3 ms·

>Nothing but damn lies. Please review the civility guidelines. If nothing else, mischaracterizing a clearly-labeled presumptive statement as a "damn lie" revea

>Nothing but damn lies. Please review the civility guidelines. If nothing else, mischaracterizing a clearly-labeled presumptive statement as a "damn lie" reveals your malice and discredits your POV. As I alluded to in the grandparent, it was not at all obvious that the FCC or other elements of the Obama administration were working toward net neutrality when the jokes about Obama leaving the baby to the dingos were getting flung around. [0] > What burden of net neutrality repeal? There was no burden because there was no requirement to repeal NN. It was clear that ISPs did not fit the legal definition of Title II carriers which is why they weren't just classified as such at the beginning. It was clear that it was not likely that they would retain this classification, whether a Democrat won the next cycle and a successful lawsuit overturned the rulings or whether the FCC undid it as is the case now with Ajit Pai (whose primary contention, by the way, is not that net neutrality shouldn't exist, just that Title II is not an appropriate regulatory framework in which to cast it). Of course, in politics, all that really matters is brownie points, so as long as the public sees you as the good guy, then you win and it doesn't matter if a judge overturns everything you've done. Obama made liberal use of this principle, and in some cases his staff would openly discuss the expectation that some executive action would not survive judicial review. Obama was pretty bad about his respect for legal structure and processes, but Trump takes it to such an extreme that saying this about Obama seems like a joke now. :P [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

masklinn 9y ago
> If nothing else, mischaracterizing a clearly-labeled presumptive statement as a "damn lie" reveals your malice and discredits your POV. Oh come off your high horse, > FCC was not anxious to implement these rules and did not do so until the very end of Obama's term is not presumptive, and it's a bald-faced lie. > It was clear that ISPs did not fit the legal definition of Title II carriers which is why they weren't just classified as such at the beginning. Oh look, an other lie. DSL ISPs were classified under Title II until 2005 when Bush's FCC reclassified them. > It was clear that it was not likely that they would retain this classification It was not clear at all, and regardless there is no "burden of net neutrality repeal" following a court order. > whose primary contention, by the way, is not that net neutrality shouldn't exist, just that Title II is not an appropriate regulatory framework in which to cast it And that's a bullshit assertion, as I told you in my previous comment the only reason Obama's FCC reclassified ISPs under Title II is that the courts ruled net neutrality could not be enforced otherwise. And regardless of judicial review risks, the only alternative would have been a brand new Telecommunications Act. In 2015. With a GOP legal majority. But funnily enough, "concerned Ajit Pai" has been hard at work reclassifying ISPs without either waiting for the court decisions you state was clearly coming, and without putting any effort into building a new regulatory framework. You know what that sounds like? Concern trolling.

masklinn 9y ago

> If nothing else, mischaracterizing a clearly-labeled presumptive statement as a "damn lie" reveals your malice and discredits your POV. Oh come off your high horse, > FCC was not anxious to implement these rules and did not do so until the very end of Obama's term is not presumptive, and it's a bald-faced lie. > It was clear that ISPs did not fit the legal definition of Title II carriers which is why they weren't just classified as such at the beginning. Oh look, an other lie. DSL ISPs were classified under Title II until 2005 when Bush's FCC reclassified them. > It was clear that it was not likely that they would retain this classification It was not clear at all, and regardless there is no "burden of net neutrality repeal" following a court order. > whose primary contention, by the way, is not that net neutrality shouldn't exist, just that Title II is not an appropriate regulatory framework in which to cast it And that's a bullshit assertion, as I told you in my previous comment the only reason Obama's FCC reclassified ISPs under Title II is that the courts ruled net neutrality could not be enforced otherwise. And regardless of judicial review risks, the only alternative would have been a brand new Telecommunications Act. In 2015. With a GOP legal majority. But funnily enough, "concerned Ajit Pai" has been hard at work reclassifying ISPs without either waiting for the court decisions you state was clearly coming, and without putting any effort into building a new regulatory framework. You know what that sounds like? Concern trolling.