Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[spydy13]

Which is a fancy way of saying "in my opinion", but whatever.

No, it's not.

If he heard something from sources that is fact then it is fact.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Maybe if you realized it wasn't your $100 to begin with, but everyone's, then you'd be less astonished.

The hypothetical I addressed to spydy was illustrating the principle of compromise on an individual level, so your comment makes no sense. But if you insist, because I do think the point is important.

Let's say the GOP believes that creating a new entitlement program is bad for the country. Obama wants to create a new program, the cost of which is $1T. The GOP says "no, we think that is bad for the country".

So Obama then says "how about if I reduce the cost to $800B -- will you support it then?" Logically, the GOP response should be "no, because we still believe it is a bad idea for the country."

Obama's second offer is not a reasonable compromise because he is not offering anything of value in return that is preferable -- from the GOP perspective -- to the status quo of no fourth entitlement program period. That shouldn't be a difficult principle to grasp. You've got to offer the other side something more than what they currently have if you want to make a deal.

Now, if you want to interject the claim that what Obama wants to do is "the will of the people", the GOP response would be "we have a representative system of government, and if what you're advocating truly is the clear will of the people, you should have the votes to pass it anyway. If not, then perhaps that "will" isn't quite as one-sided as you think."

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But what if you were a business selling a widget or service for $100 and the customer talked your rate down? The customer would probably rather get the whatever they were buying for free or even cheaper but they are happy to get a discount nonetheless. The business would rather get full price but some circumstance may make them happy to at least get the $50.

The principle of compromise means that both sides are better off making some deal, than making no deal at all. Right? So a compromise deal must offer something that the other side believes is preferable to the status quo.

I think in most cases, that is not what was happening.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

No, it's not.

If he heard something from sources that is fact then it is fact.

Not necessarily, but I don't care to further argue the point.

 

[spydy13]

The principle of compromise means that both sides are better off making some deal, than making no deal at all. Right? So a compromise deal must offer something that the other side believes is preferable to the status quo.

I think in most cases, that is not what was happening.

I agree.

So if in this instance the business was happy to get $50 instead of $0 because their costs were still covered then it benefited them, just like it benefited the side that wanted a widget but got it for cheaper.

As far as the President's dealings with congress, when the republicans view any deal with the President as a loss then it kind of makes it impossible for any deal to happen.

Not necessarily, but I don't care to further argue the point.

Huh? When can a fact not be a fact?

 

[gourimoko]

Which is a fancy way of saying "in my opinion", but whatever.

"In my opinion" would mean that I've surmised my opinion from third-party information. Me saying "I know for a fact," generally implies, the viewpoint that this is a first or second hand observation. As in, I or someone whom I know has first hand knowledge.

You can add to that list McConnell's "top priority" comment,

Surely.

as well as the fact that Obama got zero GOP votes in either the House or Senate in support of the ACA.

Not necessarily. I supported the President, but I would've voted against the ACA.

All of which goes to show that by March 2010 (the month of the ACA vvote) anyone with the brains of a turnip knew that the GOP was not going to cooperate with the rest of Obama's major legislative agenda.

Not necessarily. You're assuming too much regarding the ACA. The GOP had very valid concerns about the bill, many of which Americans on both sides of the aisle agreed with.

The problem was outside of the ACA. With respect to stimulus, jobs bills, unemployment taxes, immigration, and other bills that the Republicans generally would've supported under George Bush in almost any given political climate.

But Bush did not have to contend with the Tea Party.

Whatever naivete he may have had upon entering office should have vanished by then.

It didn't.

There were many people in progressive and liberal circles blasting the President for "negotiating against himself," particularly with respect to the Grand Bargain proposal between he and Boehner. Chained CPI, which later found itself in the President's budget, without asking the GOP for anything in return, was yet another olive branch to the Republicans.

Obama's approach to governance, or at least, his approach with the Democrats, was that of a naive intellectual. A college professor become President. He really did not understand the lengths the Republicans would go to sabotage his Presidency.

But it wasn't until 2013 that Barack Obama realized that no matter what he did, the GOP would never be on-board with any of his policies; be the left, center-left, or centrist. There could be no compromise.

And so Obama has had a relatively empty administrative term. His first two years were largely wasted on the ACA, which won't really come into it's own for another 10-12 years (when it finally becomes so large as to make unification with Medicare the only sensible option). And the 3 years thereafter have been spent fighting Republicans tooth and nail on Republican turf.

Btw, I do feel compelled to point out these GOP comments about opposing Obama's agenda have to be placed into context. The GOP-controlled 112th and 113th Congresses actually passed a total of 284 and 296 bills, respectively, that were signed into law by the President. Congress did not oppose everything he did or wanted to do.

That means nothing. This has been the most obstructive Congress in the history of the Union; by far.

I strongly suggest those interested actually read up on just how obstructionist the GOP has been since taking power in the House.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...-productive/kGAVEBskUeqCB0htOUG9GI/story.html

in context, GOP comments about opposing Obama's agenda referred to the much more narrow category of major pieces of new legislation, creating new programs, etc., not rote opposition to every single bill.

No it didn't! What the fuck?!

There are numerous lawmakers on record stating that nothing that came from the White House was to be passed by Congress. The Republicans put in place policies to literally bring the function of the Senate to a halt.

One such example dates back to 2010, when Republicans began using Senate Rule 26.5 that allows any Senator to call for a motion of unanimous consent to conduct committee and subcommittee hearings after 2p.m. EST. Republican Senators including Sen. Burr stated publicly that they had no choice but to voice an objection (calling for unanimous consent) almost every day at 2p.m. because that was what leadership demanded.

This meant that Senate committees often had to shut down activities by mid-day, and had to find early scheduling which was often impossible. In essence, the people's business that these Senators were responsible for carrying out, was not being done; for political reasons.

This has nothing to do with the President's agenda, but everything to do with bringing the workings of Congress to a standstill while Barack Obama is in office.

So frankly, your 'context' is imaginary.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to stop major pieces of legislation with which you disagree.

Here we go...

No one is calling that obstructionism.

GOP obstructionism refers to the Republicans use of parliamentary procedure to stop the Congress from voting on bills. This isn't just major pieces of legislation as you put it. No one is denying the GOP's right to block major pieces of legislation, especially within the Senate.

Most of those GOP members of Congress ran and were elected on promises to stop his major agenda items.

That's not what's being discussed, at least, not by me, as it would not qualify as "obstructionism."

And, Democrat leaders similarly whipped and pressured Democratic members of Congress to support the President's agenda, especially on controversial pieces of legislation like the Affordable Care Act. It was widely reported that some Democrats were really nervous because they were being pressured by the Administration to support it, and by their constituents to oppose it.

... What are you talking about? There's no GOP obstructionism at this time in Congress - it's not possible, Democrats were 1-2 votes shy of a super-majority from 2008-2010.

 

[gourimoko]

The hypothetical I addressed to spydy was illustrating the principle of compromise on an individual level, so your comment makes no sense. But if you insist, because I do think the point is important.

Let's say the GOP believes that creating a new entitlement program is bad for the country. Obama wants to create a new program, the cost of which is $1T. The GOP says "no, we think that is bad for the country".

So Obama then says "how about if I reduce the cost to $800B -- will you support it then?" Logically, the GOP response should be "no, because we still believe it is a bad idea for the country."

Obama's second offer is not a reasonable compromise because he is not offering anything of value in return that is preferable -- from the GOP perspective -- to the status quo of no fourth entitlement program period. That shouldn't be a difficult principle to grasp. You've got to offer the other side something more than what they currently have if you want to make a deal.

Now, if you want to interject the claim that what Obama wants to do is "the will of the people", the GOP response would be "we have a representative system of government, and if what you're advocating truly is the clear will of the people, you should have the votes to pass it anyway. If not, then perhaps that "will" isn't quite as one-sided as you think."

Didn't think this would be so hard to understand.

For example, the GOP knew that most Americans supported health care reforms. Polls showed massive majorities in favor of a government run health care program.

John McCain's plan was more or less a joke.

With Obama now elected, now would be the GOP's chance to offer an alternative plan. They could have put together their own proposal, structured anyway that fit their ideology. The two sides could then debate the proposals and potentially come to some compromise. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, the GOP was nowhere to be found at the negotiating table; deliberately.

Your simple analogy is ridiculous because it ignores how political compromises are made in Congress. It's a very elementary, naive, and also inaccurate way, of looking at how Congressional politics works.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Huh? When can a fact not be a fact?

Ugh....I really don't want to go into hearsay....

Okay, the mere fact that someone else tells you something does not ultimately make it true. The only thing that is "true" is the fact that they told you something.

The person who tells you the underlying fact may be lying, they may have drawn a flawed inference from facts, they may have misheard or misinterpreted something, or the person from whom they heard the information may have done any number of those things.

So in short, just because someone tells me that "X" is not a racist doesn't make it true. Heck, just because "X" tells me himself he isn't a racist (or that he's really a conservative, or a Christian, or a Chinese jet pilot) does not make it true either.

I do not believe everything a politician tells me is true simply because they say it is.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So frankly, your 'context' is imaginary.

Wrong. Again, the fact that they passed nearly 600 bills that were signed into law proves they did not stop all legislation. They did do just about everything in their power to stop major pieces of legislation to which they objected, sometimes employing sleazy parliamentary maneuvers.

... What are you talking about?

The Administrations' effort to whip reluctant Democratic members of the House to vote for the ACA in 2010. Demonizing whips who pressure members to vote a certain way is something of which both parties are guilty.

 

[gourimoko]

Wrong. Again, the fact that they passed nearly 600 bills that were signed into law proves they did not stop all legislation.

Jesus Christ... You're not even arguing the point. Does anyone else see what's wrong with the bolded.

They did do just about everything in their power to stop major pieces of legislation to which they objected, sometimes employing sleazy parliamentary maneuvers.

Q-Tip, this, along with the bolded is not true.

--quote--
Congress is reaching a point where it will no longer be able to function at all. Over the past two years, some members of the Republican Party have ramped up the partisan wars on Capitol Hill. They are threatening to bring the legislative process to a standstill.

For many years, journalists and scholars have lamented the rise of partisan polarization on Capitol Hill. The number of moderates has vastly declined and the number of bills that receive bipartisan support has greatly diminished. The usual culprits range from the advent of the 24-hour news cycle to changing demographics.

But now observers are starting to note that both parties are not equally to blame, especially in recent years.

In their new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein -- two of the most prominent talking heads in Washington, known for their balanced view and proclivity toward moderation -- say that the Republican Party is to blame.

"The GOP," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed based on the book, "has become an insurgent outlier in American politics." Mann and Ornstein trace the partisan style back to the emergence of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist in the 1970s, when the two men promoted a style of slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners politics that has remained integral to the strategy of congressional Republicans.

There is always a certain amount of nostalgia in American politics. The notion that Congress used to be a better place is one of the staple arguments in public rhetoric. But there are times when things are worse than usual.

While both parties have played roles in the growth of polarization since the 1970s, since 2007 congressional Republicans have been taking the partisan wars to new extremes in several areas.

The first is with the kind of brinksmanship budgetary politics that has now become normative. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner once again threatened that Republicans would not vote to increase the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to certain tax and spending policies sought by the GOP. Republicans have used this tactic repeatedly in the past few years, each time bringing the nation closer to the brink of default.

This is no way to decide on a budget or to handle the nation's debt. Holding the debt ceiling hostage to win political battles has undermined international confidence in the U.S. political system. It has also created an unhealthy atmosphere where politicians are willing to take great risks with the goal of winning certain legislative battles. There need to be some limits to what legislators are willing to do in the pursuit of victory.

The second way Republicans push the envelope of partisanship is with the filibuster. As political junkies know, use of the filibuster has greatly increased since the 1970s. Both parties have been guilty. A tool once reserved for high-profile legislation such as civil rights became a normalized tool of combat making the Senate a supermajoritarian body on almost every decision.

Senators don't even have to filibuster anymore. They can simply raise the threat and that brings the discussion to an end. Senators have also employed additional tactics such as anonymous holds, whereby senators can secretly prevent action on a bill and nobody can know who was responsible.

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

Finally, there has been a much sharper shift to the right within the Republican Party than there has been to the left in the Democratic Party. Here, too, the data is rather clear.

In January, political scientists Kenneth Poole and Christopher Hare concluded, based on their close analysis of the roll call vote, that "in the last few Congresses, the overlap has vanished; that is, the most liberal Republican is to the right of the most conservative Democrat."

Last week, the political-science blog The Monkey Cage pointed out that Sen. Richard Lugar's political positions have changed little since he entered the Senate in 1977, and yet: "In his first term in Congress, Sen. Lugar was the 23rd most moderate Republican in the Senate; in the most recent term (through 2011), he was the fifth most moderate."

As Lugar's recent primary loss shows, Republican activists are now targeting any member of the party who can be tagged as centrists, and they are pushing their caucus farther to the right, making compromise almost impossible.

It could be that Republicans will take things so far that we may reach one of those rare moments when congressional reform happens. If reform does not happen, and these trends continue, the nation will be left with an inoperative legislative process that can't handle the problems we face with the economy, social problems and foreign policy.

This is a situation that should be of equal concern to the right, left and center. Without a functional Congress, the nation's government will not be able to live up to the challenges of the day.
--end quote--

Republican clojure votes have more than doubled since 2007. Republicans have threatened to filibuster hundreds of bills, bills that have nothing to do with the President's agenda. Republicans are using parliamentary procedure to slow the legislative process down to a virtual halt.

The Administrations' effort to whip reluctant Democratic members of the House to vote for the ACA in 2010. Demonizing whips who pressure members to vote a certain way is something of which both parties are guilty.

No one is demonizing whips..... This hasn't anything to do with obstructionism.

We're talking about GOP obstructionism and I'm sitting here astonished that you, someone who claims to be politically astute, aren't aware of the fact that Republicans have been bringing Congressional activity to a virtual standstill since 2010.

That's astonishing.

Like, even my conservative colleagues who work in lobby groups or on the Hill would outright say "Of course the GOP is being obstructionist... but, here's the reasons why: a,b,c."

I don't think I've ever heard someone say "they're still passing some bills, right? So surely, they aren't obstructionist."

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

"In my opinion" would mean that I've surmised my opinion from third-party information. Me saying "I know for a fact," generally implies, the viewpoint that this is a first or second hand observation. As in, I or someone whom I know has first hand knowledge.

I wasn't talking about an observation. I was talking about his actual state of mind. The assumption that he would be completely honest about what he actually thinks on an issue is an assumption I wouldn't give to any politician, and damn few people in general. Whether or not Obama's statements actually reflect his honest thoughts is an opinion.

The whole "first or second" hand thing is meaningless. He's made plenty of public statements that the rest of us all heard personally.

But now observers are starting to note that both parties are not equally to blame, especially in recent years.

Well, I'm sure we should all trust their "observations", especially if those particular "observers" have declared themselves to be unbiased/nonpartisan. That's always persuasive.

The first is with the kind of brinksmanship budgetary politics that has now become normative.

Democrats have long been better at spinning this message, because I remember back in the 80's where Reagan got blamed when Democrats in the Congress shut down the government. My regiment ran out of gas because of one of those shutdowns. But regardless of whether or not it is a Democratic President and GOP Congress, or vice-versa, the GOP tends to get the blame if there is a shutdown.

Senators don't even have to filibuster anymore. They can simply raise the threat and that brings the discussion to an end. Senators have also employed additional tactics such as anonymous holds, whereby senators can secretly prevent action on a bill and nobody can know who was responsible.

This has been used by both sides and honestly, I'd be fine if they canned all that stuff altogether. Although as long as those rules are in place, I don't have a problem with either side using them. Personally, I wish the new GOP Senate had ditched the filibuster entirely, and I think it was a mistake that they did not do so.

Finally, there has been a much sharper shift to the right within the Republican Party than there has been to the left in the Democratic Party. Here, too, the data is rather clear.

In January, political scientists Kenneth Poole and Christopher Hare concluded, based on their close analysis of the roll call vote, that "in the last few Congresses, the overlap has vanished; that is, the most liberal Republican is to the right of the most conservative Democrat."

This is a perfect illustration of the leftward bias of the media. By any rational measure (new government programs, additional regulations, spending on social welfare/entitlement programs as percentage of GDP, etc.) , governmental policies have generally been moving to the left for decades. But because so many in the media see that as a natural and desireable process, they see those who simply oppose new programs as moving to the right. The reality is they aren't moving at all.

Where is the conservative rollback of long-entrenched Democrat policies? Because I sure as hell don't see it. What I see is that the best conservatives have really been able to achieve is a slowdown in the growth of leftist social policies if we manage to elect a Republican. Then a Democrat comes in, and everything slides to the left. Anyone who resists that is accused of stopping "progress", or of "moving to the right".

It could be that Republicans will take things so far that we may reach one of those rare moments when congressional reform happens. If reform does not happen, and these trends continue, the nation will be left with an inoperative legislative process that can't handle the problems we face with the economy, social problems and foreign policy.

About 35 years ago, there was a guy running for office who said "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." So, I suppose you could sum up my position this way: stopping legislation that damages the country is no less a proper function of a legislator than is passing legislation.

Republican cloture votes have more than doubled since 2007. Republicans have threatened to filibuster hundreds of bills, bills that have nothing to do with the President's agenda.

Republicans have occasionally done that in an attempt to stop other legislation they believe is damaging to the country. But all such halts have been temporary, and as I pointed out, hundreds of bills have actually been passed by Republicans and signed into law by Obama. The bills that have nothing to do with the President's agenda end up getting passed.

We're talking about GOP obstructionism and I'm sitting here astonished that you, someone who claims to be politically astute, aren't aware of the fact that Republicans have been bringing Congressional activity to a virtual standstill since 2010.

I don't consider passing nearly 300 brand new laws each session a "virtual standstill". That's just overblow, partisan rhetoric. Especially when you have the entire regulatory (as opposed to legislative) function continuing to chug merrily along.

And, there's the flip side issue of Harry Reid deliberately preventing bills from coming to a vote, and preventing substantive amendments from being considered.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ot-republicans-obstructionism-bill-wichterman

I don't think I've ever heard someone say "they're still passing some bills, right? So surely, they aren't obstructionist."

Words mean things, and people choose the words they use to create a particular impression in the mind of listeners. So, you use vague, inflammatory words like "standstill" and "obstructionism" to create the impression that Republicans have stopped (not just delayed for a few days) core governmental functions. It's deliberately misleading.

If you want to say that the GOP has slowed the passage of some bills, fine. If you want to say that they haven't passed as many bills as some prior Congresses, that's fine too. Both are accurate.

But the Chicken Little rhetoric you and others employ is misleading. So be specific -- what critical bill that absolutely had not pass, did not? Six years into Obama's presidency, there is not a single department that has gone unfunded in even one of those years. The business of government has continued.

 

[OptimusPrime]

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPSKDeE8rqr

Good thing the federal government has the brand new authority to tell us what is true and what isn't. Who could have seen this coming?

 

[spydy13]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPSKDeE8rqr

Good thing the federal government has the brand new authority to tell us what is true and what isn't. Who could have seen this coming?

You know Google is a private company right?

 

[AZ_]

If the day comes when I can't readily find "medical science" which cites Facebook and Wikipedia as sources in their "analysis," you anti-government folk will have me on board.

 

[NasstyNate]

Well how bout that. What are the odds that the regulations aren't 332 pages after all? What are the odds that Commissioner Pai selectively chose words in order to wind up credulous low information media types who are less interested in the truth than slamming the president and the government overall? What's that? The regulations are only 8 pages, with the rest being responses to public comment?

"The FCC has said the draft contains only eight pages of new regulations and the rest contains responses to the public comments on the issue.

Pai admitted Tuesday that the plan was not all regulations."​

And the publishing of the full text is being held up by Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly? Hmm.

"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order.

The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This will depend on how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
​

And the FCC issued a press release describing the regulations (.pdf)?

No Blocking - broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services,or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling - broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non- harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind - in other words, no “fast lanes.”
​