Carpenter v. United States

Please keep it clean with no profanity or personal attacks

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:26 pm

midcoastman wrote:
hawksfan wrote:Considering that the breadth, the scope, of internet usage every minute of every day in America alone is practically unfathomable....in my view the list of grievances you provided is likely statistically unmeasurable & therefore proves my larger point...the government knocks on tne door, announces they're here to help & proposes that THEY institute massive regulation to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm with Ronaldus Maximus...."The nine scariest words in the English language...'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'....."......or more simply...."Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem...."...

Later edit...

https://amgreatness.com/2017/11/27/agai ... eutrality/


Thanks for posting this article. It proves my point further. Here is a nice quote from the article that complains about exactly what I am trying to defend, so at least I know that you you Hawks are a kool-aid drinking, card-carrying, ultra-polarized follower of anything the Heritage Foundation or some other conservative group might throw at us:

Net neutrality is particularity aimed at preventing any kind of discrimination among content, including “throttling” or price discrimination against data-hogs like Netflix. It would not allow, for example, a higher price to be charged for streaming movies versus a more modest use of data to check an email account. More important, it would not allow an ISP to privilege its own data streams; for example, if Amazon teamed with an ISP, they would not be allowed to do so in a bundled way that charged less for access by preferring Amazon’s own streaming movie and TV services.


So yes, the end of Net Neutrality would allow the cable companies and other major ISP to f*** us up the a**. I'm glad you want the private sector to sort this out. If you hate American internet so much, maybe you should move to Portugal. You can get your swanky new internet bundle there. What a joke this is.


Is this civil discourse...? Whats with the venom?

I don't hate the American internet MCoast. What I hate is government meddling around in....pretty much any business. If you think that government regulation is a positive force....you are sadly mistaken and in possession of zero evidence to back up such fantastical thinking.
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby Pirates79 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:50 am

I see no venom in the man's post. Squawk, you can dish it but you can't take it. What a snowflake you are. :cry:
Pirates79
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:22 am

Pirates79 wrote:I see no venom in the man's post. Squawk, you can dish it but you can't take it. What a snowflake you are. :cry:


If by dish it out you mean I can defend my position (s) without resorting to name calling or personal insults, then I take your comment as a compliment.

You couldn't make it to a third sentence without an insult Sid....seems as though you & MCoast should fine tune your arguments so you don't have to resort back to the playground on such a regular basis...
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby mainejeff » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:59 am

President Trump has set the bar for civil discourse in this country. Deal with it hawksfan.
User avatar
mainejeff
 
Posts: 18082
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:20 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby midcoastman » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:15 am

hawksfan wrote:Is this civil discourse...? Whats with the venom?

I don't hate the American internet MCoast. What I hate is government meddling around in....pretty much any business. If you think that government regulation is a positive force....you are sadly mistaken and in possession of zero evidence to back up such fantastical thinking.

You abandoned the civil discourse theory long ago. You ignore the concept of discourse and resort to debate, so I give no sh*ts about playing nice in the sandbox with you.

Here's your evidence.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/trusts/roosevel
User avatar
midcoastman
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:05 am
Location: Mid-Coast

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:57 pm

midcoastman wrote:
hawksfan wrote:Is this civil discourse...? Whats with the venom?

I don't hate the American internet MCoast. What I hate is government meddling around in....pretty much any business. If you think that government regulation is a positive force....you are sadly mistaken and in possession of zero evidence to back up such fantastical thinking.

You abandoned the civil discourse theory long ago. You ignore the concept of discourse and resort to debate, so I give no sh*ts about playing nice in the sandbox with you.

Here's your evidence.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/trusts/roosevel


"Ignore the concept of discourse and resort to debate..."....

Um, right....well I really don't know what to do with that...it sounds as though you define "civil discourse" as taking a position with which you agree & "debate" as taking a position with which you disagree....additionally your definition apparently empowers you to abandon the very idea of civil discourse that you yourself called for...

That's pretty lame MCoast....your call for civil discourse all that time ago appears to have been less than sincere...
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby Mike Tomlin » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:00 pm

Perhaps we'd all be better served to hold ourselves to a higher level of discourse than what we're seeing from Trump. Hawk, you're responding to specifics with generalities. It's all well and good to make the blanket statement that all government regulation is bad. But claiming that the government hasn't helped society through regulation is pure ignorance.

Government regulation is often a real pain. But you're driving a car that's safer because of government regulation on roads that were made safer by government regulation. Your employer's ability to completely hose you has been reduced by government regulation. Your retirement savings are safer to a degree because of government regulation.

The level of that regulation is a pendulum and not a yes or no choice. Obama took things too far, and Hillary was dirty as hell. Unfortunately the GOP elected a moron who has all of the Clinton's corruption and none of Obama's intelligence. Me and MJ have been pretty clear since this all started in stating that Trump represents none of your values, and that you should embrace anything that brings us closer to a President Pence.

Pence is wrong about many things, but at least he actually believes in them. And if he was in the Oval Office we could at least have policy debates instead of distractions created by pro-Nazi/KKK propaganda tweets.
Mike Tomlin
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:30 pm

Mike Tomlin wrote:Perhaps we'd all be better served to hold ourselves to a higher level of discourse than what we're seeing from Trump. Hawk, you're responding to specifics with generalities. It's all well and good to make the blanket statement that all government regulation is bad. But claiming that the government hasn't helped society through regulation is pure ignorance.

Government regulation is often a real pain. But you're driving a car that's safer because of government regulation on roads that were made safer by government regulation. Your employer's ability to completely hose you has been reduced by government regulation. Your retirement savings are safer to a degree because of government regulation.

The level of that regulation is a pendulum and not a yes or no choice. Obama took things too far, and Hillary was dirty as hell. Unfortunately the GOP elected a moron who has all of the Clinton's corruption and none of Obama's intelligence. Me and MJ have been pretty clear since this all started in stating that Trump represents none of your values, and that you should embrace anything that brings us closer to a President Pence.

Pence is wrong about many things, but at least he actually believes in them. And if he was in the Oval Office we could at least have policy debates instead of distractions created by pro-Nazi/KKK propaganda tweets.


I understand your point Mikey re: regulation. However, the regulation(s) you cite are as old as the hills. We're matriculationg towards 2018 now....& in 2018 America "regulation" is a euphemism for growing ever larger Federal intrusion into our lives & empowering the ever metasticizing bureaucracy....thats it, thats the mission now. And, in my view, that eventuality should be resisted at every turn.

Moving on....boy Kate Steinle sure got a fair trial didn't she....? San Fran-cesspool-isco must feel so progressively good about themselves...

I could debate the reasonable doubt of 1st degree murder,

(see how "debate" works MCoast? A skilled debater can take an opposing view & win that argument too....but if myopic, intolerance of opposition to your view is workin' for ya....well then, roll with it...)

....but how on earth is the guy not at least convicted of involuntary manslaughter...? I hope the Steinle family sues that dump with a famous bridge for every cent they have, bankrupt them....& take that schmuck from the Bureau of Land Management who lost his gun down too. Kate Steinle....dead at the altar of sancuary cities & the illusion of federal bureaucrat competence, denied justice by fellow citizens...
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby Pirates79 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:14 pm

"Take that schmuck from the the Bureau of Land Management too".
Who's resorting to name calling? Squawk, you are a peice of work! You are as pure as the driven snow. A true bullshitting conservative.
Pirates79
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Carpenter v. United States

Postby hawksfan » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:57 am

Pirates79 wrote:"Take that schmuck from the the Bureau of Land Management too".
Who's resorting to name calling? Squawk, you are a peice of work! You are as pure as the driven snow. A true bullshitting conservative.


Well Sid I thought was fairly clear that I was referencing name calling among we fellow posters not the various public figures that drive the daily goings on that inspire commentary from us. Who cares about the schmuck from the B of L/M? That TSA reject lost his weapon & Kate Steinle is dead!
hawksfan
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests