Liberal Forum

RichClem » 06 Nov 2014 9:10 pm » wrote:No matter what reality is, you keep bleating Democrat Talking Point bulls***.

Clem: So f*** off.

Misty » 06 Nov 2014 9:03 pm » wrote:It looks like only a little over a third of eligible voters even voted, so don't go thinking that this gives your party some kind of a mandate.

The map will be quite different in 2016 when the Republicans who rode the wave in 2010 and won Senate seats in blue states will be up for re-election.
And there could very well be a woman on the presidential ballot, which I'm sure will energize a lot more people to get out and vote.

RichClem » 06 Nov 2014 9:16 pm » wrote:
Oh yeah, it isn't a mandate to stop Obama and Dem's leftist policies is it, naaah!

Yeah, some Repubs will be vulnerable, but Liberalism is dead, and there will be two years of putting Senate Dems in very, very tight spots, and further exposing of Obama's leftism.

Beyond Hillary, Dems have no bench, unless you consider that imbecile Biden to be a viable candidate.

Mark Lindberg » 06 Nov 2014 9:57 pm » wrote: You don't understand that most people are not ideologues like you. They simply want to get on with their lives. They don't care much about politics. If someone in office isn't doing just what they want, they try somebody else. That somebody else almost always lets them down, so the next time around, they change them again. I wonder if you'll ever realize this.

A two-vote majority in the Senate and a few more seats in the House means "liberalism is dead?" What in the hell have you been smoking?

Hillary Clinton, whether you like it or not, is the most-respected woman in the world. She has near-universal recognition. My Republican spouse says she will vote for her, the first thing we've agreed on politically in a while. She can and will run from the center, while the R's have no one at all who isn't slightly to the left of Mussolini and would fool no one if they tried to run from the center. You seem to forget it's not hard R's or hard D's who elect a president but the undecided, and any candidate with half a brain runs from the center. But the Tea Party won't allow anyone in the Republican Party to rise to prominence without their approval, and they're hard right shmucks who don't live in the real world.

The GOP has no chance against Hillary. You know it quite well, though you wouldn't admit it for the promise of 20 Rolls-Royces, which you could sell if you didn't want to drive them.

RichClem » 05 Nov 2014 9:08 am » wrote: I didn't realize Va was finalized.

Misty » 07 Nov 2014 10:56 pm » wrote:It is now Pumpkin.

Ed Gillespie concedes Virginia Senate race.

It just fills my heart with joy to know that Mark Warner will be your Senator for 6 more years,
and that your governor Terry McAuliffe is a good friend of Bill Clinton's.

RichClem » 07 Nov 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: Oh my, we lost one?
Silly brainless twit.

Misty » 07 Nov 2014 11:12 pm » wrote: One? Don't forget my governor Tom Corbett and good old Scott Brown.
He's looking at real estate in Maine as we speak.

The State Legislative Landslide
By Bruce Walker

There are ninety-eight partisan state legislative chambers in our nation. (Nebraska has a unicameral and nonpartisan legislature.) Not all state legislative chambers had elections this November, but of the seventy-seven state legislative chambers that did have elections, Republicans gained seats in sixty-one, while losing seats in only ten.

This translated into shifting control of ten legislative chambers from Democrat to Republican: the State Senate in Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, and New York and the State House of Representatives in New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, West Virginia, and New Hampshire. Republican power in state legislatures is at the highest point in a century, both in the number of chambers controlled and also in the number of Republicans in state legislature – important facts that tend to be submerged in higher profile races.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... z3IUWGZ2OC

Obama Urges FCC To Set 'Strongest Possible Rules' To Protect Net Neutrality

On Monday, President Barack Obama came out in favor of the "strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," endorsing a popular proposal that would empower the Federal Communications Commission to require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally and not charge content providers for better access.

"We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas," Obama said in a statement.

The FCC is currently weighing whether ISPs, such as Verizon and Comcast, can choose to block or prioritize delivering traffic to certain websites. The consideration comes in the wake of a federal appeals court ruling in January that struck down the rules that barred companies from doing so. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FCC was considering a "hybrid" compromise that would empower ISPs to make deals with companies to allow for faster content delivery, while still allowing for oversight.

Obama's plan provides for more regulation than that. He's backing a proposal that would reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, treating the service as a public utility. Under that section, it's illegal "to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services."

Obama is also asking for a ban on paid prioritization, a practice that allows companies to put service in the "slow lane" if a content provider doesn't pay a fee.

"If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it," Obama's statement said. "Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others ... based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences."

Obama's plan won't be popular with telecom companies, but it has wide support from the U.S. public, which submitted to the FCC almost 4 million comments overwhelmingly in favor of net neutrality this summer. Whether FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will adopt Obama's plan remains in question.

On Monday morning, a group of protesters showed up at Wheeler's house to advocate for net neutrality. They wielded a banner reading, "Save the Internet," which Wheeler initially helped them hold.

"This is not a photo-op for you to pretend like you're saving the Internet," one protester said.
Wheeler reiterated, "I have long stated, everything is on the table."

Misty » 06 Nov 2014 9:03 pm » wrote: I love that you watch MSNBC.
All I'm saying is that it was to be expected that the Democrats would lose seats.
I said that before the election.

It looks like only a little over a third of eligible voters even voted, so don't go thinking that this gives your party some kind of a mandate.

The map will be quite different in 2016 when the Republicans who rode the wave in 2010 and won Senate seats in blue states will be up for re-election.
And there could very well be a woman on the presidential ballot, which I'm sure will energize a lot more people to get out and vote.

golfboy » 10 Nov 2014 12:47 pm » wrote:No one predicted Tuesday's election. No one.

GB: And I love the fact that the Democrat Party is now best represented by 70+ year old while people. HIllary. Warren. Biden.
Yea, that'll energize the millennials and minorities.

GB: Start practicing saying "President Walker".

Misty » 10 Nov 2014 12:41 pm » wrote:I'm sure just like Ted McCarthy Cruz, my buddy Clem is against net neutrality, if only because Obama is for it.

Misty » 10 Nov 2014 12:52 pm » wrote: Really? No one predicted that the Republicans would take the Senate? ROFL You think Elizabeth Warren is over 70?
Go ahead. Hitch your wagon to that star.

Misty » 06 Nov 2014 9:14 pm » wrote: And you keep bleating wingnut talking points like how Obama is a tyrant.
You obviously have no idea what that word means.

RichClem » 10 Nov 2014 12:57 pm » wrote:Net Neutrality is just another liberal-left attempt to put government control over the internet, so of course I oppose it.
And of course you fascists like the idea.

Misty » 10 Nov 2014 1:10 pm » wrote: I know, you prefer corporate control of the internet Pumpkin.
You would like phone and cable companies to act as the gatekeepers, restricting what we can do or see online.

Ted Cruz's Net Neutrality Take Isn't Just Dumb, It's Dangerous

Today, President Obama came out in support of net neutrality, asking the FCC to reclassify broadband as a public utility. This would help stop ISPs from creating "internet slow lanes" and throttling customers. Senator Ted Cruz—who accepted campaign funds from telco giant Comcast—immediately fired back with this incendiary tweet:



Comparing net neutrality to Obamacare is basically the most insulting parallel a conservative senator can make—half buzzword, half slur, and 100% cynical.
Cruz's communications director got in on the action, too:



This is a disingenuous, **** political maneuver and nothing more.
Ted Cruz and his team have the facts wrong about net neutrality. Obama specifically said the government would NOT be in charge of pricing: "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

Emphasis mine. Government will not rate regulate and saying so is lying (or maybe they didn't actually read the statement?)
Cruz is one of the most powerful people in Congress, and he's considering a presidential run in 2016. He's on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, which handles internet governance and FCC oversight. This is a man people give their attention, which makes this statement dangerous as well as disingenuous.

Cruz is rallying his supporters by denigrating the Obama administration's politics. He is conflating a hatred with anything Obama stands for with a hatred for this particular stance, which is a rational and potentially bipartisan solution to a problem that affects everyone across the aisle (or at least everyone across the aisle without ties to the ISPs).

Obama is not saying the government should wrest control from private companies and start administering the Internet itself. He is trying to keep the Internet as an equalizer.
There is no need for political polarization here.

But political polarization we're gonna get. Cruz isn't alone in trying to characterize a push to protect consumers as a socialist—or at the least, bureaucratic—nightmare. Broadband for America had this to say:

President Barack Obama's endorsement of 1930's era Title II classification would lead to unprecedented government interference in the Internet and would hurt consumers and innovation. Further, for the President to issue this directive is a threat to the independence of the FCC itself. By vastly expanding the regulatory bureaucracy over the internet, the administration is turning its back on 20 years of bipartisan consensus that has allowed the Internet to flourish. The President's approach would threaten millions of jobs and a diverse array of stakeholders including, labor, civil-rights organization, and tech companies, who have long advocated for a far more restrained approach.

The characterization that reclassifying the internet as a utility will hamper innovation and introduce a byzantine influx of administrative red tape is wrong, and it obscures the actual issue at hand here: Net neutrality protection is what is best for consumers. It will not choke off chances for innovation; it will ensure that innovators from across the socioeconomic spectrum will have a more level playing field when it comes to receiving information.

ISPs are moving away from net neutrality in their attempts to throttle and lay out premium traffic lanes. This is one of those attacks on our freedoms you hear about on Fox News.
The government will not determine the speed of the internet, it will simply stop ISPs from slowing service down. Obama is asking private companies to treat their customers fairly; there is no part of his plan that involves the government seizing control of providers.

Freedom is a word that gets thrown around a lot in politics. Conservatives believe big government curtails freedoms. This can happen, and it is important to interrogate when and why the government creates and enforces new legislation. If the FCC authorizes the internet fast lane rules, the government will be stifling innovation and hurting its citizens.
But the government is not the only force that can constrict freedom.

Corporations can be just as tyrannical as corrupt federal administrations, and we have been in danger of ISPs controlling and corroding the flow of information through the internet in a way that would be detrimental to everybody. This is not a case of government scope creep. This is a case of the government attempting to preserve an endangered freedom.

The only thing the only thing net neutrality would slow down is the speed at which you're getting ****, and that's something everyone in Congress should agree on.

RichClem » 10 Nov 2014 1:17 pm » wrote:So you think putting Beltway politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats in charge is a better idea?

Clem: There's enough competition and more in the works that will prevent any domination of the internet by a large corporation or two.

Internet access providers, especially certain very large ones, have done a pretty good job of divvying up the nation to leave most Americans with only one or two choices for decent high-speed Internet access. Many of us don't like those options.
That’s one reason folks have been looking to the FCC to enact neutrality rules. If there’s no competition, customers can’t vote with their wallets when ISPs behave badly. Beyond the neutrality issue, oligopolies also have little incentive to invest, not only in decent customer service, but also in building out world-class Internet infrastructure so that U.S. innovators can continue to compete internationally.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/h ... nity-fiber

Clem: I prefer freedom. Leftists like you prefer government control.

Wingnut Pro-Gun Extremists: Don't Vote; Assassinate The President Instead!

On election day, one group of ammosexual nutjobs had a Bright Idea™ — voting is stupid, assassinate Obama.

While the second part has become almost a mantra on whatever segment of the Right is not calling for impeachment, it is surprising to see the Gun Rights Facebook page doing anything besides encouraging its vapid and rabid followers to vote straight Tea Party. The page urged people to stay home, because voting “acknowledges that the government has a right to rule over you.”

According to the page, the Founding Fathers, who established voting as a means of deciding government officials, established the Second Amendment because voting is “completely useless.” Oh, and assassinate Obama.
The text was accompanied by a meme depicting John Wilkes Booth in the process of shooting Abraham Lincoln, with whom President Obama is often associated.

The administrators of the page removed the meme and the text after half the internet, including some of their own followers, dismissed their ideas as insane because even many extremists realize voting is important. However, the few who spoke up against violence as a solution to a problem were greatly outnumbered by the insane proponents of diplomacy-by-murder.

When the administrator posted, “Why is that when I post stuff about the American revolutionaries using guns to get freedom it’s all positive feedback, but when I post something about John Wilkes Booth using a gun to defend freedom everyone freaks out?” the bulk of his followers chimed in that Booth was a swell guy, and Lincoln had it coming.