Epic Stupid: Ted Cruz - "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet"

a reply to: Spider879

Do you believe in the GOP to save net neutrality?

This is one of the few times i have read through an entire thread. Pretty good arguments from both sides.

But we are all taking Cruz's words out of context.

Let's us not focus on what Cruz is saying but let us focus on what he is doing.

Cruz is kicking Obama while he is down. It is a pretty good kick. Right in the teeth. And another kick between the legs. Cruz just cut off Obama on the net issue by reminding everyone of Obama care and basically saying if you like your computer you can keep your computer.

Cruz probably has no idea about how the internet works but he can give a good political kick in the nuts. In that respect, Obama deserves it. The government can talk about the internet all it wants later on but now is the time for posturing and rubbing faces in the the dirt.

Breitbart website on the issue

It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obama administration continues to disregard the people’s will and push for more mandates on our economy. An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship.

House GOP leaders in May dispatched a letter to FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler seeking to stop consideration of net neutrality regulations. “Federal bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating the Internet--not now, not ever,” the speaker added Monday. “In the new Congress, Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme to regulate the Internet, and we’ll work to encourage private-sector job creation, starting with many of the House-passed jobs bills that the outgoing Senate majority ignored.”

www.breitbart.com...

I had to go to Firefox to find articles not partial to the administration

Net Neutrality was passed during the lame duck session of Congress when Democrats still had their majority. It passed through a five-person commission on a party-line vote. Yesterday, the Washington Examiner reported that an extreme liberal organization worked closely with the FCC to pass net neutrality, based on new findings from a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative, government watchdog, Judicial Watch. This is a tremendous abuse of power by the Obama administration to promote its liberal ideology. As expected, the group is funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute. How not surprising.
The FOIA documents reveal an explicit coordination between the FCC, which is required to rule impartially, and the liberal advocacy group, Free Press, to impose net neutrality. The leftist arguments for net neutrality are null; although they make it sound friendly, their agenda is to control content on the internet. With this White House and the most radical, incompetent president in American history, its purpose is to silence the opposition and favor supporters. Sites like this could potentially be blocked or buried on the internet.

Free Press is partially funded by the liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-American George Soros, the man behind the curtain. It's also important to note that Free Press was co-founded by Monthly Review editor Robert McChesney. Monthly Review is a Marxist magazine, which actor Danny Glover says is a must read to win the fight. Visiting their website opens the door to proof that liberalism has no rearview mirror when it comes to history.

habledash.com...

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: Spider879

Do you believe in the GOP to save net neutrality?

No ! but that's beside the point look at who is trying to do what now that they have the power lets see what they do but from my view it looks dark very very dark.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So, Beckistanian mumbo-jumbo aside ... you're against Net Neutrality then?

You didn't seem to be quite sure what the concept even meant a few posts above here, and yet now, armed with a few hit pieces from Republican blogger sites, you're against the idea?

Am I reading you right, ThirdEye?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Breitbart website on the issue

It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obama administration continues to disregard the people’s will and push for more mandates on our economy. An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship.

House GOP leaders in May dispatched a letter to FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler seeking to stop consideration of net neutrality regulations. “Federal bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating the Internet--not now, not ever,” the speaker added Monday. “In the new Congress, Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme to regulate the Internet, and we’ll work to encourage private-sector job creation, starting with many of the House-passed jobs bills that the outgoing Senate majority ignored.”

www.breitbart.com...

Why shouldn't the government be in the business of regulating the internet after all they did build it. I do give them credit for making it sound like this will kill jobs when it really translates to letting companies gouge their customers even more for less service. Getting rid of net neutrality would be the real job killer but don't expect Breitbart to tell the truth.

Net neutrality

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors. Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality.

For a bunch of people who keep crying about freedom they sure are willing to throw it out the window when it comes to making a buck.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship.

What a crock of horse manure from Breitbart , WOW, Seriously have to be mentally challenged for anyone to believe this.

The internet which exploded innovation and entrepreneurship was all done while net neutrality existed.

Google, facebook, wikipedia, amazon, netflix ,video game consoles, online movies , icloud, itunes, online banking, world market, etc are just some examples that were developed all the while net neutrality existed.

it could be argued that many of those sites wouldn't have been able to get as popular as they did if net neutrality didn't exist at the time, because when they were started by a kid in a dorm they likely didn't have the money to pay comcast to get in the fast lane.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Aazadan

ok thanks for that info

Here you go sourced from oti.newamerica.net... and en.wikipedia.org...
Seoul 1000 mb $36.31
Tokyo 100mb $30.47
Hong Kong 100mb $30.60
Paris 100 mb $39.42
Bucharest 80 mb $32.05
New York 50 mb $34.99
Los Angeles 30mb $37.49

Here's US phones
Carrier Price Data Minutes/Texts
Verizon $100 2GB Unlimited / Unlimited
AT&T $95 1GB Unlimited / Unlimited
Sprint $80 Unlimited Unlimited / Unlimited
T-Mobile $70 Unlimited Unlimited / Unlimited

Here's Europe and Asia
Carrier Price Data Minutes / Texts
Orange (UK) $54 1GB Unlimited / Unlimited
Orange (UK) $62 3GB 600min / Unlimited
Everything & Everywhere (UK) $62 1GB Unlimited / Unlimited
Everything & Everywhere (UK) $70 3GB Unlimited / Unlimited
Vodafone (UK) $56 1GB Unlimited / Unlimited
Vodafone (UK) $71 2GB Unlimited / Unlimited
Telefonica (Spain) $65 Unlimited 500min / Unlimited
Telefonica (Spain) $77 Unlimited 500min / Unlimited
Deutsche Telekom (Germany) $83 Unlimited Unlimited / Unlimited
Orange (France) $64 2GB Unlimited/Unlimited
Orange (France) $77 3GB Unlimited/Unlimited
Softbank (Japan) $55 Unlimited Unlimited / Unlimited
Hutchinson (Hong Kong) $59 Unlimited 2000min / Unlimited

a reply to: buster2010

Why shouldn't the government be in the business of regulating the internet after all they did build it.

oh right, DARPA built it and now liberals think we should turn it over to international authorities. That's rich you should make such a statement.

a reply to: buster2010
We have gone from Total Information Awareness to Net Neutrality in a decade....but it maybe the same thing more or less....these people that yak about Neutrality are being used to put forward something that was uniformly rejected in earlier incarnations.

The Founders understood that the greatest danger to man is other men, especially when they are out to protect him from himself. Forgetting that maxim, modern man thirsted for powerful rulers to protect him and, in the twentieth century, he found just what he was looking for: These “strong men” managed to kill more people, including their own, than have all past rulers combined.

- Thomas Szasz

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Breitbart website on the issue

No offense to those congressmen but they're full of it. They are not technical people, they do not understand what they are arguing for. A level playing field and open market requires Net Neutrality. Removing Net Neutrality adds a very large barrier to entry to the market for any internet based business and puts content providers at the whim of the local ISP. The theory behind removing it can work, but only in an environment where there's market alternatives. The ISP's currently function as monopolies and like all monopolies require some rules to keep their power somewhat in check.

In the end I don't envy the FCC. A few months back a letter from Verizon leaked, in it they basically said that if the FCC didn't give them what they wanted, they would completely shut down the US financial sector until they complied and then said they would spend every single dollar they had opposing anything and everything the FCC ever tries to do now and in the future. It was one hell of a threat, and they have the power to do it.

a reply to: interupt42

What a crock of horse manure , WOW, Seriously have to be mentally challenged to believe this.

Why must you be so incendiary and insulting? I have asked real questions of people here. What I can see is that people who tend more toward the Obama admin, Progressivism, liberalism, etc ad nauseum are for so-called "net neutrality". People who are against "net neutrality" are generally against more bureaucratic and centralized control. I have shown now that Soros has funded leftist groups who push "net neutrality". Soros is an ultra leftist Progressive. Soros is about bigger government. I'm not surprised to find he's behind the push for it.

So guess what, you know what you can do with your insults and your assaults.

And this is what it always seems to come down to.... big government nanny statists against free market capitalists who want less government and less bureaucracy.

So, Obama is for Net Neutrality, so it must be a bad thing, even if a poster admittedly doesn't understand what "it" is.

How utterly appalling this whole thing has become!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, Obama is for Net Neutrality, so it must be a bad thing, even if a poster admittedly doesn't understand what "it" is.

How utterly appalling this whole thing has become!

I'm biting my tongue not to talk to you.

Really, I'm holding back in a big way.

One person says we need government to enforce net neutrality which we don't have anymore because it has been repealed, and another person says we always had it but now the evil Republicans are trying to take it away. Another person says that foreign countries have net neutrality but we don't
You know this stuff can get pretty heady.
I posted that net neutrality was legislated by a Democrat majority Congress so it cannot possibly have already existed before it was passed right?
But of course you are the techy who knows it all aren't you?

Maybe you can also give me an enlightened discourse on public-private partnerships since you are so educated.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, Obama is for Net Neutrality, so it must be a bad thing, even if a poster admittedly doesn't understand what "it" is.

How utterly appalling this whole thing has become!

Obama has a habit of talking opposites.

Hmmm.

Deeper digging required.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Why must you be so incendiary and insulting?

My comment was not towards you but rather the BS statement from your link which I quoted Anyhow I edited my post to clarify and commented on the clarification.

However , breitbart can't say that net neutrality will crush and destroy innovation and entrepreneurship when it HAS done the exact opposite. That statement was total BS.

The internet has has been one of the biggest innovation our times and has led to many other innovations all the while NET Neutrality was being enforced.

How can they even make such a statement?

I really wasn't trying to insult you , so if you took like that than I apologize as that was not my intent. However, I found that statement at best as disingenuous and purposely misleading.

What I can see is that people who tend more toward the Obama admin, Progressivism, liberalism, etc ad nauseum are for so-called "net neutrality"

This is not a Republican versus Democrat issue, neither party is going to side with the consumers on this issue. Obama may speak of net neutrality but in the end the bill he will pass will have so many holes in it that it won't be net neutrality.

Run fast and far from anything Ted has to say. we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people.
Ted Cruz's Wife is a Goldman Sachs vice president and we all know how corrupt they are and how much power they have over our government

originally posted by: jacobe001
Run fast and far from anything Ted has to say. we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people.
Ted Cruz's Wife is a Goldman Sachs vice president and we all know how corrupt they are and how much power they have over our government

yah, well the President has had bunches of GS people in his admin. Are you really going to go with the anti-Wall street sentiment here?

my.firedoglake.com...