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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

38. Sorry, still does not explain how Monsanto profits from

Reply to Recursion (Reply #35)

Mon May 12, 2014, 02:41 PM

May 2014

the government charging grazing fees to graze on government land. Monsanto would still make money if we charged zero fees.

Nor does it explain how grass is infrastructure.

You've clearly made your mind up.

As have you. Difference is, I made up my mind based on reading the DC Circ. Court case. No clue what you are basing your decision on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK, DUers, say you were in charge of the FCC [View all] Recursion May 2014 OP

Supreme Court? The appellate court ruled last January rurallib May 2014 #1

Was it the appellate court? Recursion May 2014 #3

Thank you. DC Appellate court (nt) Recursion May 2014 #4

The ruling was that the way the FCC defined the internet rurallib May 2014 #6

(Last of 3 replies) they ruled the FCC had already deemed ISPs "communications providers" Recursion May 2014 #5

and reclassifying the internet is really the only way to maintain neutrality rurallib May 2014 #7

Reclassification would not be that huge a row to hoe. merrily May 2014 #10

No, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC can regulate "common carriers" more heavily merrily May 2014 #14

The only people who are saying it's a "huge row to hoe" tkmorris May 2014 #16

Link? mindwalker_i May 2014 #2

You'll get a link to a case that over 80 pages. merrily May 2014 #12

Thanks, I had read that post initially mindwalker_i May 2014 #17

The SCOTUS claim has been made more than once, by defenders of the administration, merrily May 2014 #18

If I were in charge of the FCC, Time Warner wouldn't be cutting channels while raising the fees. liberal N proud May 2014 #8

That is not what the D.C. Circuit ruled. Please see merrily May 2014 #9

"Wheeler" is attempting to impose the views of the person who appointed him. You are complaining msongs May 2014 #11

The OP is not complaining about anyone in govt. merrily May 2014 #13

Hey, I blame Wheeler too, especially with the half-measure he apparently floated today Recursion May 2014 #20

Doubling down on losing cases? Why? merrily May 2014 #21

Clearly not Recursion May 2014 #22

What? merrily May 2014 #24

Government infrastructure yields private profits all the time Recursion May 2014 #25

Grass is infrastructure now? Which private body is profiting from grazing on govt lands and why? merrily May 2014 #27

Err... Monsanto, Conagra, ADM... Recursion May 2014 #29

Again, grass is not infrastructure. merrily May 2014 #34

Sigh. Recursion May 2014 #35

Sorry, still does not explain how Monsanto profits from merrily May 2014 #38

Starts with a false premise tkmorris May 2014 #15

Why the FCC did not reclassify years ago is a mystery. merrily May 2014 #19

Because ruling ISPs common carrier brings on a world of unintended consequences Recursion May 2014 #23

You are mixing apples and oranges. merrily May 2014 #26

OK, we seem to agree. "Net neutrality" is a slogan, not a policy. Recursion May 2014 #28

If we agree as far as you can tell, then you must not be able to tell much. merrily May 2014 #32

Right. "Net neutrality" is not a status. It's a marketing slogan. Recursion May 2014 #33

Not what you were saying at all. merrily May 2014 #37

PS whatworld of unintended consequences are you talking about. Please be specific. merrily May 2014 #30

Steve Earle always comes to mind when I see the letters F C C zappaman May 2014 #31

What the lobbyist with the deepest pockets wants Fumesucker May 2014 #36