|
pathetic little tramp posted:Good God the comments. Americans are absolutely incapable of taking a joke. I think they get that it's a joke, their problem is it's a super-sexist joke.
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Yep they're definitely tearing themselves apart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
"I DONT CARE RIGHT NOW"
|
My least favorite thing is definitely senators saying they stand up to Washington.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Lol the Trumpenproles are already taking over the GOP, and I don't think they're too concerned with it burning down or not. What policies of Canova's is it even possible to disagree with, other than "Israel can do no wrong."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:what policies of his do you agree with Assault weapons ban, protect the environment, protect/expand social security, anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ, affordable college, no SOPA, dignity for tribal nations, no TPP, nationwide legalization of medical marijuana, pathway to citizenship, no fracking, campaign finance reform, etc. Although I did just find out he wants mandatory GMO labeling, which is annoying. It seems like US pols with the best policies always get duped on that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:wow, how bold of canova to not support a bill that's been dead for years (SOPA, last relevant in 2012) I'm not sure what you're getting at but he was against it when it was proposed, and it's emblematic of how he's for net neutrality in general.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:and what of those are stances DWS doesn't have? Other than the TPP, you'd have to look up DWS' policies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So's DWS. So are most people. He's never actually been in an elected position, so it's not like he voted against it or anything. Lol no she isn't, she literally co-sponsored SOPA. One of the reasons Canova was correct to call her a corporate stooge. Everybody come look at Fishmech being technically wrong about something! fishmech posted:The only things he supports that are good/neutral and DWS doesn't support, on your list, are weed and no fracking (though last I checked she still wants less fracking/more regulations). And TPP. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But she's against it now, and has been since after it died. Oh, well I'm sure if she changed her position after it made no difference she's a staunch supporter of net neutrality. fishmech posted:Sorry about you melting down over your terrible candidate though? Generally if a poster phrases something as "sorry your x" they're the one melting down.  fishmech posted:And no, Canova was never correct to call her a "corporate stooge", because that's a term used by morons. It's never gonna stop being weird to me that you're supposedly a socialist but all your rhetoric and positions end up aligning with New Democrats. Is it really just out of spite that Bernie misused the term socialist?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:yes, it makes no difference, especially since political failure "tim canova" never had a chance to affect policy. People say you have no sense of humor but I have to admit the scare quotes around Tim Canova genuinely made me laugh. fishmech posted:especially since "net neutrality" is the very definition of a "corporate stooge" position because it's very much to the profit of tons of major corporations - which is the reason sopa was defeated, not because of internet nerds being angry at it Corporations spend three times more money lobbying against net neutrality than lobbying for it. fishmech posted:i'm sorry that you have problems understanding things like "words" and "ideas", but then you did support a terrible candidate in a district you never visited based on misunderstandings in the first place. I don't think I misunderstood anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:no they don't, as the regular media companies lobby for it a ton (because it means they have to pay less to continue to receive their primary revenue stream). they just don't specifically mark it down as lobbying for net neutrality so much as lobbying for media, in the same sort of place you'd mark down lobbying for increased copyright enforcement and so on If this speculation turned out to be true it still probably wouldn't be enough to significantly change the ratio. fishmech posted:yes we've already established you have trouble understanding things Well again, I don't think I misunderstood anything, and you haven't presented anything that shows I did. I'm also not sure you're the best judge of the art of understandery after you had those problems with the term "social democrat" and the TPP leaks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:it's not speculation, and it already is true. Source? fishmech posted:yes you misunderstand things so badly that you don't notice that you misunderstand things, we've covered this. the tpp is good, op, and your objections to it are ludicrous and unsubstantiated. Are you sure you aren't thinking of... yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:media companies have spent billions upon billions on lobbying for decades. Sure, but that's not what's in question. It's how often they fold net neutrality lobbying into other categories, and whether in total it significantly changes the proportion of lobbying for net neutrality. Unless you've got some kind of source for that, then I was right to characterize it as speculation. fishmech posted:it's definitely you, m8 Turn your monitor on. Jewel Repetition has issued a correction as of 19:18 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:all the time dude. net neutrality is a major factor in high profits for any company that delivers media online. cbs doesn't want to have to pay extra etc. meanwhile being against net neutrality doesn't generally tie into anything else directly, so it comes out more directly. and no you're not right. Again, that media delivery companies lobby for net neutrality isn't in question, what needs evidence is your extraordinary claim that the lobbying is both unreported and gigantic. There's just no reason to believe that's happening, especially since we have examples of companies that do report it like DISH network. As a bonus, your hypothetical example of CBS is impossible: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000022475
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:it's not unreported, it simply gets reported in general media lobbying. learn to read. I mean unreported as net neutrality-related. Jeez. The point is that you have no evidence this is happening. fishmech posted:and cbs television is owned by cbs corporation, which used to be called Viacom. and viacom spent tons on lobbying across its various subsidiaries Viacom is anti-net neutrality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:you have no evidence that isn't, while we know that tons of politicians had the squeeze put on them by media influence, enough to counterbalance the supposed overwhelming lobbying against net neutrality My evidence is that there are content deliverers who have lobbied openly/specifically for net neutrality instead of folding it up. By the way, I know you have trouble with definitions sometimes, so for your convenience the definition of speculation is literally the forming of a theory without firm evidence. fishmech posted:at times yes, at other times no. similarly to how verizon, for example, is sometimes in favor of net neutrality (namely when it they can use it as a club against competitors) and sometimes against it (when they think they might be able to make more money). Viacom is primarily movies and cable which makes it more likely to be anti (which on balance it is). See the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which which is in the top 5 anti-net neutrality lobbyists and of which Viacom is a member.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:yeah and meanwhile, pro net neutrality stuff is usually wrapped up in other things, ya goofball. it's not speculation, it's fact If you don't have any evidence, it's speculation. fishmech posted:you literally have no idea what you're talking about, lol. both in that you apparently don't know what net neutrality is, and that you think media companies are generally against it. Honestly you're the one who doesn't seem to know what net neutrality is based on your arguments. And I didn't say "media companies" are generally against it. Just cable companies. Which they are, and I showed. Kalman posted:Except NCTA is pro net neutrality and has been for years. They're anti-Title II, but that's because there's more to Title II than neutrality and their members don't really want to deal with the rest of title II (or have to worry about forbearance being lifted.) They're not pro net neutrality, they're pro "net neutrality," where they try to redefine the term as "neutral from government interference," i.e. they don't want the FCC to enforce net neutrality. It's the same strategy used by a lot of net neutrality detractors, and it's kind of like when North Korea calls itself a "People's Democratic Republic" or when someone says Democrats are the real racists. Here's a somewhat sickening example of how they do it: http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/09/hipster-net-neutrality-groups-mysterious-backer-gets-outed-its-the-cable-companies/ In terms of what they actually do and not just what they say they do, they lobbied FCC not to enact net neutrality in 2010, then lobbied for SOPA in 2011, then lobbied against reclassification of internet as utility in 2014, then supported legislation in 2015 that would limit the ability of cities to offer public broadband. Even though they supposedly have that principle that the US Gov shouldn't interfere with internet service. Weird huh?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Right, which is why your claim is speculation. It's why your claim is speculation. fishmech posted:no, dude, you don't know what net neutrality is. viacom is not a cable company, and hasn't been since the 90s. so you didn't show anything besides you're really really mad at your own ignorance. Net neutrality means ISPs treat all internet data the same. Viacom owns 26 major cable channels. I showed that cable companies are generally against it because the lobbyist that represents 90% of them is against it. Kalman posted:Banning muni broadband isn't about net neutrality. (It's a separate area of bad policy.). SOPA also isn't net neutrality, except to ideologues - everyone else recognizes that neutrality doesn't include copyright infringement. (SOPA did it badly, but the goal it targeted wasn't bad, nor was it anti-neutrality.). As to your link - my god, they set up suggestion boxes to get people's views on the Internet and tried to convince people Title II regulation was a bad idea. The argument against SOPA wasn't that it was in itself anti-net-neutrality specifically, but all the bad stuff it did would also make the internet less free, which is the underlying issue in net neutrality. And the reason that article I linked was disturbing is that the NCTA created a front organization that falsely claimed to be for net neutrality when it was promoting the opposite. Maybe you're inured to that kind of stuff because of your time in congress but trust me, to a bystander it doesn't look good. Kalman posted:They've been pretty explicit that net neutrality regulation is unnecessary (which is arguable but not without merit as a position) and have supported enforcement via existing mechanisms (primarily antitrust and fair competition approaches.) When the FCC put out their 701 order in 2010, NCTA was cautiously in favor of it as a compromise approach - they didn't think it was needed but more or less felt it was an acceptable outcome. It's only title II that they've fought against tooth and nail (which is unsurprising, given that title II hits their members directly and in a way that has no benefit to them, only hassles.) So they preferred something that more weakly enforced net neutrality, but their favorite of all was no enforcement? Weird how that lines up perfectly with being anti-net-neutrality, kind of like Trump "isn't racist but is #1 with racists." What exactly would Title II do to cable networks, as opposed to ISPs, that isn't good?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Our outlook is a Dem gain of 5d4 seats
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Wtf happened here, is it really just the electoral effect? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/28/senate-obama-veto-september-11-bill-saudi-arabia
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:nope. Yes, if you're offering something you thought of that has no evidence it's speculation. That's the definition.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Winter Stormer posted:Wow, already pulled due to a copyright claim. Mirror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXSjjygdhdg
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
fishmech posted:nope. net neutrality just means you don't slow down some things on purpose. it's nothing about preventing others from being sped up, say, by the provider buying their own better links to you or paying for in-network cdn. I forgot to correct you on this, but net neutrality does preclude fast lanes. Both by the definition and the FCC's net neutrality rules ( https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet ). Jewel Repetition has issued a correction as of 17:38 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 17:33
|
|