Please stay in Panama. Nobody is advocating 'pay by the bit'. I didn't even mention ATT or Verizon. T-Mobiles data lasts for 12 months. They are trending this way.
I'm running unlimited, unthrottled LTE for $100/mo/2 phones on T-Mobile. Really great plans, and their coverage is about 4x better now than when I joined them 2.5 years ago.
It's getting quiet! ... Looks like the east coast astroturfers finally went to bed...
The funny thing is - there are actually no astroturfers in this thread. The opinions are unquestionably real and, almost certainly, unquestioning, parroted incarnations of the opinions of others. Hence the lack of actual arguments to defend the extraordinary assertions.
You are being extremely presumptive and offensive.
Offensive? It's your idiocy and complete lack of brains that is an offense to common sense.
I don't normally come to his defense but he posted a very clear explanation of his views in the form of an audio file which raised some interesting points.
The funny thing is - there are actually no astroturfers in this thread. The opinions are unquestionably real and, almost certainly, unquestioning, parroted incarnations of the opinions of others. Hence the lack of actual arguments to defend the extraordinary assertions.
I'd tend to agree. There might be one or two but most don't seem to be. Their lack of actual arguments can be frustrating, to say the least. I had to give myself a timeout.
We have a capitalist economic system. The best economic engine there is! However, It needs to be constrained or we have a situation like we have now since Citizen United. The little people don't matter and corporations are people too. How long until the corporations have a vote and we don't?
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
At the risk of repeating myself, you also fail to understand the difference between free market capitalism and crony capitalism (also similar to corporatism):
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
At the risk of repeating myself, you also fail to understand the difference between free market capitalism and crony capitalism (also similar to corporatism):
So which is it that we have - Marxism, Socialism and Communism, as you posted above, or corporatism? And are you capable of explaining any of these "arguments" yourself, or just limited to posting links?
At the risk of repeating myself, you also fail to understand the difference between free market capitalism and crony capitalism (also similar to corporatism):
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
No he is right. I am pretty sure he was not referring to communism, etc in the US, just that other attempts at social engineering in the Marxist theme have not been very successful worldwide and that would be correct.
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
No he is right. I am pretty sure he was not referring to communism, etc in the US, just that other attempts at social engineering in the Marxist theme have not been very successful worldwide and that would be correct.
Since we haven't got Capitalism, is like to see evidence of that. However, we have many years of Marxism, Socialism and Communism which we can see have been abject failures.
Then his statement was a total non sequitur. If he doesn't believe that we have had Marxism, Socialism and Communism then it has no relevance to the debate. Why are you defending this nonsense?
You're really giving the hilarious TV series "Mr. Show" a bad name...
We are in the mess we are in today thanks to Democrats and Republicans, not Libertarians.
It is because of corporatism (aka crony capitalism) established and nurtured by Democrats and Republicans who serve themselves and their party instead of minimizing the corrupting influence of a large Federal government that decisions such as this one from the FCC can be dressed up and falsely called "Net neutrality" and be gobbled up by naive members of the public, when it is instead a stealth move as cover for the largest connected corporate donors to undermine and eliminate their competition. It's unbelievable how people have been sold this pile of garbage.
Then his statement was a total non sequitur. If he doesn't believe that we have had Marxism, Socialism and Communism then it has no relevance to the debate. Why are you defending this nonsense?
I'm more in agreement with you than him but I don't like demonizing people who simply have different views especially when they are presented with some supporting opinions, I felt that posters opposed to his views were distorting the comments he made so I wanted to clarify that although I disagree with his general philosophy I do not approve of of people twisting his words into something that was not originally communicated in sincerity on his part.
You're really giving the hilarious TV series "Mr. Show" a bad name...
We are in the mess we are in today thanks to Democrats and Republicans, not Libertarians.
It is because of corporatism (aka crony capitalism) established and nurtured by Democrats and Republicans who serve themselves and their party instead of minimizing the corrupting influence of a large Federal government that decisions such as this one from the FCC can be dressed up and falsely called "Net neutrality" and be gobbled up by naive members of the public, when it is instead a stealth move as cover for the largest connected corporate donors to undermine and eliminate their competition. It's unbelievable how people have been sold this pile of garbage.
Did you watch the video? I'd like to know which parts you disagree with? (besides the language of course)
There are excellent arguments to be made that America's telephone infrastructure development was slowed with the establishment of the AT&T monopoly. Lacking competition, the push for constant innovation simply wasn't there and once established, the telephone system languished until the breakup of the Baby Bells.
Monopolies created by government protections and regulations are harmful to innovation, no matter how laudable the end goal.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/184959/fcc-votes-to-enforce-net-neutrality-by-regulating-isps-unleashes-municipal-broadband/240#post_2682374 layout=inline]Then his statement was a total non sequitur. If he doesn't believe that we have had Marxism, Socialism and Communism then it has no relevance to the debate. Why are you defending this nonsense?[/CONTENTEMBED]
I'm more in agreement with you than him but I don't like demonizing people who simply have different views especially when they are presented with some supporting opinions, I felt that posters opposed to his views were distorting the comments he made so I wanted to clarify that although I disagree with his general philosophy I do not approve of of people twisting his words into something that was not originally communicated in sincerity on his part.
That's an admirable and fair philosophy, but I cannot see that I distorted his meaning at all. The post in question was either idiotic or pointless. Take your pick.
Comments
Verizon is having a childish tantrum. It just issued its statement condemning the FCC's decision - in Morse Code.
Even Alexander Graham Bell would be offended.
Please stay in Panama. Nobody is advocating 'pay by the bit'. I didn't even mention ATT or Verizon. T-Mobiles data lasts for 12 months. They are trending this way.
I'm running unlimited, unthrottled LTE for $100/mo/2 phones on T-Mobile. Really great plans, and their coverage is about 4x better now than when I joined them 2.5 years ago.
It's getting quiet! ... Looks like the east coast astroturfers finally went to bed...
It's getting quiet! ... Looks like the east coast astroturfers finally went to bed...
The funny thing is - there are actually no astroturfers in this thread. The opinions are unquestionably real and, almost certainly, unquestioning, parroted incarnations of the opinions of others. Hence the lack of actual arguments to defend the extraordinary assertions.
You are being extremely presumptive and offensive.
Offensive? It's your idiocy and complete lack of brains that is an offense to common sense.
You are being extremely presumptive and offensive.
Offensive? It's your idiocy and complete lack of brains that is an offense to common sense.
I don't normally come to his defense but he posted a very clear explanation of his views in the form of an audio file which raised some interesting points.
The funny thing is - there are actually no astroturfers in this thread. The opinions are unquestionably real and, almost certainly, unquestioning, parroted incarnations of the opinions of others. Hence the lack of actual arguments to defend the extraordinary assertions.
I'd tend to agree. There might be one or two but most don't seem to be. Their lack of actual arguments can be frustrating, to say the least. I had to give myself a timeout.
What you are referring to is crony capitalism. I have the perfect bit of reading for your enjoyment: http://tomwoods.com/blog/do-libertarians-support-crony-capitalism/
At the risk of repeating myself, you also fail to understand the difference between free market capitalism and crony capitalism (also similar to corporatism):
http://tomwoods.com/blog/do-libertarians-support-crony-capitalism/
And in this article Ron Paul outlines why he calls Obama a corporatist, not a socialist:
http://m.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-Reckoning/2010/0429/Ron-Paul-Obama-s-not-Socialist-he-s-Corporatist
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
At the risk of repeating myself, you also fail to understand the difference between free market capitalism and crony capitalism (also similar to corporatism):
http://tomwoods.com/blog/do-libertarians-support-crony-capitalism/
And in this article Ron Paul outlines why he calls Obama a corporatist, not a socialist:
http://m.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-Reckoning/2010/0429/Ron-Paul-Obama-s-not-Socialist-he-s-Corporatist
So which is it that we have - Marxism, Socialism and Communism, as you posted above, or corporatism? And are you capable of explaining any of these "arguments" yourself, or just limited to posting links?
At the risk of repeating myself, you also fail to understand the difference between free market capitalism and crony capitalism (also similar to corporatism):
http://tomwoods.com/blog/do-libertarians-support-crony-capitalism/
And in this article Ron Paul outlines why he calls Obama a corporatist, not a socialist:
http://m.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-Reckoning/2010/0429/Ron-Paul-Obama-s-not-Socialist-he-s-Corporatist
"Why Libertarians Are Idiots."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbuDPO2LSX4
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
No he is right. I am pretty sure he was not referring to communism, etc in the US, just that other attempts at social engineering in the Marxist theme have not been very successful worldwide and that would be correct.
In a thread inundated with silliness, this handily wins the award for most ridiculous assertion of the day. The "many years of" - not the "abject failures".
No he is right. I am pretty sure he was not referring to communism, etc in the US, just that other attempts at social engineering in the Marxist theme have not been very successful worldwide and that would be correct.
Since we haven't got Capitalism, is like to see evidence of that. However, we have many years of Marxism, Socialism and Communism which we can see have been abject failures.
Then his statement was a total non sequitur. If he doesn't believe that we have had Marxism, Socialism and Communism then it has no relevance to the debate. Why are you defending this nonsense?
And without the Government, Bell's toy never becomes a reality.
You're really giving the hilarious TV series "Mr. Show" a bad name...
We are in the mess we are in today thanks to Democrats and Republicans, not Libertarians.
It is because of corporatism (aka crony capitalism) established and nurtured by Democrats and Republicans who serve themselves and their party instead of minimizing the corrupting influence of a large Federal government that decisions such as this one from the FCC can be dressed up and falsely called "Net neutrality" and be gobbled up by naive members of the public, when it is instead a stealth move as cover for the largest connected corporate donors to undermine and eliminate their competition. It's unbelievable how people have been sold this pile of garbage.
I'm more in agreement with you than him but I don't like demonizing people who simply have different views especially when they are presented with some supporting opinions, I felt that posters opposed to his views were distorting the comments he made so I wanted to clarify that although I disagree with his general philosophy I do not approve of of people twisting his words into something that was not originally communicated in sincerity on his part.
You're really giving the hilarious TV series "Mr. Show" a bad name...
We are in the mess we are in today thanks to Democrats and Republicans, not Libertarians.
It is because of corporatism (aka crony capitalism) established and nurtured by Democrats and Republicans who serve themselves and their party instead of minimizing the corrupting influence of a large Federal government that decisions such as this one from the FCC can be dressed up and falsely called "Net neutrality" and be gobbled up by naive members of the public, when it is instead a stealth move as cover for the largest connected corporate donors to undermine and eliminate their competition. It's unbelievable how people have been sold this pile of garbage.
Did you watch the video? I'd like to know which parts you disagree with? (besides the language of course)
That is inaccurate. Without the Federal government there would not have been an AT&T monopoly. Telephones were already an established invention.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci
There are excellent arguments to be made that America's telephone infrastructure development was slowed with the establishment of the AT&T monopoly. Lacking competition, the push for constant innovation simply wasn't there and once established, the telephone system languished until the breakup of the Baby Bells.
Monopolies created by government protections and regulations are harmful to innovation, no matter how laudable the end goal.
That is inaccurate. Without the Federal government there would not have been an AT&T monopoly.
Can you name one successful government in the history of man that followed libertarian ideals?
The only two that I can think of are Haiti and Somalia, obviously not successful.
That's an admirable and fair philosophy, but I cannot see that I distorted his meaning at all. The post in question was either idiotic or pointless. Take your pick.