Carpenter v. United States

Please keep it clean with no profanity or personal attacks

Carpenter v. United States

Postby Pirates79 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:47 am

Oral arguments are this Wednesday. I hope that the SCOTUS decides for Carpenter. Otherwise, along with this administration's desire to co-opt the internet, we are all screwed.
Pirates79
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:15 am

Pirates79 wrote:Oral arguments are this Wednesday. I hope that the SCOTUS decides for Carpenter. Otherwise, along with this administration's desire to co-opt the internet, we are all screwed.


I don't know the fine print details 79, but I basically agree with you re: the SCOTUS case you reference.

Nice spin attempt though re: the internet. If you define "co-opt the internet" as the administration putting the kaibash on "net neutrality" nonsense, then ok, guilty....of co-opting the internet by ensuring it remains free & market driven.

On the other hand, I define "co-opt the internet" as the prior administration coming up with a puffily soft & good named "net neutrality" scheme to ensure the federal government's sticky, oily tentacles dig into the internet in order to pick winners & losers & regulate those it doesn't favor right out of business.

In other news....you give me Jeff Bezos at the WaPo....I give you the Koch Brothers at Time, Inc.! Wahoo! Can't wait to see the pretzel logic spin the BHG's in the legacy media will attempt to make it a horror for the Koch's to own Time, while cheering Diamond Jeffy on at the WaPo...
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby midcoastman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:36 pm

hawksfan wrote:On the other hand, I define "co-opt the internet" as the prior administration coming up with a puffily soft & good named "net neutrality" scheme to ensure the federal government's sticky, oily tentacles dig into the internet in order to pick winners & losers & regulate those it doesn't favor right out of business.
Literally the opposite is true.
User avatar
midcoastman
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:05 am
Location: Mid-Coast

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:58 pm

midcoastman wrote:
hawksfan wrote:On the other hand, I define "co-opt the internet" as the prior administration coming up with a puffily soft & good named "net neutrality" scheme to ensure the federal government's sticky, oily tentacles dig into the internet in order to pick winners & losers & regulate those it doesn't favor right out of business.
Literally the opposite is true.


Sorry mcoast...you'll have to expound on your answer as it appears as though you're misinformed.

The oh-so benignly named "net neutrality" idea is a government "solution" to a problem that literally, (not figuratively, miss ya Joe...!), does not exist. The internet has been a roaring success WITHOUT government participation & Uncle Stoopid wants in on the fun...any spin that its purpose is some sort of equalizer is really just the wedge the FCC wants to use to make the federal takeover go more smoothly...

Regardless...net neutrality is thankfully going the way of the doe-doe bird...next time the FCC wants try an internet takeover it'll have to do better than redesignating the internet from Type I under 1996 Telecommunications Act to Type II under the 1934 Telecommunications Act... (1934 act covered LAND LINES)...little fishy don't ya think? Going backwards 80+ years to justify changing a congressionally authorized designation to justify an SPD inspired internet takeover...
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby Pirates79 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pm

Squawk, you right. Quite the coupe for the Koch boys and their far right agenda. According to Meredith, despite their $650 million investment, the Kochs will not have a seat on the board but you can bet the Koch cartel didn't invest that amount of money to continue business as usual. At least our petulant little moron in the White House can be Man of the Year when ever he so chooses. No more of this "fake news" Person of the Year.
The dumbing down of the American public will continue under the guidance of the Kochs, the Mercers and our esteemed Secretary of Education, Nancy Devos.

PS. My bookie in Biddeford has The Reverend Roy Moore winning Alabama by a margin of 8.5%. Thank you baby Jesus!
Pirates79
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby midcoastman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:46 pm

hawksfan wrote:Sorry mcoast...you'll have to expound on your answer as it appears as though you're misinformed.

The oh-so benignly named "net neutrality" idea is a government "solution" to a problem that literally, (not figuratively, miss ya Joe...!), does not exist. The internet has been a roaring success WITHOUT government participation & Uncle Stoopid wants in on the fun...any spin that its purpose is some sort of equalizer is really just the wedge the FCC wants to use to make the federal takeover go more smoothly...

Regardless...net neutrality is thankfully going the way of the doe-doe bird...next time the FCC wants try an internet takeover it'll have to do better than redesignating the internet from Type I under 1996 Telecommunications Act to Type II under the 1934 Telecommunications Act... (1934 act covered LAND LINES)...little fishy don't ya think? Going backwards 80+ years to justify changing a congressionally authorized designation to justify an SPD inspired internet takeover...

Honestly, this is a joke. You sir, are misinformed.
User avatar
midcoastman
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:05 am
Location: Mid-Coast

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby Mike Tomlin » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:51 pm

If you define "co-opt the internet" as the administration putting the kaibash on "net neutrality" nonsense, then ok, guilty....of co-opting the internet by ensuring it remains free & market driven.


They're trying to turn it into cable television. Hardly a good example of "free & market driven". If you think that any of the players on the left or the right have our best interests in mind then you haven't been paying attention. The only difference between the Kochs and Bezos is branding.
Mike Tomlin
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:53 pm

midcoastman wrote:
hawksfan wrote:Sorry mcoast...you'll have to expound on your answer as it appears as though you're misinformed.

The oh-so benignly named "net neutrality" idea is a government "solution" to a problem that literally, (not figuratively, miss ya Joe...!), does not exist. The internet has been a roaring success WITHOUT government participation & Uncle Stoopid wants in on the fun...any spin that its purpose is some sort of equalizer is really just the wedge the FCC wants to use to make the federal takeover go more smoothly...

Regardless...net neutrality is thankfully going the way of the doe-doe bird...next time the FCC wants try an internet takeover it'll have to do better than redesignating the internet from Type I under 1996 Telecommunications Act to Type II under the 1934 Telecommunications Act... (1934 act covered LAND LINES)...little fishy don't ya think? Going backwards 80+ years to justify changing a congressionally authorized designation to justify an SPD inspired internet takeover...

Honestly, this is a joke. You sir, are misinformed.


I'm asking for the conversation MCoast...I gave you the '34 & '96 Telecommunications Act(s)...& what the FCC did to shoehorn their attempted internet takeover into a slipper of acceptability as my reasoning for believing that you are misinformed...what is your reasoning behind your belief that it is me who is misinformed on this issue?
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:08 pm

Mike Tomlin wrote:
If you define "co-opt the internet" as the administration putting the kaibash on "net neutrality" nonsense, then ok, guilty....of co-opting the internet by ensuring it remains free & market driven.


They're trying to turn it into cable television. Hardly a good example of "free & market driven". If you think that any of the players on the left or the right have our best interests in mind then you haven't been paying attention. The only difference between the Kochs and Bezos is branding.


You're conflating two things Mikey....on net neutrality, the end result of the administration taking the correct, just & constitutional course of action is...."net neutrality" goes away & the roaring success of the internet continues on unimpeded by Uncle Stoopid....

On the fun I'm having with the Kochs acquiring Time, Inc....you pretty much confirm my point for me....branding & the hard, hard left being butt hurt when a center-right outfit decides to play by the same rules....see Sid's diatribe above as exhibit #1....Kochs laughably "far right"(they're libertarians for chrissakes!) are a threat to America...but Sid is totally chilly with Boy Bezos & his using WaPo as his hard left mouthpiece...
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby midcoastman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:30 pm

hawksfan wrote:
midcoastman wrote:
hawksfan wrote:Sorry mcoast...you'll have to expound on your answer as it appears as though you're misinformed.

The oh-so benignly named "net neutrality" idea is a government "solution" to a problem that literally, (not figuratively, miss ya Joe...!), does not exist. The internet has been a roaring success WITHOUT government participation & Uncle Stoopid wants in on the fun...any spin that its purpose is some sort of equalizer is really just the wedge the FCC wants to use to make the federal takeover go more smoothly...

Regardless...net neutrality is thankfully going the way of the doe-doe bird...next time the FCC wants try an internet takeover it'll have to do better than redesignating the internet from Type I under 1996 Telecommunications Act to Type II under the 1934 Telecommunications Act... (1934 act covered LAND LINES)...little fishy don't ya think? Going backwards 80+ years to justify changing a congressionally authorized designation to justify an SPD inspired internet takeover...

Honestly, this is a joke. You sir, are misinformed.


I'm asking for the conversation MCoast...I gave you the '34 & '96 Telecommunications Act(s)...& what the FCC did to shoehorn their attempted internet takeover into a slipper of acceptability as my reasoning for believing that you are misinformed...what is your reasoning behind your belief that it is me who is misinformed on this issue?

It's not a takeover of the internet. It's the exact opposite. You have a hate of government. Great. The government is of the people. Regulating the internet like electricity instead of cable television protects the consumer. You know, the 300 million of us. But honestly, you're right. The market will correct itself. This will be the final pathetic stand of the cable companies. Find your local fiber optic carrier. They'll be giving you free and open internet.
User avatar
midcoastman
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:05 am
Location: Mid-Coast

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests