Utopia Talk / Politics / What may come in regards to FCC ruling

FoxNEWS Member	Thu Nov 23 04:31:04 The Federal Communications Commission is planning to ditch net neutrality, which requires internet providers to treat all data online equally. A Portuguese internet provider shows what the American internet could look like if net neutrality is scrapped. One company charges people more for additional data based on the kind of app they want to use, such as those for messaging or for video. http://www...nPh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp But, of course you have Trumpicans in favor of this. Some particular Trumpicans who mistakenly believe that the US government shouldn't regulate the internet. Except it shows they have a grave misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. And then are the same people who are Trumpicans. Trumptards.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 11:01:02 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
FoxNEWS Member	Thu Nov 23 11:32:32 ^clearly a person that knows nothing. Take your bullshit elsewhere.
The Third Reich Member	Thu Nov 23 11:34:17 Weev is my hero! Friendly to the Neo-Nazis. RM, thank you for your support.
Senor Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 12:05:50 I would suck his deek!
Senor Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 12:06:04 If he were black and jewish.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 15:31:50 FoxNEWS whines about corporations while repeating talking points from Facebook and Google. Lulz.
Dukhat Member	Thu Nov 23 16:44:54 Man Renzo is so stupid. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
FoxNEWS Member	Thu Nov 23 18:25:44 Renzo posts videos from a neo nazi felon whose only claim to fame he hacked printers and is the lover of Milo Yiannoplis. I am not shocked that you honor those types. I am not shocked that all you have been able to contribute are trolling remarks and provide no substance to any topic whatsoever except from what you find from 4chan, Reddit, or Breitbart as you play lawyer on a forum and doesn't even do that well. If you want to discuss or contribute anything in regards to what we present then do so, if not then stay the fuck off here and continue your man crush on a guy be "weev" and shirtless pictures of Milo.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Nov 23 20:25:05 ^^^^^-Typical Nazi hates free speech.
Memory Lane Member	Thu Nov 23 22:31:57 I remember when Hot Rod claimed that boycotting is a violation of a business's free speech. I drink and remember things.
Dukhat Member	Thu Nov 23 23:59:39 If most of these "conservative" idiots were to read simply the facts in a non-partisan news report; they would all support net neutrality. But once Breitbart tells them that this is an evil plans by the Dems to deny them freedom, it's all "Fuck net neutrality." There nothing but idiot brownshirts, easily manipulated by billionaire oligarchs like the Mercers.
hood Member	Fri Nov 24 01:24:53 Listened to the 2 and change minutes of the retard lawyer's link. First thing of note that dumbass talks about is Google seizing his website. Sorry, brah, that's not what net neutrality is about. Then he talks about facebook. Again, not what net neutrality is about. Now twitter. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but this is still not what net neutrality is about. And yet again, sorry, Reddit is another miss. That's 0/4. So far he's struck out and then some. continuing listening: "Net neutrality is not about free speech" Hey! finally. "Net neutrality is about peering. 2 autonomous systems connecting without using the internet." Well that was short lived. Sorry, wrong again. "They want ISPs to give them a special lane into their network architecture" Nope. Still wrong. "these people want to push unlimited amounts of streaming video, at no cost to themselves on other people's networks." I'll give him quarter credit here. But mostly no. "they want comcast to carry 4k streaming video regardless of the cost to comcast to upgrade their network to that capacity" No. "the argument is that 1 mb is the same as 1 mb anywhere" Did we just hit a full moon? Another correct comment. "random internet tech" completely off topic. "part of title 2 gives the fcc veto over pricing schemes" half right. FCC did not invoke that ability whatsoever in Wheeler's net neutrality proposal. "google and facebook are claiming comcast is this big monopoly that net neutrality will have to play by the rules" Oh? Could it be? "what its really going to do is make sure comcast never has another competitor ever because whats worse than a government veto on new market entrants right" -facepalm- he was doing so well there, but got it so wrong. "stuff about local exchange carriers from telephone era being bought up by big internet companies" .... yeah that's the point people are making by claiming companies like comcast are huge monopolies. "it was a stupid compromise that didn't actually increase competition" It did, actually. It just didn't create competition in a given area, but instead nationally in terms of transmission from locality to locality. "what limits competition is that comcast will go to a municipality and get an agreement to lay fiber that will last years where nobody else gets to do the same thing" This is true. "so the reason comcast already has very little competition is government regulations" It's far more complicated than that. Ish, but also not ish. "they simply want to pay less money for bandwidth" No. Kinda, but no. "blah blah government legislation" No, nobody was pushing legislation. The FCC does not legislate. Ok, I lied. republicans were pushing legislation. none of the companies you listed were. "that they're doing that to pay nickels less on mb/s is fucking criminal." Well for starters, it costs less than a penny to push a gb. Why you're talking about nickels on mb is beyond me, but it's just wrong. "its not about the free and open internet" It is. You just don't understand the definition of "free and open internet" being referenced here. "blah blah blah internet freedom political speech" Not what net neutrality is about, brah. ------------- So basically renzo's mancrush was mostly wrong in his vaginal ranting. For all 3 people in the entire world interested, here is what actually happened with net neutrality: http://app...c/attachmatch/DOC-331869A1.pdf What did happen: -ISPs cannot block lawful content -ISPs cannot degrade access to lawful content -ISPs cannot give special privilege to a "fast lane" in exchange for money (this goes with no throttling) What didn't happen: -ISPs will not be subject to rate regulation -no new taxes or fees were included To address the vagina rambling directly: Net neutrality was never about Google or Twitter or Facebook. It was specifically about ISPs. It was solely about wires, not content. It wasn't for large content companies to have cheaper internet connections, it wasn't about pushing 4k data. Net neutrality aimed to force ISPs, who have extreme control over access to consumers, to not be able to abuse that position. It isn't about google wanting to save nickels on pushing mbs, it's about stopping comcast from not delivering data from google unless google pays money. Here's how the internet is supposed to work: level 1: Backbone This level of the internet is not local. You never connect to the backbone of the internet. Backbone spans the large empty space between one large connection hub and a second hub. Backbone is the bundles and bundles of fiber that connect Chicago to New York, LA to Denver, Houston to Miami. level 2: ISP This level is pretty straightforward. This level is about going from level 3 to level 1. They provide access to that big backbone. level 3: End Users This is you, this is me, this is Google and Twitter and Facebook and Netflix and eBay and every website and user looking at websites. Now, the way traffic is supposed to flow: a level 3 user asks for data from another level 3 user. Let's say I want to watch a video on netflix. My request goes from me to my ISP, level 2. The ISP sees that I want to go to netflix to watch a video. The ISP then connects to the backbone, level 1, to move my request all the way to where the netflix server is. The level 1 backbone provider takes the request I made from my ISP, and delivers it to... another ISP. This ISP is the company providing Netflix internet access. ISP dos tells netflix that someone requested to watch a video. Netflix then initiates the transfer of that video content. ISP dos sends that content back to the level 1 backbone, who moves it back to ISP uno, my ISP, and then my ISP gives that data to me. And that is how the money should flow. I should pay ISP uno to use their service to connect to the internet. ISP uno should pay their backbone provider to access the backbone and travel from Chicago to, say, Denver where the netflix server is. Netflix, on the other side, will pay ISP dos so that netflix can send and receive data. ISP dos will also want to pay a backbone provider so that the backbone provider will carry their data. The backbone provider isn't initiating anything; all they do is carry out requests - backbone providers should therefore not be paying anyone for their connection. But dumbass brought up "peering" at one point. What he likely meant was this: Backbone providers don't always make it from ISP to ISP. Sometimes the backbone provider needs to pass that data off to a different backbone. With a sufficiently random set of data routes required, it is usually estimated that backbone providers will take requests and make requests at roughly the same rate with any other given backbone. As such, if they were to try to discuss pricing on sending and carrying data requests, that sum should be close enough to even that it doesn't matter. In certain cases, one backbone may offload significantly more data to another backbone than they receive. In such cases, backbones will negotiate a cost because that transmission is finally unequal. Why has this balance finally become upset? Because the Comcasts of the ISP world have realized that they can abuse this with some shitty logic that will likely fool the uninitiated. See, what Comcast claims is that they are receiving an unbalanced amount of data from Netflix being offloaded onto their network. Which isn't false. HOWEVER! Recall my example of data transmission. Comcast is ISP uno. ISP uno isn't a backbone, they're an ISP. They pay backbone to transport data and are paid by me to provide that connection. The argument of unbalanced data transmissions is between backbones. It doesn't matter if an ISP is unbalanced in their data sent/received log, all they do is provide access to the backbone. That is their only function. Comcast suggesting that Netflix should pay is completely illogical. I'm already paying comcast to connect to the backbone. If comcast has congestion on their lines, they should increase the bandwidth they have to connect me to the backbone. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I PAY THEM TO DO, TO CONNECT ME TO THE BACKBONE! Netflix pays their own ISP for backbone connection, and that ISP is very likely also going to have an unbalanced sent/received log due to pushing netflix data. So in all of this net neutrality explanation, did you see anything about free speech? Did you see any mention of political speech? It is correct that Wheeler's proposal did not do anything to disrupt the local monopolies that ISPs have (the municipality agreement bit). However, the solution to that is one of the following: a) seize ownership of the fiber/copper lines and allow any company access to them for the purpose of providing internet service; b) force ISPs to allow access to their fiber/copper lines by any other company at a rate near-cost (comcast's cost) of providing service; c) allow other companies to build their own wire network. A is pretty much a no go by the type of people who don't support net neutrality. B is slightly easier to stomach, but there is still the issue of government forcing a private business to use its property in a way that private business doesn't want to and people will be opposed to that (because EVIL GOVERNMENT REGULATION!). C is unreasonable. The entire point of the internet is interconnectivity; having two separate networks in a locality is excessive and pointlessly costly. The term for this is natural monopoly, where the most logical method of providing service is to have a single instance of it: think the road system (we have lots of roads, but you don't have 2 separate road networks that don't connect) or the power grid. Because the 3 different methods of solving for the localized monopolies are either ineffective or likely to cause a political snafu, the proposal that Wheeler made was the most logical one. I think you'll find that many people who support net neutrality ALSO support a method of breaking up the localized monopoly issue as well. However, even with breaking up the localized monopolies, net neutrality is still an important set of rules. ------------------------------ I don't expect any coherent rebuttal from retard lawyer. But I welcome the attempt.
American Democrat Member	Fri Nov 24 06:57:59 I will be pleasantly surprised if the pseudo-lawyer takes the time to respond instead of searching on some reddit forum or internet meme to post thinking that he had some "clever" response to a thought out argumentative presentation. At the same time, I would not be surprised if he did do that and then "har, har, har." himself praising his self-righteousness as he has always done. Not to take away from hood's time to post this and I may reserve or top the other thread, but I have to ask the pseudo-lawyer as to why he retreated from me when I called out his poppycock? Rhetorical question, because he does this when he is unable to articulate a response and resort to childish antics to goad posters. Admittedly, I am doing the same, but I am giving the child a taste of his own medicine.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Nov 24 07:26:35 from op link “Yonatam Zunger, an ex-Google employee, recently retweeted it, adding: "This isn't even the worst part of ending net neutrality. The worst part happens when ISPs say 'we don't like this site's politics,' or 'this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."” the rest of hood’s post was too long and surely retarded so i didn’t bother to read it
Trolly Member	Fri Nov 24 07:33:49 Oh werewolf dicktaster
hood Member	Fri Nov 24 09:25:59 "this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."” Directly addressed, fluffer. "we don't like this site's politics" The key phrase is "block or throttle." The reason why doesn't actually matter. Net neutrality is only about preventing the blocking or throttling, it isn't about why. Reasonable thought experiments can lead us to free speech examples of why an isp might block or throttle, but the FCC order wasn't actually about that. It was just about requiring reasonable and fair use of the lines. But nice try. Come again later. Or, you know, don't. And just die. Thanks!
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Nov 24 09:38:41 the real non-metaphorical tranny-lover acting like worst nonsense in op wasn’t being addressed.. and he wasn’t ranting senselessly of course whole op link was dumb.. “usa will look like portugal and not usa before 2015.. and internet companies will make much more money by charging people 5 euros/month for services they want.. and worst part is that they will throttle or block political stuff [when all the leftists love censoring anything slightly divergent from jake tapper and rachel maddow’s talking points]”
hood Member	Fri Nov 24 09:44:34 ^ too deep onto putin's weiner to understand thought experiments.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Nov 24 09:46:51 ^has already admitted putin accusations were false.. meanwhile his true obsessive love of trannies is well documented
Trolly Member	Fri Nov 24 11:32:10 Oh werewolf dicktaster.
Cold Rod Member	Fri Nov 24 11:51:29 Hot rod calling the op a Nazi while supporting a neo nazi is hilarious.
Memory Lane Member	Fri Nov 24 11:52:36 I remember when hot rod said he would rather be a Nazi than a Democrat. I drink and remember things.
Senor Marquez Member	Sat Nov 25 12:51:47 Did I run away?
obaminated Member	Sat Nov 25 13:41:59 Can someone ELI5 why net neutrality is universally hated but is someone popular among the political class? Is it literally lobby run amok?
obaminated Member	Sat Nov 25 13:47:39 Net neutrality is a person, btw.
hood Member	Sat Nov 25 13:56:39 "why net neutrality is universally hated" By who? Who fucking hates net neutrality? A majority of both parties support it.
obaminated Member	Sat Nov 25 13:58:37 Forgive hood, i am an alcoholic who hates heights and as such ive been drinking before i have to get on my roof to put up Christmas lights. Just reverse everything i wrote.
hood Member	Sat Nov 25 14:27:30 Oh. I wish you much balance. Then yeah, lobbiests and politicians run amok.
Dukhat Member	Sat Nov 25 18:13:59 I hope he falls off and dies. Rugian could use a good meal.
obaminated Member	Sat Nov 25 18:16:59 Sorry cuckhat, i survived. My fear of heights sobered me up pretty quickly.
hood Member	Mon Nov 27 11:48:39 Comcast to allow their Network to degrade and charge for future upgrades: http://ars...tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/ But naw, net neutrality rules are completely pointless! There was never a threat of Telco companies abusing their position as last Mike monopolists.
American Democrat Member	Mon Nov 27 12:32:21 This should be no surprise. Also no surprises that the resident "lawyer" hasn't returned with his insightfulness.
Senor Marquez Member	Tue Nov 28 16:01:03 Oh were you guys waiting on me? My apologies, I've been too busy with my braggadocious ways on the breitbart and 4chan as I try to start or rather say repeat the latest internet trend so I could come back here and display my prowess. Also my online lawyer license, cost me 45 bucks. Was originally 48.75 but I (((jewed))) them down. Did I mentioned I pissed on some minorities today?
Dukhat Member	Tue Nov 28 16:08:19 Basic issue is this: Do you believe there is more value in the companies that compete to provide us better goods and services under the assumption that bandwidth is cheap and available to consumers? Or do you believe that letting comcast and major ISP's nickel and dime customers like Telecoms do will lead to better results? Structure in a non-partisan, non-idealogical way; the answer is obvious. But the cuckservatives on this board are such fucking idiots; it's a surprise they know up from down.
Senor Marquez Member	Wed Nov 29 18:16:22 I will run away again.
Senor Marquez Member	Thu Nov 30 08:58:56 I ran away.
Forwyn Member	Thu Nov 30 11:16:28 "nickel and dime customers like Telecoms do will lead to better results?" Why hasn't regulation prevented Telecoms from nickling and diming us?
Senor Marquez Member	Tue Dec 05 17:04:02 Hi!
Senor Marquez Member	Wed Dec 06 17:18:37 (((Lawyer)))
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 14 12:24:32 Breaking News: The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission votes 3-2, along party lines, to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections
American Democrat Member	Thu Dec 14 12:27:22 Yes, what a terrible decision made. Surely our resident "lawyer could provide some insight.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 14 14:34:41 Fox News chose an odd photo of the terrorist head of the FCC: http://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/941372406718980096
American Democrat Member	Thu Dec 14 14:42:40 So the spin is "attack on free speech." Which has nothing to do with it. Average fox viewer is a sad construct.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Dec 14 15:01:48 Two State A/G's are filing suit. This is going to be ongoing for awhile. Did you see the regulation comparison? http://www...LANDSCAPE_1140/Trump_32994.jpg His admin has eliminated 21 regs for each new one. Don't worry they are keeping the good ones when all is said and done.
hood Member	Thu Dec 14 16:10:13 NN was a good one, so your statement is false.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 14 16:38:50 "His admin has eliminated 21 regs for each new one. " ...according to the guy who has lied about literally every single accomplishment he's ever had "Don't worry they are keeping the good ones when all is said and done. " ...according to the same guy... who pretends all of what he does is perfect
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Dec 14 20:24:32 hood, it is not all said and done yet.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Dec 14 20:29:25 true,putin hasn't signed off on it yet.
American Democrat Member	Fri Dec 15 04:23:15 "His admin has eliminated 21 regs for each new one. Don't worry they are keeping the good ones when all is said and done. " It seems you like to equate your limitations to that of Trump. Which is fine and well and good since you idolize someone who is completely inept for the job. But let us play a game shall we? Quite interesting that we see such stack of papers which supposed to simulate slashing all those regulations since 1960. But here are some things to take into account as to why regulations have grown; 1960 vs. Present. We have grown as a nation significantly since then; population estimated 180 million vs. the approximately 330 million we have now. GDP was about 3 trillion vs. the 17 trillion presently. Do you not think that regulations would have grown with it. Some definitely in place that were reasonably applicable. Instead we have the attitude that "regulations are bad" and that all means to stifle it is in place, regardless of them fully understanding the repercussions and consequences. I know the pseudo-libertarians that currently and hawkishly flounder around the forums are celebrating. But these are the same individuals that have continuously shown that know very little of what is currently regulated and what isn't. Now I am not pretending to know everything either. However, I am will to shell out that I may have a better understanding that the average poster. Not to single you out Hot Rod, but definitely more than you which begs the question; Do you actually take any time whatsoever to even research or educate yourself before you input anything on a subject matter? Or do you just repeat what you hear or see on a show and just repeat the talking about without contextually understanding what it actually means and what it could do. Those who seemingly support the repeal of net neutrality have a constant theme amongst them. "The internet has it's freedom back and isn't regulated, freedom of speech and reign again." Reality, that wasn't the point of net neutrality because it was painted by ignorance and associated it with government involvement. Anyways, of course you are going to respond with; "Your name is a contradiction." Yes, I get it. You are a partisan hack that would rather focus on a name instead of the subject matter because the only thing you can concoct are weak arguments and parrot what the ignorant administration peddles or what you hear on 'fox and friends.' I also see that the resident "lawyer" is still lurking as well and fail to counter any points that were made weeks back.
hood Member	Fri Dec 15 08:24:29 Retard lawyer never responded, must have run away in shame. Sad!
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Dec 15 08:47:09 Why are you people so afraid of the free market? The internet was free and open until Obama seized power over it with his regulation. All President Trump did is get rid of an unnecessary regulation that returns the internet to the status it held for over two decades. The Free Market.
American Democrat Member	Fri Dec 15 09:34:45 Yep, proves my point. Completely ignorant and poorly understands the intent of the regulations, which some were first introduced in 2005. Thanks Hot Rod.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 15 09:55:00 HR Netneutrality is a variant on anti-trust regulations. But instead of assuring there are no local monopolies, it aimed to manage equality of service.
hood Member	Fri Dec 15 10:46:29 Hot Rod, the internet was being assaulted in the years leading up to NN. Both Comcast and Verizon were intentionally allowing the connections between their Network and the internet at large stagnate so that they could blame Netflix for "sending too much data." They did this to coerce payment from Netflix. AT&T began offering a "competitive" gigabit internet connection to compete with Google fiber in certain areas. However, AT&T inspected packets (snooped on your internet use) and even injected their own advertising over that of the website you visited (potentially hurting ad revenue of said website). Comcast has been putting arbitrary data use caps on their home internet offerings, adding on "overage" fees that customers must pay if they go over the cap. On home, wired internet. The concept of a cap on wired internet is laughably ludicrous. Comcast was and is simply trying to milk extra money from their customers through abusive practices. AT&T, who also has data caps, introduced a "zero rating" program - that is, specific data would not be counted towards your cap. AT&T gave this zero rating to their own services, while no others. Combined with the prospect of having to pay extra for exceeding your data cap, this deters consumers from using non-AT&T services whenever possible and is pretty clear abuse. These are just off the top of my head. NN was absolutely protecting consumers from segmented internet and abusive business practices.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Dec 15 16:24:56 You have like 80% of public against this, according to polls. Pretty much everybody knows that the only people for it are ISP and their lobbyists. And yet, Donald’s FCC just went ahead with it. I often wonder how politics work like that. Maybe you need a widespread outrage or something
delude Member	Fri Dec 15 17:04:37 "Why are you people so afraid of the free market? The internet was free and open until Obama seized power over it with his regulation. All President Trump did is get rid of an unnecessary regulation that returns the internet to the status it held for over two decades. The Free Market." How fucking stupid are you really?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Dec 15 17:47:15 Ask yourself two questions. 1) Where did net neutrality come from? 2) Who controlled it before then? 3) Did the net grow before NN? You are probably too young to remember it, but when the net first went public it cost $2.00 a minute.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Dec 15 17:51:24 Maybe it was an hour. That was about 40 years ago. I know the cost was steep. When I was finally able to afford a link it cost me about $20.00 a month and that $20.00 was worth a lot more than it is today.
delude Member	Fri Dec 15 19:00:51 Ask yourself this question Hot Rod in regards to those posts; What does that have to do with any god damn thing regarding the topic at hand? You were asked, addressed, and given points and you can't even muster a fucking response without coming up with some fucking dumb unrelated bullshit that would make no fucking point whatsoever.
American Democrat Member	Fri Dec 15 19:09:20 "1) Where did net neutrality come from? 2) Who controlled it before then? 3) Did the net grow before NN? " I made this post before. In fact the answers you seek are actually in this thread. Perhaps you should take the time and energy to read. And if you are unable to find the answers we have this thing called the "internet" which is "on the line" that 'Al Gore invented'. Joking aside; Terminology came from the early 2000s. Concept of NN was something from the 90s. 2005-06 was here new regulations would attempted and failed, 2010 saw the re-emergence and legislation once again came into play. FCC were the ones to monitor and supported the NN. The net did grow tremendously and various ISPs, specifically verizon said that it did not stop their growth nor expansion of their infrastructure. Once again this was brought up in this post that you apparently failed to read and if read did not comprehend. But, I expected that from the one who idolizes Trump.
hood Member	Fri Dec 15 19:47:03 "1) Where did net neutrality come from?" It was an inherent principle from the beginnings of the internet. "2) Who controlled it before then?" This is either a really retarded question or a really obvious question. If retarded, nobody controls the internet, fuckwad. If obvious, the FCC is the agency in charge of rule making. "3) Did the net grow before NN?" This is a false premise question. You assume that 2015 was the only time we had net neutrality. For most of the existence of the internet, it was treated as an open ecosystem (there were some bad actors, of course). The reason for the internet growing so rapidly was not so much NN but technological advances. Faster connection speeds allowed not just gaming, but sale of games. It allowed more than just music to easily flow, but video and large files. Eventually marketplaces popped up due to an increased customer base and improvements on ease of use. All of this was done in an era when ISPs weren't actively fucking with internet users. Beyond that, AD provided a reasonable answer. NN "did not stop their growth nor expansion of their infrastructure." The passing of the 2015 rules had no tangible effect on the ISPs. They told this to their shareholders (a forum where it is illegal to lie).
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Dec 15 20:02:37 Thanks. If true that is very enlightening. "Do you not think that regulations would have grown with it." Do you mean that little regulation where if a rock is too close to a stream that runs through your property, you must get a government permit to move it? That one regulation alone saved the nation. Or what about the one where it is a violation to collect rainwater on your property. Out of all of those regulations how many do you think are as asinine as those? Do you remember the story about all of the czars that Obama put to work in their offices in D.C. writing those regulations? As I said, a contradiction in terms.
hood Member	Fri Dec 15 21:04:07 Hot Rod, there is literally a link to the NN rules that were passed by Wheeler in this thread. You could go see exactly what the rules were.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 15 23:04:18 "if a rock is too close to a stream that runs through your property, you must get a government permit to move it" Waterways are generally owned by the public who have a right to access the waterways. Buying a property does not confer ownership of the waterway, so of course you need permission to do something on property you do not own. "Or what about the one where it is a violation to collect rainwater on your property." The person in question was storing 13 million gallons of water. In violation of State law from 1925 (the law rests on the principle of water belonging to the public). Again, a case of limitations on property existing when the person in question aquired the property. He got what he paid for and needs a permit to do more than what he paid for.
American Democrat Member	Fri Dec 15 23:33:08 "Do you mean that little regulation where if a rock is too close to a stream that runs through your property, you must get a government permit to move it? That one regulation alone saved the nation. Or what about the one where it is a violation to collect rainwater on your property. Out of all of those regulations how many do you think are as asinine as those? Do you remember the story about all of the czars that Obama put to work in their offices in D.C. writing those regulations?" Ah yes, bring on the red herrings. Here you are bring up some examples of regulations as if they were the ones removed. Not entirely sure. But I will ask this again as I did previously; Do you even take the time to do any research or educate yourself at all about a subject before you post about it? Let's break it down shall we? "Or what about the one where it is a violation to collect rainwater on your property. " One this is not exclusively a federal regulation and more of a state and local regulation it is not illegal to collect water. In fact the reason for such regulation and that you are most likely referring was an incident that occurred in Oregon years ago. And this wasn't really exactly about collecting rain water. It was more along the lines of the man no following regulations and building dams on his property that limit the streams that entered public lands. So let us eliminate that nonsensical point you brought up. Next; there is no doubt there are regulations that are asinine, but this does not negate the fact of what I said. There was significantly more regulations implemented over the years and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I made a comparison as to why and it doesn't counter my initial point at all. Especially with the misnomers you've expressed. You act like that Obama created the stockpile of regulations that were clearly used as a photo op by Trump. In fact regulations continued to increase only dropping lower from president to president all the way up to the current. But, so each had their role of increasing such regulations and solely blaming Obama is rather unfair. Now, will you actually do some researching about a subject before you infer or imply or state incorrect information about your hatred for Obama clearly jeopardizes your thinking. Then again, you do idolize Trump. "contradiction in terms." Yep, as I already addressed this and will repeat it for you again. -You are a partisan hack that would rather focus on a name instead of the subject matter because the only thing you can concoct are weak arguments and parrot what the ignorant administration peddles or what you hear on 'fox and friends.'-
Cold Rod Member	Fri Dec 15 23:37:07 Hot Rod is a very, very, very stupid person.
Senor Marquez Member	Sun Dec 17 15:39:50 I am totally ignoring this thread. (((lawyer)))
Senor Marquez Member	Mon Dec 18 18:22:44 Totally scared.
Senor Marquez Member	Thu Dec 21 05:40:38 This thread is too long and too many words. And, and, I won't debate it or address them. Btw, I'm a lawyer!
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: