Obama weighs in on Net Neutrality . . . is automatically wrong

[dismal]

I'm suggesting absolute czars have absolute authority over things they are czar of.

No, you are suggesting that the utility-ness of a thing is not a function of whether it's infrastructure requires municipal approval to install, and whether a municipitu can support or approve multiple such infrastructures.

The regulation applied to a thing, to be just, must reflect some underlying principal which serves the public welfare, and if the public welfare would be served by a regulation, it is unjust to not implement it.

To that end Obama is not making a declaration, he's merely making an observation of a transcendent fact: broadband networks are utilities and ought be regulated as such.

My comment is entirely about law and the separation of powers we have in our constitution.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you are suggesting that the utility-ness of a thing is not a function of whether it's infrastructure requires municipal approval to install, and whether a municipitu can support or approve multiple such infrastructures.

The regulation applied to a thing, to be just, must reflect some underlying principal which serves the public welfare, and if the public welfare would be served by a regulation, it is unjust to not implement it.

To that end Obama is not making a declaration, he's merely making an observation of a transcendent fact: broadband networks are utilities and ought be regulated as such.

My comment is entirely about law and the separation of powers we have in our constitution.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

He didn't deem it a utility. It already is one. You're the one arguing that it isn't, and I'd like to know what your function of IsUtility() looks like. And yes, it is a function upon the qualities of a service infrastructure.

When you can demonstrate a rightful definition of 'utility' and a reason that broadband does not embody that functional definition, then you MIGHT have an argument. Until then, all I see is an influential man making a plain statement of fact, based on the traits of a utility, and the observation that broadband meets those traits.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Don't you understand son, Obama is not to have an opinion on anything. And if he does, he is automatically wrong and a tyrant crushing our freedom!

 

[dismal]

My comment is entirely about law and the separation of powers we have in our constitution.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

He didn't deem it a utility. It already is one. You're the one arguing that it isn't, and I'd like to know what your function of IsUtility() looks like. And yes, it is a function upon the qualities of a service infrastructure.

When you can demonstrate a rightful definition of 'utility' and a reason that broadband does not embody that functional definition, then you MIGHT have an argument. Until then, all I see is an influential man making a plain statement of fact, based on the traits of a utility, and the observation that broadband meets those traits.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you understand son, Obama is not to have an opinion on anything. And if he does, he is automatically wrong and a tyrant crushing our freedom!

He can have all the opinions he wants. This is a legal discussion.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Don't you understand son, Obama is not to have an opinion on anything. And if he does, he is automatically wrong and a tyrant crushing our freedom!

He can have all the opinions he wants. This is a legal discussion.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

Who is claiming he does?

 

[Jarhyn]

He didn't deem it a utility. It already is one. You're the one arguing that it isn't, and I'd like to know what your function of IsUtility() looks like. And yes, it is a function upon the qualities of a service infrastructure.

When you can demonstrate a rightful definition of 'utility' and a reason that broadband does not embody that functional definition, then you MIGHT have an argument. Until then, all I see is an influential man making a plain statement of fact, based on the traits of a utility, and the observation that broadband meets those traits.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you understand son, Obama is not to have an opinion on anything. And if he does, he is automatically wrong and a tyrant crushing our freedom!

He can have all the opinions he wants. This is a legal discussion.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

Your post makes no sense from the perspective of my post: his authority is a make believe thing, as is the law. It's a silly little thing that means less to what is right than the gum stuck to my shoe. At least the gum on my shoe is more than mere scribbles and sounds in space.

Obama said a thing. The thing is reflected well by reality. It is that last part that matters, and it would be true whether or not Obama said it. It is not that broadband should/shouldn't be a utility, it already is one, according to an extrapolation of my theory of government and ethics, which go all the way down to first principles. I'm not asking you for approval of this, you can no more change that than you can change the value of 2-1.

What I am asking you is 'what mental calculus does dismal ise to define a utility', and then if he says 'the words of men in code on paper' then I laugh at him and mock him for using something so base and crass as mere rhetoric.

 

[arkirk]

He can have all the opinions he wants. This is a legal discussion.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

Who is claiming he does?

Dismal: Can you tell me how or why a regulated neutral internet would hurt Americans? You are just throwing darts at the black man in office. The very fact that we are communicating with each other tells me that this internet should be deemed under the regulatory powers of the FCC. Obama is just telling his man Wheeler...the natives are getting restless and he better fix it. Obama has already demonstrated he is not for real and nowhere near progressive. It is my guess is the FCC will put their heads together and come up with something that looks good enough for public acceptance. They'll make it complicated enough that none of us can figure it out and it will deliver EXACTLY WHAT THE BIG BOYS WANT. It undoubtedly will be dubbed "Obamanet" by his political enemies.

 

[dismal]

He can have all the opinions he wants. This is a legal discussion.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

Who is claiming he does?

I have trouble explaining why so many people are responding to my post as they have done if they are agreeing with it.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you understand son, Obama is not to have an opinion on anything. And if he does, he is automatically wrong and a tyrant crushing our freedom!

He can have all the opinions he wants. This is a legal discussion.

If you can point me to exactly where Obama has the constitutional or statutory power to deem things (or at least this thing) to be "utilities" you will win the day. All other rhetoric is wasting time.

Your post makes no sense from the perspective of my post

My post was about the law. If your post has nothing to do with that the problem is your post has nothing to do with my post. I figured since you quoted my post your intent was to make a comment about it. Though as a reminder I did point out that I considered most of your post irrelevant to my point.

 

[dismal]

Who is claiming he does?

Dismal: Can you tell me how or why a regulated neutral internet would hurt Americans? You are just throwing darts at the black man in office. The very fact that we are communicating with each other tells me that this internet should be deemed under the regulatory powers of the FCC. Obama is just telling his man Wheeler...the natives are getting restless and he better fix it. Obama has already demonstrated he is not for real and nowhere near progressive. It is my guess is the FCC will put their heads together and come up with something that looks good enough for public acceptance. They'll make it complicated enough that none of us can figure it out and it will deliver EXACTLY WHAT THE BIG BOYS WANT. It undoubtedly will be dubbed "Obamanet" by his political enemies.

If you would like to address what I actually said in my actual posts I'll respond.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dismal: Can you tell me how or why a regulated neutral internet would hurt Americans? You are just throwing darts at the black man in office. The very fact that we are communicating with each other tells me that this internet should be deemed under the regulatory powers of the FCC. Obama is just telling his man Wheeler...the natives are getting restless and he better fix it. Obama has already demonstrated he is not for real and nowhere near progressive. It is my guess is the FCC will put their heads together and come up with something that looks good enough for public acceptance. They'll make it complicated enough that none of us can figure it out and it will deliver EXACTLY WHAT THE BIG BOYS WANT. It undoubtedly will be dubbed "Obamanet" by his political enemies.

If you would like to address what I actually said in my actual posts I'll respond.

Your posts do not address the OP, the issue at hand, or the arguments we make in favor of net neutrality. They are a clown show, not unlike romney's arrempted deflection from direct questions about his reasons for wanting to forbid a guy from sticking his wee wee in the poo poo place.

The matter comes down to a discussion of whether or not broadband is a utility, and whether utilities ought be neutral.

 

[bilby]

I understand that Obama mentioned to the NOAA administrator that the sun rose this morning.

This is clearly a massive overreach. The President has NO authority to tell NOAA what is or is not a morning. He is not authorised by the constitution to make such dictatorial rullings. He is not the 'Sunrise Czar'.

IMPEACH NOW!!!1!!!ONE!!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Who is claiming he does?

I have trouble explaining why so many people are responding to my post as they have done if they are agreeing with it.

I have trouble understanding why you claim people are claiming things they aren't.

 

[Jarhyn]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bilby again.

 

[dismal]

If you would like to address what I actually said in my actual posts I'll respond.

Your posts do not address the OP, the issue at hand, or the arguments we make in favor of net neutrality. They are a clown show, not unlike romney's arrempted deflection from direct questions about his reasons for wanting to forbid a guy from sticking his wee wee in the poo poo place.

The matter comes down to a discussion of whether or not broadband is a utility, and whether utilities ought be neutral.

Right my first post addressed a comment made by Higgins in post #34. I quoted it and everything. It questioned Higgins assertion that Obama has the power to declare things utilities and act on utilities without congress. It did nothing else. You can look it up. It's still there.

My subsequent posts have mostly been telling people their posts have nothing to do with what I said. I should add, yours continue not to.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Your posts do not address the OP, the issue at hand, or the arguments we make in favor of net neutrality. They are a clown show, not unlike romney's arrempted deflection from direct questions about his reasons for wanting to forbid a guy from sticking his wee wee in the poo poo place.

The matter comes down to a discussion of whether or not broadband is a utility, and whether utilities ought be neutral.

Right my first post addressed a comment made by Higgins in post #34. I quoted it and everything. It questioned Higgins assertion that Obama has the power to declare things utilities and act on utilities without congress. It did nothing else. You can look it up. It's still there.

My subsequent posts have mostly been telling people their posts have nothing to do with what I said. I should add, yours continue not to.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

 

[dismal]

Right my first post addressed a comment made by Higgins in post #34. I quoted it and everything. It questioned Higgins assertion that Obama has the power to declare things utilities and act on utilities without congress. It did nothing else. You can look it up. It's still there.

My subsequent posts have mostly been telling people their posts have nothing to do with what I said. I should add, yours continue not to.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

 

[Jarhyn]

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

What seems to be the problem here is that you think the "utilityness" of a thing is something people can decree. Let's be clear: a utility is a utility on virtue of what it is, not on virtue of what any person calls it. The idea that someone's statement of a thing being a utility makes it so are mere silliness. Nobody here is suggesting that Obama decree anything, nor that he has, nor that he will, with regards to broadband. We are saying that he made a statement. You seem to believe his statement false, and we are all asking you to show your work in resolving that broadband is not a utility.

 

[KeepTalking]

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

The exact quote is "Maybe, maybe not." it does not seem to be a statement of anything other than uncertainty.

 

[ksen]

Right my first post addressed a comment made by Higgins in post #34. I quoted it and everything. It questioned Higgins assertion that Obama has the power to declare things utilities and act on utilities without congress. It did nothing else. You can look it up. It's still there.

My subsequent posts have mostly been telling people their posts have nothing to do with what I said. I should add, yours continue not to.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

Yeah, it reads like jimmy is saying "maybe, maybe not" to the conjectured reason Obama felt he should say something.

 

[dismal]

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

What seems to be the problem here is that you think the "utilityness" of a thing is something people can decree. Let's be clear: a utility is a utility on virtue of what it is, not on virtue of what any person calls it. The idea that someone's statement of a thing being a utility makes it so are mere silliness. Nobody here is suggesting that Obama decree anything, nor that he has, nor that he will, with regards to broadband. We are saying that he made a statement. You seem to believe his statement false, and we are all asking you to show your work in resolving that broadband is not a utility.

Again, see post #34.

There was a discussion about Obama's legal authority to do anything about this. I made a comment about that and only about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

The exact quote is "Maybe, maybe not." it does not seem to be a statement of anything other than uncertainty.

So "conjecture" then?

I know this is very, very, very important.

- - - Updated - - -

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

Yeah, it reads like jimmy is saying "maybe, maybe not" to the conjectured reason Obama felt he should say something.

So, does "conjecture" work for you?