4 ms·
> Also the quote from the congresswoman is quite brilliant how she uses tea party rhetoric to defend laws that lock in regional broadband monopolies. Her spin i
by joelrunyon 12y ago
> Also the quote from the congresswoman is quite brilliant how she uses tea party rhetoric to defend laws that lock in regional broadband monopolies. Her spin is artfully magnificent. Boldly rising to the defense of crony capitalism.
> I only wish everyone saw it for the utter bullshit it is.
The inability to agree with "opposing" parties on some issues while still disagreeing on other issues is a symptom of a much larger issue in American politics.
I'm confused as to how this is "BS" as that is the actually one of the main stances of the tea party. If they're inconsistent about enforcing it, then call them out when they do that (or when they're doing it solely to back huge corps) and if you don't like their focus on regulating personal behavior (which is inconsistent in their idea of limiting government involvement in personal lives), but it seems like an odd to criticize them when they do something that's actually helpful.
That is, unless someone who disagrees with you is incapable of even potentially having a useful point every now and then. If that's the case, then that speaks volumes more about you than it does them.
- vidarh 12y agoI don't know whether that is consistent with tea party politics, but it's still fascinating contortionism to argue for states rights in order to safeguard the use of those rights to take away local governments ability to do what they want, in order to try to safeguard uncompetitive monopolies.
- joelrunyon 12y agoRe-read the quote & the context therein. You make a good point :)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rhino369 12y agoNot when you understand how local governments are chartered. In every state I'm familiar with, the state government grants local governments a charter to exit. Local governments are essentially organs of the state and have no sovereignty. Illinois could end Chicago's existence if it were so inclined. So telling a state that it can't regulate it's local government is an actual and serious violation of state's rights.
- vidarh 12y agoI don't doubt it can be seen a violation of state's rights. But the call for state's rights is generally to bring government closer to the people. In this case it is (attempted) used to pull government further away from the people.
- michaelt 12y agoI'm confused as to how this is "BS" as that is the actually one of the main stances of the tea party. As I understand it, in some parts of America a single broadband provider is granted a monopoly on profitable urban areas on the condition they extend service to unprofitable rural areas. If a politician says they oppose government imposition in the marketplace because of the benefits of private-sector competition, as an argument to support retaining a government-imposed monopoly that wipes out competition in the private sector? It's hard to take such an argument seriously. With that said, despite the title about "State imposed internet monopolies" the article seems to be about municipal broadband, rather than state-imposed broadband monopolies.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]