Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise" [View all]AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)166. When defending the indefensible
...one must try to kill the messenger.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
248 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
According to one of the reliable defenders in this thread, "his hands were tied!"
villager
Apr 2014
#9
...except when it comes to deciding which enemies of the State are to be killed without due process,
Maedhros
Apr 2014
#46
It's amazing isn't it How little power the POTUS has on the one hand, and the power of a Monarch
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#105
Yes, you were right so why change? And we sure have had the proof of how right you were.
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#112
Some people have to cling on to their first choice because they can't admit a mistake
Obnoxious_One
Apr 2014
#222
Your desperate defenses of the indefensible are at once pathetic, and appreciated!
villager
Apr 2014
#8
The only single "narrative" is yours, attempting to corral a range of writers, and a Senator,
villager
Apr 2014
#24
Please. Spare me. How could a law professor and FCC advisor possibly know better than
merrily
Apr 2014
#219
The article doesn't seem to address the reality of the ruling of Verizon vs. FCC
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#14
That is, of course, the official talking point that sprung up today. The ol' "no choice!" defense.
villager
Apr 2014
#15
When the article doesnt address the ruling at all and suggest how it could be worked around...
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#18
Again, the "deceptive" line is another of today's talking points. In fact, the FCC had choices
villager
Apr 2014
#20
If it's that simple, why don't the articles contain suggestions? Thats a point you cant get around.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#21
If you are going to complain, you should explain what your desired end state is and how to get there
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#88
They are complaining about a broken campaign promise. That does not saddle them
merrily
Apr 2014
#101
Any three year old can whine about something. You don't need a journalist for that.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#130
""Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy."
merrily
Apr 2014
#198
Excellent post, thank you. Broken campaign promises must definitely should be noted.
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#224
The FCC needs to reclassify internet services as common carriers rather than information
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#149
As several others have responded under this OP, that comes with its own set of issues.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#158
I would make reclassifying the internet as a common carrier the top priority.
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#187
He seemed fine to everyone else on your side in this argument in his initial assessment of
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#237
That isn't an answer to the question I asked No Corporate lobbyists are fine
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#238
It seems that the admin defenders are not expressing how they feel about this
rhett o rick
Apr 2014
#177
Saying it doesn't make it so. You have yet to explain how and you dont have the legal knowledge to
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#111
Ah, so you accept Tom Wheeler as a truthteller then? Excellent. Here is more recent stuff from him
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#131
I accept him as someone who said one thing in February about changing rules and an entirely
merrily
Apr 2014
#147
What a huge surprise. You blindly accept those words that support you and blindly reject those that
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#160
First, huh? Second, are you implying that is NOT what you have done all over this board?
merrily
Apr 2014
#165
What surreal horseshit, day after day. An Orwellian carnival of propaganda.
woo me with science
Apr 2014
#178
The people came up with the solution, or so they thought. They elected Democrats
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#226
We're not talking about "the people" we're talking about the journalists who are complaining.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#235
YOU are talking about turning Journalists into politicians, not WE. Journalists should not be
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#239
The ruling simpy advised the FCC that it had to reclassify the internet as a common carrier
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#150
The FCC directive from 2002 would have to be changed...tell us your legal argument
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#53
According to the material that Leser quoted in his post, the court gave the FCC suggestions.
merrily
Apr 2014
#56
Just for kicks, do you happen to mean the 2002 directive that WAS changed in 2009?
merrily
Apr 2014
#63
I know there were significant changes in FCC regs about not long before the lawsuit.
merrily
Apr 2014
#81
Again...I reference the 2002 designation and the subsequent Verizon case. Start there. nt
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#82
No....I'm referencing the 2002 Verizon case and the 2002 directive. This ain't
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#84
Not surprising that you can't outargue that person, they are an attorney and know better. nt
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#89
Msanthrope's fallacious argument from authority does nothing to justify the FCC's betrayal.
Lasher
Apr 2014
#115
Well, trying to get any information useful to a lay person WAS like pulling teeth.
merrily
Apr 2014
#202
Regulatory agencies such as the FCC are there to write and change rules. That is their job.
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#151
I called the "The FCC is as weak as kittens" meme they would resort to before they started
Dragonfli
Apr 2014
#154
Thanks. Yes. Another Obama twist and turn as he does the campaign-money-dance
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#159
And did you think that putting a Corporate Cable Lobbyist at the head of the FCC was going
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#240
Well, when you reply in 3 different places, you're gonna get 3 different replies.
jeff47
Apr 2014
#60
Excuse me for assuming that something you posted to me was intended to apply to me.
merrily
Apr 2014
#62
PS, the "whatever is, is good" and "there's nothing to see here" approaches are not great for
merrily
Apr 2014
#61
You continue to do an excellent job of reading that which is not present in the posts
jeff47
Apr 2014
#68
There is a lot of that going on, i.e. the "his hands are tied" meme which none of us said.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#90
"When those against us have to use straw man arguments, that is as good as an admission of defeat."
villager
Apr 2014
#98
Creating a strawman to get you out of a strawman? How about using people's actual arguments?
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#128
Why do you find it so hard to use people's actual words? Is that really so hard for you? nt
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#157
It is amusing. There are a group of Obama critics here who don't care about facts they just want
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#155
The only bad facts and bad interpretations on this thread did not come from critics of the FCC move.
merrily
Apr 2014
#213
Introduce net neutrality and the internet service providers will have to compete based on net
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#153
And as many under this OP have pointed out, that comes with its own set of problems.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#91
I think only Jeff47 said there were problems and the ones he cited were makeweight.
merrily
Apr 2014
#124
Everyone except those who's job it is to polish turds for the 1% pretty much knew
Dragonfli
Apr 2014
#99
Genachowski was the first. Seemed like a good choice, except for having had a lot to do
merrily
Apr 2014
#113
If you are interested, here is the FCC's 2014 promise of net neutrality, all of
merrily
Apr 2014
#125
"So is net neutrality worth losing tiers, and thus upgrades?" Yes. As YOU said, NN is the ideal.
merrily
Apr 2014
#201
Maybe the same way Republicans can say the US is first in the world in health care?
merrily
Apr 2014
#193
Are you kidding? It's already being apologized for thusly in this very thread!
villager
Apr 2014
#27
The decision gave Chairman Wheeler quite a bit of latitude to re-write and re-classify.
pa28
Apr 2014
#31
Which of course, is very different from saying the ruling all but prohibited the FCC from
merrily
Apr 2014
#67
Again, I am not following you from thread to thread, even if you ask me to do so.
merrily
Apr 2014
#122
Technically the DC Court of Appeals, but your point stands. Exactly right. nt
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#30
Why do you think it needs to? The goal was net neutrality. There was no goal of maintaining tiers
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#218
Hmm. I seem to remember your posts after the court ruling. They were nothing like this one.
merrily
Apr 2014
#44
Baloney, but you excel at moving goal posts and saying anything. Anything at all.
merrily
Apr 2014
#73
If that means we keep having extremely slow and extremely expensive Internet service, that's
merrily
Apr 2014
#142
Exactly. I guess its easier for people to set up strawmen then talk through the challenges.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#129
There is no strawman. Strawman is not an acronym for objectives. The objective is net neutrality
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#204
There are several easily demonstrable strawmen being peddled by those attacking the administration.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#205
Well, it sure isn't that net neutrality had to be abandoned. That is a choice.
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#208
The ruling did not prevent the FCC from reclassifying and it was not a SCOTUS ruling.
merrily
Apr 2014
#69
"Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." ~I.F. Stone
DeSwiss
Apr 2014
#40
Over time, it has become clear that there are no depths to which some won't sink
DisgustipatedinCA
Apr 2014
#96
When did Google campaign for President by firmly promising America net neutrality?
merrily
Apr 2014
#100
I think you're vastly overestimating the similarity between Google and a POTUS.
merrily
Apr 2014
#146
So show me one politician anywhere who is batting 1.000 on his campaign promises?
Blue_Tires
Apr 2014
#190
I think this is the first time I've seen the "he cant get everything right" excuse. nm
rhett o rick
Apr 2014
#234
That's why we elected Democrats, so they would ensure that the internet would be
sabrina 1
Apr 2014
#136
too true, woo. WHile the president can rightfully be blamed for running a campaign of lies,
Doctor_J
Apr 2014
#189
Candidate Obama was also committed to a public option for health care, fixing NAFTA,
Doctor_J
Apr 2014
#137
the New Yorker is a libertarian rag! Fuck Ron Paul and all of his followers!!
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2014
#168
And when you're done fucking Ron and Rand Paul, fuck Greenwald! And all his followers!!!
Doctor_J
Apr 2014
#188