Obama on net neutrality

[palehorse]

http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9806707-2.html

...yet one more reason he should get the D nomination!

I'm telling you, this guy makes Hillary look like a chump. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but at this point in the race, I really would vote for him versus ANY other candidate in the race, on either side!

Every now and then, he reminds us how much he 'gets it'!

thoughts?

 

[alzan]

I do like his stance on this as well as other issues. Unfortunately, I think the average persons eyes glaze over when they read about Net Neutrality, so it might be a tough sell to your average Joe Q. Sixpack (or Joe Q. Congressperson.)

Making Hilary look like a chump isn't all that tough, I wish more of the D candidates would do so.

alzan

 

[techs]

Since none of the major Republican candidates (to my knowledge) have taken a public position either way, I am going to assume that since the Republican Party never met a business proposal they were against, that all the Republicans don't support net neutrality.

btw net neutrality sucks. It needs a catchier name, like "Free Internet"

 

[First]

Ditto palehorse. Ditto. What surprises me is that a lot of Republicans are against net neutrality. How is this a partisan issue whatsoever? Their argument for regulations "stifiling" new investment in IT communications is baseless; there is a limit to letting open market conditions solve things for themselves if that market competition leads to monopolies and absurd reasoning for degrading quality of service.

 

[bamacre]

What is Hillary's position on Net Neutrality?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: alzan
I do like his stance on this as well as other issues. Unfortunately, I think the average persons eyes glaze over when they read about Net Neutrality, so it might be a tough sell to your average Joe Q. Sixpack (or Joe Q. Congressperson.)

Making Hilary look like a chump isn't all that tough, I wish more of the D candidates would do so.

alzan

Net neutrality has problems because it's not being explained correctly to most people. The same basic concept applies to phone service, and as that's a lot simpler for most people to understand, I think THAT'S how it should be explained to the public. The average person might not understand IP networks very well, but I imagine they'd get pretty pissed if you explained that what various telcom companies want to do is the same as charging Best Buy a lot of money to block your calls to CompUSA or make them sound like a bus station PA system. It's a good analogy for what's going on, and one the most people would be able to understand.

 

[StageLeft]

I am starting to think the only reason Obama won't get the nomination is that he's too good, meaning he doesn't piss off enough people and make it partisan enough. I mean, I have no freaking clue why anybody would pick Clinton over him, it makes no f**king sense at all. I cannot think of any truly holy-crap-asinine thing he's said about what he'll do when he's president, unlike Clinton with her savings funds and government-matched 401k and god knows what else and edwards with his plan to introduce a 500% tax rate and make the country entirely communist within the first 90 days.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I am starting to think the only reason Obama won't get the nomination is that he's too good, meaning he doesn't piss off enough people and make it partisan enough. I mean, I have no freaking clue why anybody would pick Clinton over him, it makes no f**king sense at all. I cannot think of any truly holy-crap-asinine thing he's said about what he'll do when he's president, unlike Clinton with her savings funds and government-matched 401k and god knows what else and edwards with his plan to introduce a 500% tax rate and make the country entirely communist within the first 90 days.

I don't get it either. Even from a political point of view, it makes almost no sense. The Republicans are practically wetting themselves over the chance to go after another Clinton, and they've been field testing various attacks for almost a year now. Not only is there virtually nothing about Obama they can use, but they'll have to be extra careful with whatever negative attacks they think up so they don't sound like huge racists. The only reasonable complaint about Obama is that he's not experienced enough, but not only does Clinton not really have the edge there, Obama's likely Republican opponents aren't exactly breaking the bank with experience. Especially if the Republican nominee is Rudy, who knows less about the federal government than my 8th grade history teacher. Not to mention that Bush had virtually no experience either prior to 2000, so the chances that the Republicans could successful deploy even that attack are pretty low.

And strategy aside, Obama is a way better candidate. Especially when you consider that while a lot of Clinton's policies are pretty liberal, she's also strangely authoritarian on a lot of issues...which isn't exactly something I want in my Democratic candidate.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I am starting to think the only reason Obama won't get the nomination is that he's too good, meaning he doesn't piss off enough people and make it partisan enough. I mean, I have no freaking clue why anybody would pick Clinton over him, it makes no f**king sense at all. I cannot think of any truly holy-crap-asinine thing he's said about what he'll do when he's president, unlike Clinton with her savings funds and government-matched 401k and god knows what else and edwards with his plan to introduce a 500% tax rate and make the country entirely communist within the first 90 days.

I don't get it either. Even from a political point of view, it makes almost no sense. The Republicans are practically wetting themselves over the chance to go after another Clinton, and they've been field testing various attacks for almost a year now. Not only is there virtually nothing about Obama they can use, but they'll have to be extra careful with whatever negative attacks they think up so they don't sound like huge racists. The only reasonable complaint about Obama is that he's not experienced enough, but not only does Clinton not really have the edge there, Obama's likely Republican opponents aren't exactly breaking the bank with experience. Especially if the Republican nominee is Rudy, who knows less about the federal government than my 8th grade history teacher. Not to mention that Bush had virtually no experience either prior to 2000, so the chances that the Republicans could successful deploy even that attack are pretty low.

And strategy aside, Obama is a way better candidate. Especially when you consider that while a lot of Clinton's policies are pretty liberal, she's also strangely authoritarian on a lot of issues...which isn't exactly something I want in my Democratic candidate.

What possible drawback could Obamas candidacy have?
Wait a minute while adjust my monitor contrast.......

 

[manowar821]

It's almost like there is someone pulling the strings on this one, trying to get the two biggest pricks to be nominated, instead of decent candidates...? This election process and the way it's portrayed and reported pisses me off.

Then again, we do kind of thrive on hate and confrontation, as a nation. Who mirrors who? Do the candidates mimic our anger, intolerance, and unwillingness to compromise? Or do we mimic the people we see on TV and their views/beliefs?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre
What is Hillary's position on Net Neutrality?

"Makes Sense"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: manowar821
It's almost like there is someone pulling the strings on this one, trying to get the two biggest pricks to be nominated, instead of decent candidates...? This election process and the way it's portrayed and reported pisses me off.

Then again, we do kind of thrive on hate and confrontation, as a nation. Who mirrors who? Do the candidates mimic our anger, intolerance, and unwillingness to compromise? Or do we mimic the people we see on TV and their views/beliefs?

Seriously, I wasn't wild about Kerry vs Bush...but at least there was one candidate I could kind of get behind, even if most of my support came from the ways in which he WASN'T the other guy. But if 2008 is Hillary vs Rudy...it's going to be tough. I don't want some neo-con, warmongering, civil liberties trashing, jackass in the White House...but I'm not really all that wild about Hillary either. Part of the problem is that 2004 didn't have a lot of good Democrats in the field, Kerry might have been the best of a lot of poor choices. This time around, there are a lot better alternatives than Hillary. And for that matter, there are a lot better alternatives on the Republican side of things than Rudy.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was an election where you had to pick who you liked more, instead of pick who you disliked less?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
What is Hillary's position on Net Neutrality?

"Makes Sense"

LOL! exactly!

Apparently Hillary also supports net neutrality legislation, but who the hell knows with her!? I don't trust her statements on any issue at this point!

I respect the way Obama thinks about each issue and then provides a reasonable and definitive response. Sometimes I may disagree with his choices, but I certainly respect him for standing still while he makes them!

The boxing gloves were the best present anyone could ever give to Hillary because all the woman does is 'duck and weave'!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I am starting to think the only reason Obama won't get the nomination is that he's too good, meaning he doesn't piss off enough people and make it partisan enough. I mean, I have no freaking clue why anybody would pick Clinton over him, it makes no f**king sense at all. I cannot think of any truly holy-crap-asinine thing he's said about what he'll do when he's president, unlike Clinton with her savings funds and government-matched 401k and god knows what else and edwards with his plan to introduce a 500% tax rate and make the country entirely communist within the first 90 days.

I don't get it either. Even from a political point of view, it makes almost no sense. The Republicans are practically wetting themselves over the chance to go after another Clinton, and they've been field testing various attacks for almost a year now. Not only is there virtually nothing about Obama they can use, but they'll have to be extra careful with whatever negative attacks they think up so they don't sound like huge racists. The only reasonable complaint about Obama is that he's not experienced enough, but not only does Clinton not really have the edge there, Obama's likely Republican opponents aren't exactly breaking the bank with experience. Especially if the Republican nominee is Rudy, who knows less about the federal government than my 8th grade history teacher. Not to mention that Bush had virtually no experience either prior to 2000, so the chances that the Republicans could successful deploy even that attack are pretty low.

And strategy aside, Obama is a way better candidate. Especially when you consider that while a lot of Clinton's policies are pretty liberal, she's also strangely authoritarian on a lot of issues...which isn't exactly something I want in my Democratic candidate.

What possible drawback could Obamas candidacy have?
Wait a minute while adjust my monitor contrast.......

Well that's certainly a problem, and while I think racism is alive enough to result in many people voting against Obama because he's black, I don't think he'll LOSE any votes. It's been a while since Democrats could count on the support of the Dixiecrat crowd, most of those folks tend to vote Republican no matter WHO the Republicans nominate. Obama might not win the core of the south for racial reasons (and even that's up in the air), but the Democrats weren't going to anyways. And there are enough other states for whom race will be a positive factor (even if people just vote for him to "prove" how enlightened they are) that I think it will be a wash.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
What is Hillary's position on Net Neutrality?

"Makes Sense"

LOL! exactly!

Apparently Hillary also supports net neutrality legislation, but who the hell knows with her!? I don't trust her statements on any issue at this point!

I respect the way Obama thinks about each issue and then provides a reasonable and definitive response. Sometimes I may disagree with his choices, but I certainly respect him for standing still while he makes them!

The boxing gloves were the best present anyone could ever give to Hillary because all the woman does is 'duck and weave'!

At first I really thought that this was just typical Republican attack mode. "Flip-flop", as ridiculous as that phrase was, worked pretty well in 2004. But I think it might have some truth here. There hasn't really been a defining moment when Hillary has really stood up for anything in the face of adversity pushing her the other way. I always thought that accusation got WAY too much play with Kerry, but it might be appropriate for Hillary. We'll see as the election goes on, but it doesn't look real good.