out of it. Government doesn't fix things, they make it more expensive and more complicated.

Slippery slope argument, completely dismissed.

Jim might be dense, but i think its a bit of a stretch to call him an idiot.

I don't disagree with this, he just can't logic very well.

[matts5.0]

This is how I am looking at it, since it seems so foreign to some. Social security was meant to be voluntary and only 1% max of your income, until they decided to change it. When you grant the federal government the ability to regulate something, outside of the constitutional mandate, you grant them authority to do as they wish with it. Today may be telling ISP's that they must do this or that whereas tomorrow they decide that any site criticizing the government should be blocked.

If you want open and honest internet, you keep government out of it. Government doesn't fix things, they make it more expensive and more complicated.

I am with you on this, but honestly fuck it, this country is gone dude, no one cares. Let them do what ever they want, stop bothering the trendies with all this constitution stuff, they have no time for it.

[lowthreeohz]

Jim might be dense, but i think its a bit of a stretch to call him an idiot.

[bcoop]

I can't believe people still argue with this idiot.

[Forever_frost]

This echoes of the Ted Cruzisms that any regulation is total control, it's not.

And the company did not bring access to the internet to the market with only their own money, they've used significant federal, state, and municipal dollars. They've since bought out competitive options, bought legislature to protect them, and bullied competition with the courts.

And remind me how the government handles competitors.

[Forever_frost]

That is a non-answer. Literally no one is attempting, or even suggesting that the US government nationalize the internet. You don't seem to understand the nature of the issue at hand. What exactly is it you don't understand?

This is how I am looking at it, since it seems so foreign to some. Social security was meant to be voluntary and only 1% max of your income, until they decided to change it. When you grant the federal government the ability to regulate something, outside of the constitutional mandate, you grant them authority to do as they wish with it. Today may be telling ISP's that they must do this or that whereas tomorrow they decide that any site criticizing the government should be blocked.

If you want open and honest internet, you keep government out of it. Government doesn't fix things, they make it more expensive and more complicated.

[racrguy]

Are you drunk?

He is missing a not insignificant amount of grey matter.

The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. They can force anyone they like to do their bidding with the threat of force or confiscation so what is being asked is that basically since you don't like the internet being run by a company that does as they like with the product they are paying to bring to market, that the mob should get involved, put a gun to their head and tell them how the things are going to be done.

How did this theory work in Venezuela?

Are you drunk?

[exlude]

The federal government is the ultimate monopoly. They can force anyone they like to do their bidding with the threat of force or confiscation so what is being asked is that basically since you don't like the internet being run by a company that does as they like with the product they are paying to bring to market, that the mob should get involved, put a gun to their head and tell them how the things are going to be done.

How did this theory work in Venezuela?

This echoes of the Ted Cruzisms that any regulation is total control, it's not.

And the company did not bring access to the internet to the market with only their own money, they've used significant federal, state, and municipal dollars. They've since bought out competitive options, bought legislature to protect them, and bullied competition with the courts.