4 ms·
> Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm
by jack9 9y ago
> Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue.
I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again:
That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before."
That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH
- ABCLAW 9y agoNo, it isn't correct in context. There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior state (see the regulatory history I pointed you to), which is where the problem is. If we were going back to the defacto 2015 internet, no one would care. But we aren't doing that. Pretending that we are by framing the issue as a rollback is intentionally deceitful by people who know better.