Net Neutrality

The first link, the school who “rejected” the common core.  I challenge you, Phaedrus, to read the paragraph where they cite the core encouraging whole words in kindergarten and waiting for phonics in first grade then actually read the foundational skills ELA section of the common core.  Then come back to and we can talk about why your link is full of ****.

by the way, of the 50 top performing countries in the world, according to PISA, nearly all the countries who got to the top cite “high, commonly agreed upon standards” as one of the methods used to get to the top.  Demonizing the core mostly comes from ignorance 

phaedrus posted:

 

As another example (http://www.bizpacreview.com/20...n-commissioner-96890):

 

Finally, on education, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt - http://www.deliberatedumbingdo...msPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

El-Ka,

This venue is not appropriate for the level of detail such a dialogue requires.  I offered dissenting opinions primarily as a refutation to Henry's broad brush characterization of folks rejecting new things and to highlight his vitriolic writing style that has no positive impact from the perspective of impacting those with convictions contrary to his own.

Kinda causes me to think of Dan Aykroid debating Jane Curtain, "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

Yeah, that'll help!

Thanks, anyway.

The Common Core is great to teach kids how to fit into a box with their thinking, the same way PISA tests how well kids fit into the box. It's also a great way to tie teachers' hands and keep them from addressing exactly what the kids in front of them need. Keep hammering teachers to test, test, test and you lose your job if they don't test high enough and you suck the lifeblood out of the creative teachers. Yes, kids should have a base of knowledge that is standardized, but the background, futures and kids' needs in Miami are far different from those in Milwaukee from those in Dallas and those in Los Angeles. 

And the button "Those who can, teach. Those who cannot pass laws about teaching" is right on!

Oh, and the latest news on net neutrality shows that some 800,000 emails supporting the repeal are probably fake -- and the FCC is stymieing the investigation. Go figure. 

You must be reading a different core than the one I know.  

phaedrus posted:

El-Ka,

I offered dissenting opinions primarily as a refutation to Henry's broad brush characterization of folks rejecting new things and to highlight his vitriolic writing style that has no positive impact from the perspective of impacting those with convictions contrary to his own.

I don’t think Hank’s ****talk is a good reason to post a weak, indefensible link

It appears as if the Net Neutrality comment process may have been sabatoged or hijacked  

Investigation of fake net neutrality foes has been stymied by the FCC, New York attorney general says - The Washington Post
https://apple.news/AjQRcE7rCSl2WuE6gcoRxAQ

Henry posted:

Good catch.  You must be edumactated.  Who has odds there's a Fox News story about disrespecting the military?  

Did you hear about the guy who was half black and half Japanese?

Every December 7th he attacked Pearl Bailey.

El-Ka-Bong posted:

phaedrus posted:

El-Ka,

I offered dissenting opinions primarily as a refutation to Henry's broad brush characterization of folks rejecting new things and to highlight his vitriolic writing style that has no positive impact from the perspective of impacting those with convictions contrary to his own.

I don’t think Hank’s ****talk is a good reason to post a weak, indefensible link

Yeah, well, I kinda think your post is like real dumb because it's not like it's real likely I'm suddenly gonna slap my head and exclaim, "I could've had a V8!!!" (read: some epiphany wherein I conclude that I what I posted is weak and indefensible).

Given that, what a waste.

Your link makes claims about the common core that, if you took a moment to examine the core you would recognize are bull**** claims.  

I apologize if I asked to much 

El-Ka-Bong posted:

Your link makes claims about the common core that, if you took a moment to examine the core you would recognize are bull**** claims.  

I apologize if I asked to much 

Fair enough.  For now, it really is just a matter of lack of prioritization.  Have a lot going on.

I apologize if I asked (to) much.

I know you know better (just a typo), but that's still kind of funny!

Conceded 

Conceded or conceited?  

Brainwashed Boris posted:

Looks like I'm moving out of the U.S. a little sooner than I thought. Mexico & Italy are looking damn good!

Exactly what I thought when I stayed here in Germany.

i have been exactly one year and one month jobless until this morning.

the grass is not always greener......

I often find engaging in conversations with the clinically deranged conspiracy theorists just isn't complete without some expert testimonials. 

You  ENGAGE in conversations?   with other people?   Holy Cow.   Who knew.  

Happy Thanksgiving.   

Yeah, people.  Not mindless twat bots who do what they're told.  

PA green & gold posted:

It appears as if the Net Neutrality comment process may have been sabatoged or hijacked  

Investigation of fake net neutrality foes has been stymied by the FCC, New York attorney general says - The Washington Post
https://apple.news/AjQRcE7rCSl2WuE6gcoRxAQ

We have to ask why seven unelected members of the FCC panel proposing abolishment of Net Neutrality has that kind of power to begin with? A decision like this should have been put to the American people on a referendum, at the very least. If that happened, the proposal to abolish Net Neutrality would fail in a big way. No one wants slow, ISP controlled, politically influenced content in their internet.

You want this dopey populace to vote on something that would be against their interests?   What could go wrong.

mrtundra posted:

We have to ask why seven unelected members of the FCC panel proposing abolishment of Net Neutrality has that kind of power to begin with? A decision like this should have been put to the American people on a referendum, at the very least. If that happened, the proposal to abolish Net Neutrality would fail in a big way. No one wants slow, ISP controlled, politically influenced content in their internet.

You know, the same statement (7 unelected officials) could be made about the implementation of the regulation to begin with...

You mean like Tom Wheeler?  Appointed by Obama.  A former venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry?  The same guy that listened to the American public and upheld Net Neutrality because the overwhelming consensus across the political spectrum was for Net Neutrality?  

There's nothing wrong with commissions and commissioners that do their job, which is listening and advocating policy for the American people.  Net Neutrality shouldn't even be up for a vote being it's so overwhelmingly supported.  It's so off the charts corrupt you'd have to say this iteration of the FCC is more like a corporate boardroom than a public governance.  We need more of this!  Corporations are sooo efficient!  Only problem is governance isn't about efficiency, it's about oh, I don't know, governance.  

So MrTundra's comment about 7 commissioners isn't the problem, it's appointing an immoral piece of human trash to run it backed by a party bent on looting the American public as fast as they can before the hammer falls and they golden parachute back to their tax havens.  

Almost forgot . . . 

Henry posted:

I often find engaging in conversations with the clinically deranged conspiracy theorists just isn't complete without some expert testimonials. 

Which is more conspiracy theorist:

a) the internet that until 2015 produced a wide array of sites, ideas, and innovation suddenly needs government oversight because, well, because. 

b) the internet is able to innovate and improve on its own without oversight, as it always has. 

The Government getting involved in regulating industry is always a slippery slope. Certainly some validity on both sides of the net neutrality argument. 

So you want Telecom to regulate while cashing in as well.  Solid argument. 

Henry posted:

There's nothing wrong with commissions and commissioners that do their job, which is listening and advocating policy for the American people.  Net Neutrality shouldn't even be up for a vote being it's so overwhelmingly supported.  It's so off the charts corrupt you'd have to say this iteration of the FCC is more like a corporate boardroom than a public governance.  We need more of this!  Corporations are sooo efficient!  Only problem is governance isn't about efficiency, it's about oh, I don't know, governance.  

So MrTundra's comment about 7 commissioners isn't the problem, it's appointing an immoral piece of human trash to run it backed by a party bent on looting the American public as fast as they can before the hammer falls and they golden parachute back to their tax havens.  

Almost forgot . . . 

And I’m the “zealot”? Could you be any more partisan than broadly accusing all conservatives of wanting to loot the American people with everything they want and do? 

The only zealotry going on here is the “we need more government oversight and THEY’RE all corrupt!” 

I’m willing to hear both sides of this particular argument because I’m not a partisan douche. I think both actual parties are crap. Free markets and conservatism is better than Marxist antagonism. 

Hey **** weasel, what part of 80% of the population, including 73% of registered Republicans want Net Neutrality isn't clear to you?  Don't you think you should've choosen, oh I don't know, any other single topic in the world to flap your ****ing gums about?

Here, I'll show you why this is a really bad example for you to use.  

80% is more than 20%.  So when 80% of the people say to their elected representatives (we'll get to this word in a bit) they want Net Neutrality in place and those representatives not only ignore this information but rapidly push through this thing 80% of people don't want it would mean what exactly?    

I'll let you work on your answer as we move onto the next part of the lesson as to why you're a moron for using this example. 

This word "represent" is part of the word "representative". See, it means this person or "representative" should perform the verb usage of "represent". Okay, moving on.

Now this word "majority" correlates to those numbers I posted. 80% are for Net Neutrality. So if you have 100% of something, in this case people, 80% would constitute what we would call, that's right, a maaajorritty. I'll just wait for your next stupid ass post to continue my dripping condescension.

Music City posted:

And I’m the “zealot”? Could you be any more partisan than broadly accusing all conservatives of wanting to loot the American people with everything they want and do? 

Hi, my name is Moosic City and I would like to sell you some magazines on why 1% loves me and their interests are just like mine.  Also, they shipped my job overseas. 

The only zealotry going on here is the “we need more government oversight and THEY’RE all corrupt!” 

Hi, my name is Moosic City.  I am on crack and don't know the difference between the word "existing" and "more".  Also, I have a poster of Hillary Clinton on my bedroom ceiling.   

I’m willing to hear both sides of this particular argument because I’m not a partisan douche. I think both actual parties are crap. Free markets and conservatism is better than Marxist antagonism. 

Oh yeah, that whole "both parties are crap" thing?  I just say that when I'm trying to sell these **** magazines to antagonizing Marxists.

Music City posted:

Henry posted:

I often find engaging in conversations with the clinically deranged conspiracy theorists just isn't complete without some expert testimonials. 

Which is more conspiracy theorist:

a) the internet that until 2015 produced a wide array of sites, ideas, and innovation suddenly needs government oversight because, well, because. 

Yes, innovation died in 2015.  I'm pretty sure Silicon Valley is just Tin Pan Alley now.  And all that regulation on places like Silk Road, which started out as a commons (you as a conservative should hate this), then became a place for sex trafficking and murder for hire.  It's as if the idea of regulation was there to "regulate" things, almost like a law against murder or sex trafficking.  

See these things are called "facts".  Conspiracies would be things like this.

b) the internet is able to innovate and improve on its own without oversight, as it always has. 

Of course, this isn't true but it sure sounds good!  

The Government getting involved in regulating industry is always a slippery slope. Certainly some validity on both sides of the net neutrality argument. 

Humanity is a slippery slope, period.  We're such ****heads we subvert the concepts of regulation and free markets all in one fell swoop. 

The Internet is our Roman roads and aqueducts.  I would guess it will be our legacy more than anything.  Good thing the Romans let RoadCo take care of things.  

I learn something new at timesfour every day.

That's engaging in Conversation ???

So let me get this straight asshole... I state I’m willing to hear and have read the arguments from both sides on this topic, and tend to lean away from government oversight as a principle- and your “lesson” is to tell me all about how the majority of folks side with you, and this should govern my thinking on this? The same guy who talked about “mindless twat bots who do what they’re told”? So the majority is supposed to be my compass on right or wrong, good or bad, because that’s not indicative of being a “mindless twat bot?? Pardon me, but go fu*k yourself, you hypocritical, contradicting, double-standard pumping piece of crap. 

I don’t need a single fu*king lesson from you or anyone like you. No one does.

Some folks on the board are capable of actually having a real discussion... even disagree on stuff and be cool. You? Not so much.

[cue the rest of the echo chamber in 3...2...1...]

Music City posted:

So let me get this straight asshole... I state I’m willing to hear and have read the arguments from both sides on this topic, and tend to lean away from government oversight as a principle- and your “lesson” is to tell me all about how the majority of folks side with you, and this should govern my thinking on this? The same guy who talked about “mindless twat bots who do what they’re told”? So the majority is supposed to be my compass on right or wrong, good or bad, because that’s not indicative of being a “mindless twat bot?? Pardon me, but go fu*k yourself, you hypocritical, contradicting, double-standard pumping piece of crap. 

I don’t need a single fu*king lesson from you or anyone like you. No one does.

Some folks on the board are capable of actually having a real discussion... even disagree on stuff and be cool. You? Not so much.

[cue the rest of the echo chamber in 3...2...1...]

Filled up with premium victim this morning I see.  I love how you take facts, directly answered questions and weave a hair shirt out of it.  This was my favorite part. 

to tell me all about how the majority of folks side with you, and this should govern my thinking on this?

See, I showed you facts, be it in a deliciously condescending manner because that's how much I think of you,  as a very specific example of Republican plundering while answering all your bull**** retorts.  You try to juxtapose it as me telling you what to do and the nobility of your independent thought.  

Let me make this abundantly clear, I know what you're going to say before you say it.  So for me to "tell you what to think" is the furthest thing from my mind when I respond to your **** or any of the other bots here.  I quit being pragmatic with pricks like you years ago.   

The basic problem with dialoguing with Henry is the substantive realization that you are doing so with a Class A Asshole.

Here, let me help you to gather your much needed info.  Here's a real important question and don't get all victimy if you feel uncomfortable answer the question.  Monopolies are bad are they not?  You absolutely approved of Ma Bell being busted up so such innovative companies like Verizon, Tmobile, AT&T, Time Warner, Charter, etc could flourish right?  

Turns out getting rid of Net Neutrality is as much about regulation of monopolies as it is equal access, if not more.  Who in their right mind would side with a monopoly considering the history in this country?  

So innovative and nimble!

Pay no never mind!

So to you clowns who continue to chirp at me thinking I'm actually trying to engage or change your addled minds (rhetorical and sardonic would be the terminology in play here), this is for the people who don't respond.  I just enjoy smacking the bitch out of you and your politics.  

phaedrus posted:

The basic problem with dialoguing with Henry is the substantive realization that you are doing so with a Class A Asshole.

Yeah, I guess Free Range A-hole doesn't quite translate on Planet Zebulon.  

The good thing about facts is they don't change regardless of who they're coming from. 

*yawn*

You presented no facts. That’s because in the debate on net neutrality there are no facts- just fear. Fear of what some company COULD do, but not taking into consideration other factors like market fluidity and innovation that should assuage the fears of monopolies or content control. The one entity we should be afraid of when it comes to control of content, and abuse of power? That would the government you moron. 

The internet existed quite prosperously before 2015. How???? I mean, every corporation is trying to destroy the world! Henry said so! This is the same sh*t you scream at people all the time- now you’re the chicken little!

You're a Marxist with memes- you’re nothing. In this country, you’re a disease. My responses mIgor be predictable because you spew the same bullshi*t every time. 

Good to see you doubled down.  You're going to need a bigger tank for all that premium victim.  

Here's a link from Fortune Magazine, that Marxist publication of fake news.

My favorite part.

Pro-Trump outlets including Breitbart and the Daily Caller have taken up the banner of opposition to net neutrality, apparently more as a proxy battle than on the merits of the rules themselves. Small outlets like Breitbart, after all, are on a level playing field with the likes of CNN largely because of the principles of net neutrality.