FCC Chairman's Proposal Will Radically Change The Rules Of The Internet

[Gasser64]

Well that does clear it up a bit. After that post I better understand what you're trying to say.

However, about the logical fallacies, I disagree. Perhaps I'm not wording my posts clearly enough, so I'll just say this. All I'm saying is that they can't be trusted, and as such, shouldn't be trusted to handle even something as seemingly benign as this law. They're quite insidious, anyone who doesn't think so simply hasn't been paying attention. Their past performances do apply to their present and future actions. This is true with any individual, and as the government is simply a collection of individuals, it applies to them as well.

[exlude]

All illegal, technically. They're supposed to be required to get a warrant, which they obviously don't do. Hence the whole snowden debacle. Just because they're already doing it, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't say we should just ignore and go along with their present and future attempts.

As Yale pointed out, I'm not saying it's right. I'm wholeheartedly against monitoring the internet and spying on our own citizens.

But just about the only thing in common between what the NSA is doing and what the FCC is doing is that it involves the internet.

Its perfectly relevant as a point of reference. I guess this thread is going nowhere, the same arguments are just starting up all over again.

As a point of reference to what?

I'm not saying this to be mean, but you continue to create arguments that are fundamentally illogical because they are constructed using a series of logical fallacies. These same mistakes lead to the same responses.

[Gasser64]

Its perfectly relevant as a point of reference. I guess this thread is going nowhere, the same arguments are just starting up all over again.

[CexMashean]

He isn't saying it's right. He's not expressing an opinion on it at all. He's saying it's irrelevant to the discussion, which it still is.

To liberals like you it is!

/Gasser64

[YALE]

All illegal, technically. They're supposed to be required to get a warrant, which they obviously don't do. Hence the whole snowden debacle. Just because they're already doing it, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't say we should just ignore and go along with their present and future attempts.

He isn't saying it's right. He's not expressing an opinion on it at all. He's saying it's irrelevant to the discussion, which it still is.

[Gasser64]

The NSA/CIA/alphabet agency has been monitoring your communication since before the Open Internet Order was thrown out in court. They were still monitoring before the FCC voted on reclassification and will continue to monitor afterward. It's a red herring in this discussion.

All illegal, technically. They're supposed to be required to get a warrant, which they obviously don't do. Hence the whole snowden debacle. Just because they're already doing it, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't say we should just ignore and go along with their present and future attempts.

[exlude]

Their power grabs are always applicable. As I'm sure you've noticed by now, their favorite thing to do is to just tack on a little more after they get their way. And a little more. And a little more. They know they'd be rejected totally if they go after it all at once. Hell a lot of times they're rejected totally after people catch on to their schemes.

The NSA/CIA/alphabet agency has been monitoring your communication since before the Open Internet Order was thrown out in court. They were still monitoring before the FCC voted on reclassification and will continue to monitor afterward. It's a red herring in this discussion.

[Gasser64]

While a very important topic of discussion, that's not really applicable to the FCC's decision.

Their power grabs are always applicable. As I'm sure you've noticed by now, their favorite thing to do is to just tack on a little more after they get their way. And a little more. And a little more. They know they'd be rejected totally if they go after it all at once. Hell a lot of times they're rejected totally after people catch on to their schemes.

[exlude]

This article used the Snowden example to give something to think about.


Internet at a Crossroads
How Government Surveillance Threatens How We Communicate

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015...net-crossroads

While a very important topic of discussion, that's not really applicable to the FCC's decision.

[mustang_revival]

Internet at a Crossroads

This article used the Snowden example to give something to think about.


Internet at a Crossroads
How Government Surveillance Threatens How We Communicate

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/essays/internet-crossroads

[Denny]

Well, if by spot on you mean purely speculating and misrepresenting, then sure.

Nice!

[BP]

Is this the same congress that cant balance the budget because of the amount of pork the members put into it, and the same congress he is a member of?

He retired in 2013.

[exlude]

Ron Paul is spot on with this.

Well, if by spot on you mean purely speculating and misrepresenting, then sure.

[racrguy]

Is this the same congress that cant balance the budget because of the amount of pork the members put into it, and the same congress he was a member of?

Ftfy.

He doesn't take into account the fact that congress were the ones that gave them the power to do this in the first place.

[Sean88gt]

How do you think the EPA and Department of Education started? Executive Order.

The EPA was, but had to be ratified by both house and senate. The DoE was re-created by the Dept. Of Education organization act.