|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:41:11
Wait, Jet wants to classify an open-source international commodity as part of the US infrastructure?
Think that will go well with the rest of the world? ISPs, basically our connection to the internet, not the actual internet.
But to be fair: we did make it.
Pretty sure you had absolutely zero part in making the internet. That was Al Gore wasn't it?
=D
The Gore is one, the Gore is all, just wait.
I'm a bad "puppet" though, for not liking cap and trade.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 15:43:08
Wait, Jet wants to classify an open-source international commodity as part of the US infrastructure?
Think that will go well with the rest of the world? ISPs, basically our connection to the internet, not the actual internet.
But to be fair: we did make it. ISPs are not part of the government, they are private businesses.
The only thing the government can regulate is the internet, and that's an international commodity.
They can regulate ISP's and they have done it before, just wait. You just stated that you want to classify ISPs as part of the US infrastructure, which is the absorption of private businesses into the government. Which is illegal to do.
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:43:32
It's not so simple, as your premises are off, regulation isn't always an increase in cost, that's your trickle-down mantra kicking in again. Name one regulation that doesn't increase costs.
Oh wait, that's research. You don't back up your claims, so, you will accuse me of having lack of reading comprehension again.
If companies are already doing something before they're regulated to have to do it, then their costs won't go up. In fact, I know of some regulations that outright reward compliance, digitized medical records for one.
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:44:14
Wait, Jet wants to classify an open-source international commodity as part of the US infrastructure?
Think that will go well with the rest of the world? ISPs, basically our connection to the internet, not the actual internet.
But to be fair: we did make it. ISPs are not part of the government, they are private businesses.
The only thing the government can regulate is the internet, and that's an international commodity.
They can regulate ISP's and they have done it before, just wait. You just stated that you want to classify ISPs as part of the US infrastructure, which is the absorption of private businesses into the government. Which is illegal to do. That's not what I said at all, but this is pushing on a trend that's quite common with you, don't make me say it, as you know it's coming.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-11-12 15:44:55
Regulation increases costs, increasing costs strangle free markets. Strangled markets lead to less competition, less competition leads to less choice and higher prices.
It's a very simple cause and effect relationship.
If you want Comcast to have less power of the market that they dominate, you need to make it easier for competition to exist.
1. not always
2. again not always
3. companies buying out everyone under the sun due to a lack of regulation against it lead to even less competition.
4. I'll agree there.
It's not so simple, as your premises are off, regulation isn't always an increase in cost, that's your trickle-down mantra kicking in again.
Over regulating markets forces smaller companies out of the marketplace. Regulations come with costs. If you aren't big enough to absorb them you're going to either go out of business or accept your competitor's offer to buy you out. Then big companies get bigger and get more influence in Washington where they lobby to manipulate even tighter regulations to push even more of their competitors out of business. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This particular episode of Net Neutrality is just the latest episode of that drama, covered in this particular flavor of frosting. Liberals yet again are out LYING about their ideas and intention because they know they cannot win on their ideas alone.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 15:47:30
It's not so simple, as your premises are off, regulation isn't always an increase in cost, that's your trickle-down mantra kicking in again. Name one regulation that doesn't increase costs.
Oh wait, that's research. You don't back up your claims, so, you will accuse me of having lack of reading comprehension again.
If companies are already doing something before they're regulated to have to do it, then their costs won't go up. In fact, I know of some regulations that outright reward compliance, digitized medical records for one. So, if a company didn't create a system to digitize their medical records, now they have to due to regulations. Costs money to set up the system and to maintain such system, plus training their staff to use the system correctly.
Even though the "rewards" help offset the cost, it doesn't eliminate it.
Try again.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 15:49:19
Wait, Jet wants to classify an open-source international commodity as part of the US infrastructure?
Think that will go well with the rest of the world? ISPs, basically our connection to the internet, not the actual internet.
But to be fair: we did make it. ISPs are not part of the government, they are private businesses.
The only thing the government can regulate is the internet, and that's an international commodity.
They can regulate ISP's and they have done it before, just wait. You just stated that you want to classify ISPs as part of the US infrastructure, which is the absorption of private businesses into the government. Which is illegal to do. That's not what I said at all, but this is pushing on a trend that's quite common with you, don't make me say it, as you know it's coming. I stated that you wanted to classify the internet as part of the US infrastructure, you corrected me in saying you wanted the service providers to be part of the US infrastructure. I repeat what you just said and you now say that you didn't say that.
It's even in this whole quote train.
Seriously, you can't be this stupid.
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:49:53
I don't personally care what you say they're doing, but I've known and wanted it to happen for years, I'm not sure about where you live but I know around here you have one option for high speed internet: Comcast, that's it, pretty much within an hour diameter of the closest city, and that's even if it's available, and that's definitely not fiber.
As for your "over regulating" spiel, conjecture, as regulation doesn't always mean increased costs, but at times it does, and I see your point, but it's moot when it comes to this, as this is precedent.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-11-12 15:51:37
Regulation increases costs, increasing costs strangle free markets. Strangled markets lead to less competition, less competition leads to less choice and higher prices.
It's a very simple cause and effect relationship.
If you want Comcast to have less power of the market that they dominate, you need to make it easier for competition to exist.
1. not always
2. again not always
3. companies buying out everyone under the sun due to a lack of regulation against it lead to even less competition.
4. I'll agree there.
It's not so simple, as your premises are off, regulation isn't always an increase in cost, that's your trickle-down mantra kicking in again.
Over regulating markets forces smaller companies out of the marketplace. Regulations come with costs. If you aren't big enough to absorb them you're going to either go out of business or accept your competitor's offer to buy you out. Then big companies get bigger and get more influence in Washington where they lobby to manipulate even tighter regulations to push even more of their competitors out of business. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This particular episode of Net Neutrality is just the latest episode of that drama, covered in this particular flavor of frosting. Liberals yet again are out LYING about their ideas and intention because they know they cannot win on their ideas alone. Do you even understand what net nuetrality is all about or what's been happening with the ISP's over the last 5 years?
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:51:54
It's not so simple, as your premises are off, regulation isn't always an increase in cost, that's your trickle-down mantra kicking in again. Name one regulation that doesn't increase costs.
Oh wait, that's research. You don't back up your claims, so, you will accuse me of having lack of reading comprehension again.
If companies are already doing something before they're regulated to have to do it, then their costs won't go up. In fact, I know of some regulations that outright reward compliance, digitized medical records for one. So, if a company didn't create a system to digitize their medical records, now they have to due to regulations. Costs money to set up the system and to maintain such system, plus training their staff to use the system correctly.
Even though the "rewards" help offset the cost, it doesn't eliminate it.
Try again.
This is why you fail, again: they get a bonus if they have it set up, they are not forced to, but if they do set it up, they are still required to do it to comply with HIPAA regulations for patient safety and confidentiality, in a lot of cases it overrides it, not to mention the fact that such a system is better for the patients overall and should be in place regardless of the costs.
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:52:19
I stated that you wanted to classify the internet as part of the US infrastructure, you corrected me in saying you wanted the service providers to be part of the US infrastructure. I repeat what you just said and you now say that you didn't say that.
It's even in this whole quote train.
Seriously, you can't be this stupid. Again: I said no such thing.
You apparently confuse regulations with "part of the US infrastructure," seriously, you can't be this obtuse apparently you are.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-12 15:53:19
Personally, I think the government should be providing incentives to the smaller ISPs in order to help bust up the Comcast monopoly. Net neutrality is vital, though, and it shouldn't even be up for debate.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:55:41
Personally, I think the government should be providing incentives to the smaller ISPs in order to help bust up the Comcast monopoly. Net neutrality is vital, though, and it shouldn't even be up for debate.
Or they could just enforce their anti-trust laws, like they did to AT&T, interestingly enough, it was the Reagan administration that did it...
There are some benefits to having some companies that big and widespread, but the cons have long since taken precedence (subjective).
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 15:56:13
I don't personally care what you say they're doing, but I've known and wanted it to happen for years, I'm not sure about where you live but I know around here you have one option for high speed internet: Comcast, that's it, pretty much within an hour diameter of the closest city, and that's even if it's available, and that's definitely not fiber. I'm sure that there are multiple options, but you are just too lazy to look it up.
As for your "over regulating" spiel, conjecture, as regulation doesn't always mean increased costs, but at times it does, and I see your point, but it's moot when it comes to this, as this is precedent. You were the one who stated that regulations don't always create additional costs. You (as always) failed to prove this statement true.
Or is the above quote your version of admitting that you are wrong (as always) again?
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 15:58:08
I don't personally care what you say they're doing, but I've known and wanted it to happen for years, I'm not sure about where you live but I know around here you have one option for high speed internet: Comcast, that's it, pretty much within an hour diameter of the closest city, and that's even if it's available, and that's definitely not fiber. I'm sure that there are multiple options, but you are just too lazy to look it up.
As for your "over regulating" spiel, conjecture, as regulation doesn't always mean increased costs, but at times it does, and I see your point, but it's moot when it comes to this, as this is precedent. You were the one who stated that regulations don't always create additional costs. You (as always) failed to prove this statement true.
Or is the above quote your version of admitting that you are wrong (as always) again?
There isn't, there's nothing around here, and I have done the research, dial-up and satellite aren't viable options, as they don't have the speed/latency required.
I didn't fail at all, I already proved it, aside from it being common sense that things aren't always absolute. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but it doesn't happen too terribly often. Man this feels like playing chess with a pigeon.
By Nazrious 2014-11-12 16:14:16
Nothing like a little fraud to start the day.
Quote: Global regulators fined five major banks, including UBS (UBSN.VX), HSBC (HSBA.L) and Citigroup (C.N), $3.4 billion for failing to stop their traders from trying to manipulate the foreign exchange market.
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L) and JP Morgan (JPM.N) also face penalties in a year-long probe that has put the largely unregulated $5 trillion-a-day market on a tighter leash. The banks earned a 30 percent discount for settling early.
Dozens of dealers have been suspended or fired for sharing confidential information about client orders and coordinating trades to make money from a foreign exchange benchmark used by asset managers and corporate treasurers to value their holdings in the latest scandal to hit the financial industry.
They used code names to identify clients without naming them and created online chatrooms with pseudonyms such as "the players", “the 3 musketeers” and “1 team, 1 dream” in which to swap information. Those not involved were belittled.
Switzerland's UBS swallowed the biggest penalty paying $661 million to Britain's Financial Services Authority (FCA) and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
UBS was ordered by Swiss regulator FINMA, which also said it had found serious misconduct in precious metals trading, to hand over 134 million Swiss francs after failing to investigate a 2010 whistleblower's report.
The misconduct at the banks stretched back to the previous decade and up until October 2013, more than a year after U.S. and British authorities started punishing banks for rigging the London interbank offered rate or Libor, an interest rate benchmark.
RBS, which is 80 percent owned by the British government, received client complaints about foreign exchange trading as far back as 2010 and a year later a dealer at the bank questioned its information sharing.
The bank said it regretted not responding more quickly to the complaints. The other banks were similarly apologetic.
What it does not say is how much was made, at that level easily billions but hey some people got fired! Not the top execs but w/e they fired people! Are you saying that we should fire people in charge for others releasing confidential information to the public? Or when things break, we should fire the head honcho? Or when people commit fraud, the boss of them all should lose their job?
Yes. If One of my employees releases client information I am liable, can lose my license and depending on the circumstances and my culpability can face Jail time, worse if for some reason said information fell under say National Security.
The buck stops somewhere, thats the reason these executives give for why they make such disproportionate amounts of money, They have such high "risk" in there position. Then you agree that Obama should be removed from office due to the extensive faults associated with his administration.
Didn't think he should of been in office in the first place. However no, he should not be removed, he like all presidents are just talking mouthpieces. I'm less concerned with the president and more with Congress, the Supreme Court and the black budget.
I don't know you personally but you are coming off as a bit slow... or trolling, not sure.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 16:22:04
Didn't think he should of been in office in the first place. However no, he should not be removed, he like all presidents are just talking mouthpieces. I'm less concerned with the president and more with Congress, the Supreme Court and the black budget.
I don't know you personally but you are coming off as a bit slow... or trolling, not sure. No, I was leading up to the point I wanted to make.
You can't blame the main boss for the ineptitude or outright illegality of their employees. You can blame their supervisor, but not the CEO (unless they are directly under the CEO).
The CEO's main responsibility in this instance is institute controls to prevent events like fraud and other illegal activities from happening. But it is impossible to completely prevent fraud, because somebody is going to do it regardless of any controls in place.
My point with Obama is, he is responsible for the actions of his administration, but he should not be impeached for those actions unless they were acting on his orders. But it is his fault for continuing to employ substandard people, after replacing one idiot for another.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-11-12 17:05:17
Send Obama to the moon. First black man to walk on the moon. Problem solved.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-11-12 17:06:31
Send Obama to the moon. First black man to walk on the moon. Problem solved.
First half black man on the moon !
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 17:39:11
Send Obama to the moon. First black man to walk on the moon. Problem solved. Just forget to include a space suit in the ship.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-12 18:25:43
So, for anyone who hasn't heard of Jonathan Gruber yet, here's an interesting article about one of the architects of Obamacare who is having a terrible case of foot-in-mouth syndrome lately.
Who is Jonathan Gruber?
I'm sure there are articles out there with more information, but this guy has basically called the American voters stupid on numerous occasions and admits to manipulating them so that they would support Obamacare.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 18:32:30
So, for anyone who hasn't heard of Jonathan Gruber yet, here's an interesting article about one of the architects of Obamacare who is having a terrible case of foot-in-mouth syndrome lately.
Your text to link here...
I'm sure there are articles out there with more information, but this guy has basically called the American voters stupid on numerous occasions and admits to manipulating them so that they would support Obamacare.
Saying something is the cause of the stupidity of the American voter, isn't calling them stupid, semantics. I don't care otherwise*
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-12 18:34:33
So, for anyone who hasn't heard of Jonathan Gruber yet, here's an interesting article about one of the architects of Obamacare who is having a terrible case of foot-in-mouth syndrome lately.
Your text to link here...
I'm sure there are articles out there with more information, but this guy has basically called the American voters stupid on numerous occasions and admits to manipulating them so that they would support Obamacare.
Saying something is the cause of the stupidity of the American voter, isn't calling them stupid, semantics.
Lol, I expected as much. An Obamacare architect says outrageous things that are political suicide, and you're more focused on the semantics of my post.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 18:36:48
So, for anyone who hasn't heard of Jonathan Gruber yet, here's an interesting article about one of the architects of Obamacare who is having a terrible case of foot-in-mouth syndrome lately.
Your text to link here...
I'm sure there are articles out there with more information, but this guy has basically called the American voters stupid on numerous occasions and admits to manipulating them so that they would support Obamacare.
Saying something is the cause of the stupidity of the American voter, isn't calling them stupid, semantics.
Lol, I expected as much. An Obamacare architect says outrageous things that are political suicide, and you're more focused on the semantics of my post.
He's an economics prof, didn't think he was a politician, he said some stupid ***, people do it all the time.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-12 18:41:54
So, for anyone who hasn't heard of Jonathan Gruber yet, here's an interesting article about one of the architects of Obamacare who is having a terrible case of foot-in-mouth syndrome lately.
Your text to link here...
I'm sure there are articles out there with more information, but this guy has basically called the American voters stupid on numerous occasions and admits to manipulating them so that they would support Obamacare.
Saying something is the cause of the stupidity of the American voter, isn't calling them stupid, semantics.
Lol, I expected as much. An Obamacare architect says outrageous things that are political suicide, and you're more focused on the semantics of my post.
He's an economics prof, didn't think he was a politician, he said some stupid ***, people do it all the time.
I'm sure you were saying the same thing when the Mitt Romney 47% quote came out. Regardless, this guy said similar things on multiple occasions and is basically saying that the public wouldn't have supported Obamacare if they knew what was in it, so they removed any transparancy and reworded things on purpose to manipulate the voters. But hey, he's a Democrat, let's let this one slide amirite?
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 18:46:23
I shook my head, and thought to myself "what a moron" about the same thing I did just now.
The public wouldn't support most legislation if they knew what was in it, that's what makes them the public. It's par for the course, there was transparency, you can look at any bill before congress, just everyone's too busy with their own lives to give a ***.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-12 18:55:36
But hey, he's a Democrat, let's let this one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve slide amirite? ftfy
Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-11-12 18:56:54
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-11-12 19:02:49
 Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11346
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-11-12 19:40:01
....
Lol, I expected as much. An Obamacare architect says outrageous things that are political suicide, and you're more focused on the semantics of my post. He was also the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts.
"Then how the right wing loved him,
"And they shouted out in glee,
"Gruber the Romneycare architect,
"You'll go down in history!"
(With apologies to Rudolf.)
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
