Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.
Monopolies only exist if governments enable their existence.
As to free markets, here is a nice vid explaining pretty much what I have been trying to explain on here to you - also why democracy is one of the worst systems you can have in a country. One of the "two winos who tell a professor how to bring his children up, because there are more of them" also makes an appearance at one point xD
You are against regulation on principle which is why you cannot bring yourself to support the regulation of the internet, this is not a new argument in libertarian thought although even they used to -perhaps still do- argue that everything should be allowed as long as it does not cause harm to others. And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down and why most that exist do so in the 'dark web' where the people who visit them are hard core supporters least likely to inform law enforcement. So your justification is purely ideological, and bears no relation to facts and real situations.
Again, I referred you to two specific and well-known cases of the State intervening to end monopolies that the market did not end, yet you continue to insist monopolies do not emerge from those same markets in spite of the evidence that it does in just about every economics text book that has been published since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and maybe before that..
Your opposition to democracy as usual comes with no coherent reason, you link a tedious video nearly two hours long of a notorious 'entrepreneur' Peter Schiff which tells us nothing about your position. There is plenty of material out there on those opposed to democracy because they believe voters are not sufficiently well-informed about what it is that they are voting for, but you ignore the other argument which in the USA has become part of the voter suppression movement in certain states which is designed to preserve democracy for White people for whom 'God, Family and Country' are their core beliefs, the Bible rather than the Constitution their political rule book. Voter Suppression is designed to shut out the Blacks, the Latinos and the Asians, it is a White Supremacist cause, but unlike your vague position, does not mind if the voters are semi-literate and worship the memorial statues and the flag of anti-American Confederate Terrorists.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
There is a strong argument that complacency in the Democrat Party weakened their overall campaign, but it doesn't explain how Sanders, who does not sit as a Democrat in Congress, was allowed on to the ticket in the first place.
I know this doesn't quite answer your question but here's a quick and dirty as to what happened on both sides.
Trump and Sanders rose quickly because both Republicans and Democrats were getting tired of their "career politicians" doing nothing. Folks also seem to forget that Trump used to be a Democrat and Independent.
So "the people" basically sided with anti-establishment individuals - hence the rise of both Trump and Sanders respectively.
What also swayed the vote in favor of Trump was the middle class independents.
Both Sanders and Trump catered to them whereas Hillary ignored them. Add to that the Sanders segment (middle class) that didn't like Hillary nor how the DNC treated Sanders and you have the recipe for the election of Trump.
My personal opinion is that my favorite Joe Biden, had he ran, would have smashed Trump - but.....Hillary's DNC primaries machine would have smashed Biden.....
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
MrFanti I agree with some of your post, but the public alienation from the Washington machine is not new. Both Carter and Reagan ran as Presidents who were not part of the system that produced Vietnam and Watergate, and may have won their support because the deep, structural issues that have strangled middle class income growth have been developing since the end of 'traditional manufacture' in the 1960s, but appear to be worse now than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
There was a tremendous degree of optimism when Clinton was elected with the 'peace dividend' of the end of Cold War confrontation in his pocket, and he also presided over or played a role in peace treaties in the Middle East, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Machine politics can sometimes produce positive results, even if Clinton's reckless behaviour is now returning to haunt him. That most voters supported Hillary Clinton thus suggests that the divide between people who trust and do not trust Washington has grown, but has not delivered a knock-out blow to traditional politics as, apart from the loud-mouth in the Oval Office, it is business as usual with the Republican Party committed to reversing all of Obama's policies and tax cutting, and de-regulating wherever they can.
You have pointedly ignored how that vote on the margins which delivered the electoral college to the 45th President may have been swayed by the blizzard of negative social media that originated in Russia with the full approval, maybe the co-ordination of the Republicans. It remains to be seen if the 2016 election violated the law, and thus did not produce a legitimate result.
None of which is relevant to the thread, as tends to happen.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.
If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.
If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.
Karl Marks????
You're talking out of your ass on this one bruh and entirely out of your depth.
This is a nuanced issue and all you can bring to the table is the blunt force of 'communism', and less regulation is ALWAYS good.smh
Go back in your hole and save the rest of us the trouble.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
Karl Marks????
You're talking out of your ass on this one bruh and entirely out of your depth.
This is a nuanced issue and all you can bring to the table is the blunt force of 'communism', and less regulation is ALWAYS good.smh
Go back in your hole and save the rest of us the trouble.
To be honest I think Stavros and yourself might as well give up arguing with RedVex; she is clearly just arguing to antagonise, using buzzwords and phrases that will provoke reactions and constantly shifts parts of her argument to suit winding people up basically - hence why I'm not bothering any more. Well either that or she is utterly deluded and actually believes some of that drivel about communism and not regulating economies because allowing monopolies to do whatever they like would be best.
Either way (and I had to learn my lesson with this during this thread) if we choose to keep arguing with a moron - regardless of the fact no rational argument will ever change their mind - we are simply on the train to moronville to join them.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12762333
Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.
But I do agree with you on the point that arguing with morons is rather pointless. I think that is why almost nobody sensible ever takes part in these conversations.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Hopefully keeping this thread rocketing off course...........
In theory, I would have loved to seen Bernie take it all.
But only in theory.
I can only imagine America voted like a wounded trapped animal, .....so many parts of the country are seeing not only no more jobs, you can't even sell your house at a profit and move out . Desperation move for a new kind of Republican. That theory is wilder that electing a Communist President.
Hillary is not a likable person, who gives a shit?
She and a handful of Senators have forgotten more about how Washington works than Trump ever will. That's what you want. Making Obama's changes rock solid.
She would have fed the middle class like no other candidate alive today.
The fact that the Republicans and Russians despise her so much is proof enough for me.
I very much fear that this twenty trillion dollar National Debt might doom us all no matter what, unless some miracle happens.
And I don't think Mike Pence is that miracle.
Oh well, sadder words were never penned, what could have been. Alas and Alack.
We're fucked now. Net Neutrality is going to be the least of our worries.
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "
And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12762333
Where it reads at the very beginning: "
The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.
But I do agree with you on the point that arguing with morons is rather pointless. I think that is why almost nobody sensible ever takes part in these conversations.
As stated I'm done with arguing with you. If your idea of how things should work ever comes to pass then good luck to you.
