Anyone versed in this have an opinion on today's FCC ruling?
I am fairly well versed and have a strong opinion most can probably guess, but anyone else care to share theirs?
Duel of Fates wrote:What FCC have you been following? And what do you consider "fair"?
Duel of Fates wrote:Too late for that, White House is the one pushing Net Neutrality, or didn't you know that?
Duel of Fates wrote:[color=#0000FF]Yes, let us throw out the dangerous Capitalism. Let us welcome the safety of Socialism.
toad wrote:Duel of Fates wrote:What FCC have you been following? And what do you consider "fair"?
The demarcation regulations, MDU none exclusivity regulations, slicing and dicing of the wireless space, and othersDuel of Fates wrote:Too late for that, White House is the one pushing Net Neutrality, or didn't you know that?
I do know, the only counter to Net Neutrality is "oh no big government again". This isn't about Obama, this is about Comcast and the FCC.Duel of Fates wrote:Yes, let us throw out the dangerous Capitalism. Let us welcome the safety of Socialism.
You are taking it too far with Socialism. Health Care reform is socialism. Creating rules that regulate an industry is insuring capitalism doesn't go unchecked. Until now the FCC has taken a hands off approach to Internet. It wasn't until Comcast started pulling stunts that the FCC had to step in. This whole situation is the FCC v. Comcast. So we have two choices, the Internet by the FCC or a fractured Internet by Comcast.
Duel of Fates wrote:I have been screaming that Health Care reform in its current condition is nothing more than Socialism!
Duel of Fates wrote:Bank bailout, Socialism!
Duel of Fates wrote:Automotive bailout, Socialism!
Social Security is Socialism!
Many of the "programs" of the last 90 or so years have been Socialism!
Duel of Fates wrote:Yes, capitalism is scary to some, but companies will either adapt, overcome, innovate, and prosper, or they die. Nature abhors a vacuum so other companies will rise and fill the niches left behind by the failed companies. That is capitalism. What you are suggesting is that companies that would not survive on their own, must be backed by the government, using tax payer money to keep them alive, because that would be "fair". What that really does is clog up the system with companies that cannot make it on their own.
I am tired of people promoting Socialism in the name of greater good, and then pointing to past programs as proof that Socialism works. It does not.
Return to Non-Game Discussions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests