Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance

from the open-your-mouth-and... dept

Last week, we mentioned Senator Ted Cruz’s nutty tweet comparing net neutrality to “Obamacare.” It was widely mocked — even by many Republicans — as it showed Cruz’s ignorance of the subject at hand. In fact, one report detailed a number of comments on Ted Cruz’s Facebook page from Republican/conservative engineers disagreeing with Cruz and pointing out that he’s uninformed about net neutrality. Here’s a sampling:

There’s a lot more like that, but it highlights what we’ve seen before — that while Congress likes to pretend that Republicans are against net neutrality while Democrats are for it, the reality is that net neutrality is a non-partisan issue with voters of both parties overwhelmingly supporting net neutrality.

Rather than recognize this fact, Cruz has decided to double down on it with a rambling and misguided opinion piece in the Washington Post that repeats the “Obamacare for the internet” line, and lumps in a variety of other tech issues in a confusing (and often self-contradictory) jumble. He warns against taxing internet access (good), but then joins in the total overreaction to the Commerce Department’s decision to officially relinquish its (barely existent) control over ICANN, falsely claiming that this will allow the Russians, Chinese and the Iranians to control the internet. This is not true. In fact, by giving up the Commerce Department’s link to ICANN, it helps cut off the path the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are trying to use to do an end run around ICANN, by giving more power to the ITU. In other words, Senator Cruz (once again) seems to not understand this policy issue at all, and is recommending a policy that is more likely to lead to the world he fears.

Then he gets back around to net neutrality, once again showing he doesn’t understand it:

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

Not a single part of that is accurate. Under the proposed plan, the government would not be in charge of determining any of those. Rather, it would make it so that no one (including the internet access providers) could block what types of products and services can be delivered. It takes a special kind of wrongness to look at a plan that is focused on making sure that no one can be blocked and argue that it means the government gets to pick what services can be delivered.

Even more bizarre, Cruz’s final point is to celebrate the victory over SOPA and PIPA as a great example of protecting free speech online, ignoring the fact that it’s the very same people who made the victory possible who are now fighting for net neutrality.

In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting property rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.

Yes, and it’s the very same online activists now trying to “protect free speech rights” by making sure that the internet stays open via net neutrality rules. And, yes, it is a free speech issue, because letting internet access providers block or discriminate against certain companies, individuals, services or types of content (such as encrypted content) will stifle free speech.

So, Cruz claims to support online activists and their push to guarantee free speech online… but at the same time opposes those very same activists and their push to protect free speech online by calling it “Obamacare for the internet”? I don’t know who Ted Cruz’s tech staffers are, but they might want to educate themselves a bit — and not from the lobbyists at AT&T and Verizon.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes. But still an idiot.

It’s not impossible to dance around the truth, speak in nebulous terms, and obfuscate the issue. That’s what he’s paid to do, but instead his article is just the idiot’s version of NN Cliff’s Notes.

How bout this, if he were more shrewd:

“Network Neutrality, as enacted by the government, would just be a further regulatory extension and Washington power grab. It would be subject to the biases and bungling of beltway politicians, and set up our country with concrete regulations that are unable to flex and change at the speed of Internet innovation. That would cripple our country’s ability to stay nimble, and provide the worlds most important tech advances. What’s more, we run the risk of moneyed interests gaining too much influence at the regulatory level, and biasing the rules against the citizens of this great nation.”

Then he should probably add the following for good measure,

“Thus, we must fight against NN. At least to protect the children. USA #1. Obama sux.”

That pile of BS would give him enough cover to vote what his funders want, and have some confusing cover. Nobody would be talking about it.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

He wants people talking about it – that’s the whole point of making inflammatory statements.

His constituents don’t know what a “net neutrality” is, but they sure know what an “Obamacare” is, so they know if he’s against something Obama supports, he’s fighting the good fight.

He only has to be smarter than the people that vote for him, and apparently that’s not very smart.

Ninja (profile) says:

Even more bizarre, Cruz’s final point is to celebrate the victory over SOPA and PIPA as a great example of protecting free speech online, ignoring the fact that it’s the very same people who made the victory possible who are now fighting for net neutrality.

I wonder if that level of clueless can exist. I think it’s some sort of stunt to draw attention to (or divert attention from) something. Are we missing some important detail here?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“I wonder if that level of clueless can exist…. Are we missing some important detail here?”

Yes, you’re missing that he’s talking to his base. Not to you, to me or to anybody else. He’s nothing if he isn’t re-elected and that level of cluelessness is dominant within his electorate. He’s throwing them red meat, so they remember who is at election time.

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

His entire popularity is built on being a roadblock. doesn’t matter what for, just as long as he’s against something.

Nothing new for some politicians except that he’s made it to the level of the Senate.

Best description I’ve heard of the Tea Party and Cruz’s ilk is that they are basically House members…the tempest in a tea cup the Senate is meant to cool off by design.

Except they are in the Senate and the body simply doesn’t handle firebrands who fully intend to gum up the works and do expressly nothing.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

something something we get the representation we deserve.
He was swept into power because he told all of the right lies, and now those who blindly supported him for having the right soundbites have to deal with the simple fact that he is no different from those others he demonizes.

Perhaps people should focus on the real issues, and not the soundbites. It should be clear he is uninformed at best and at worst bought and paid for by special interests.

John Cressman (profile) says:

Conservative Here

I’m a conservative as well and I’m REALLY torn. I know from first hand experience (personal 5 year audit by the IRS and dad’s a vet who “uses” the VA among 2 examples), I know that anything and everything the government touches turns to crap eventually.

I’m also an IT professional of about 30 years and am very familiar with these issues since my own local ISP throttles certain bandwidth.

I do agree that there needs to be some governing body over the internet – the problem is, who will that be. And traditionally, you give the government a penny and they’re in for a pound.

Why are politicians/judges/cops with little to no understanding about technology able to make/judge/enforce laws on technology? We really need TESTS that cops/judges/politicians are FORCED to take before being able to pass/propose laws, enforce laws or make judgements on laws concerning that technology.

I certainly don’t see a foot specialist when I’m having an issue with my liver and I don’t blame the foot doctor for not knowing as much about my liver. It should be the same with technology – Sorry Senator, you’re 72 years old and don’t even have a smart phone – you’re not allowed to vote legislation involving smartphones.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Conservative Here

I know that anything and everything the government touches turns to crap eventually.

I suggest you visit some places that don’t HAVE a proper government (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria spring to mind) and see how much more crap it can be without the government.

btw in my experience most large, old, private organisations are as bad as (or worse than) governments.

Chuck (profile) says:

Re: Re: Conservative Here

Actually, if you look into it (and some researchers have), Somalia measured better in many quality of life measures when they didn’t have a government. People like to use Somalia as an example because it’s a miserable country. But a comparison of Somalia with and without government is the one to make…not comparing Somalia to countries like the US or Denmark.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Conservative Here

“I know that anything and everything the government touches turns to crap eventually.”

“I do agree that there needs to be some governing body over the internet – the problem is, who will that be.”

“We really need TESTS that cops/judges/politicians are FORCED to take before being able to pass/propose laws, enforce laws or make judgements on laws concerning that technology.”

Government isn’t to be trusted, but we should use government to issue tests to people trying to regulate stuff.

Sounds legit.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Conservative Here

“I know from first hand experience (personal 5 year audit by the IRS and dad’s a vet who “uses” the VA among 2 examples), I know that anything and everything the government touches turns to crap eventually.”

“The government” is not monolithic and not all parts of the government run equally well or poorly. As such, it is dangerous to take your experiences with the IRS and the VA and claim that they are representative of how all parts of the government operate. They aren’t. They are representative of how the IRS and the VA operate.

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here

You spent all those digibits telling him how he is wrong and your reply contains not one example of any part of the government that is not wasteful, useless, redundant, etc.

Man, when your house is on fire, it really sucks to have the government come put the fire out!

Did you put any thought into your comment, or did I just get trolled by a troll calling someone else a troll?

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Conservative Here

Ironic how the meanings of “Liberal” and “Conservative” have flipped over the years, FYI 120 years ago in th UK a “Conservative” would have supported “traditional” government regulation of just about everything (paternalistic rather than socialist) whereas a “Liberal” would have been in favour of free trade and deregulation. That is what “liberal” actually means. Funny how in the US it now means (a caricature of) the exact opposite.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here

More than just “a bit different.”

The meaning of “liberal” and “conservative” (or their respective translations) in politics has a wide variety of meanings from country to country.

Maybe we’d be better off dispensing with those terms and having a traditionalist/non-traditionalist or libertarian/fascism spectrum.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Conservative Here

“More than just “a bit different.””

Yes, I was attempting humor through understatement.

“we’d be better off dispensing with those terms”

I couldn’t agree more. In the US, the divide between “liberal” and “conservative” isn’t the important one. That’s just the divide promoted to keep us plebes fighting with each other and distracted from the real threats and problems.

Plus, there is no actual “liberal” force in the US that has any political power — it’s “conservative” and “ultra-conservative” anyway.

Unanimous Cow Herd says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Conservative Here

I agree as this is how our country is truly divided nowadays. Other than the low informationals and the ignorant, only political pundits and MSM use the Liberal/Conservative terminology to divide us in more nefarious ways, pretending there is a difference that is not there (usually between Dems and Pubs).

“Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state.”

“Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]”

Now THAT is a difference.

James says:

Re: Re: Conservative Here

They’re relational nomenclatures. Conservatives guard the status quo, which in America is a two-hundred year history of hands-off ultra-capitalism with a few breaks for sensibility. Liberals are for more liberal intervention. Definitely opposite of the historical terminology, but not nonsensically so.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Conservative Here

To some degree conservatives may be seen as regressive rather than conservative. If you seek to bring something back you are regressive, while fighting for status quo is conservative.

Liberals in the US may be seen as socialists rather than liberals. If you are constantly fighting for positive freedoms you are a socialist, while a liberal fight against curtailing of negative freedoms.

Thus conservative and liberal in US is to some degree a less controversial naming convention. Arguably the conservatives and liberals are still in the right parties, but generally primaries are biasing towards the middle of the parties. Extreme “conservative directions” would be several authoritarian directions (theocracy, individualist anarchism and fascism), while extreme “liberal direction” would be several other authoritarian directions (communism, collectivistic anarchism and statism).

Brandon Rinebold (profile) says:

Re: Re: Conservative Here

Actually, I think it’s because our government doesn’t go back nearly as far as yours so our ‘traditional’ government was much more of a frontier type very loose group as opposed to yours, which at the same period was more of a monarchy-like representative government. You had a strong government getting looser and we had a loose government getting stronger.

Aaron Wolf (profile) says:

Re: That's why recognizing your OWN bias is so important

The primary reason science is so powerful is because it wards off the biases we have personally. The first thing you should think when you recognize that you dealt with bad IRS and VA experiences is that you are SO extremely biased that you probably have an EXTREMELY far off from reality judgment of things.

Policy and even claims about the nature of things should not be accepted by such biased personal anecdotes.

That’s the first thing to deal with here.

Your conclusion about everything-the-government-does is completely nonsense. You have not got a good sample, an objective study. Your judgment is as careless as saying that you got mugged by some black guys on two different occassions, so all African Americans are violent criminals.

The government touched what became our National Park system. That’s crap? Or turning to crap? What utter nonsense.

Note: I’m not saying anything disputing your personal experience with the IRS and VA. I’m not even saying that it wasn’t typical. Perhaps the IRS is generally horrible. But you are part of the problem here if you use certain bad examples and then accept wholecloth the Republican campaign message of knee-jerk anti-government sentiment.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: That's why recognizing your OWN bias is so important

I am not anti government, I am pro government, I am for a government that occupies the confines of it’s delegated constitutional limits. I am a Liberal, a Neo-Classical Liberal. The type of Liberal such as Jefferson, prior to the term being poisoned by the tortured warpage of progressives.

hobo says:

Re: Re: Re: That's why recognizing your OWN bias is so important

“[A] government that occupies the confines of it’s [sic] delegated constitutional limits. I am a Liberal…[the] type of Liberal such as Jefferson…”

Jefferson. Who bought Louisiana without constitutional or congressional authority. That Jefferson.

You may want to rethink your stance. Or, since you are unlikely to do that, use a better example.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Conservative Here

I know from first hand experience (personal 5 year audit by the IRS and dad’s a vet who “uses” the VA among 2 examples), I know that anything and everything the government touches turns to crap eventually.

It’s impossible for the government to turn the US broadband market to crap, because it’s already crap.

Anonymous Coward says:

There's little point in this, actually

Either Cruz knows that he’s lying or he doesn’t.

If he knows, then he’s doing it deliberately in order to serve his masters, by repeating their talking points and hoping that doing so often enough, loudly enough, and vehemently enough will reach the low-information/low-intelligence population that is too ignorant and too stupid to realize he’s lying.

If he doesn’t know, then he’s part of the low-information/low-intelligence population and is too ignorant and too stupid to realize he’s lying.

Either way, he’s not going to change. Why should he? This is America, where ignorance and stupidity are quite often rewarded, sometimes highly rewarded.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually

Please. You may disagree with Obama’s policies, politics, philosophy or anything else, but it is beyond all reasonable argument that he’s ignorant or stupid. He is clearly neither.

It is a serious strategic error to presume that those you disagree with, or oppose, or loathe, or fight, or anything else, are ignorant and stupid just because. Sure, sometimes they are. And sometimes they’re better educated and smarter than you are. So if you actually hope to defeat them in an intellectual (or other) sense, you must begin by first letting go of the delusion that you are necessarily their intellectual superior. It’s a classic mistake, made innumerable times throughout history, and there’s really no need to repeat it.

For example: I have no admiration for Putin — but it is equally beyond all reasonable argument that he’s an educated and intelligent man. Clearly, he is, and my vehement disagreement with his policies doesn’t change that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: There's little point in this, actually

Maybe I should have been more clear, but I was responding to the part of the post referring to lying. I do not believe for a minute that O is ignorant, but he is a habitual liar. A terrible one at that. Fortunately for him the LSM is carrying his water for him and makes little fuss about his lies.

Love the part of your post about intellectual superiority. Seems in your rush to prove yours you misinterpet my post. 😉

Robert says:

Tin Foil Hat time?

The more I think about it the more I am beginning to think that this was a masterful plan by Obama to set his agenda while keeping on the side of Net-Neutrality.

Keep in mind that it wasn’t long ago that Wheeler came out with is own plan that was immediately slapped down by the vast majority of people that follow this issue. Obama could have spoken out against it at any time. Why did he wait until after the elections? He had to know the uproar the right would have just because Obama was “for” something. This had to have been intentional. So why do it?

Now it would be so much easier for Wheeler to come out with a hybrid plan and say he was bending to the will of the country who are divided on the issue. There would never had been this division had Obama not spoken out for it. I don’t think the Republicans even know they are being duped and think they are just against something because Obama is for it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Tin Foil Hat time?

Oh, they know. This is about economy in politics where broadband is not insignificant and staying ideologically on the side of less government interference.

This is wild west economics. Ya need a selfmade man to run the show, not a paperpushing bureaucrat to tell ya what a-do.

That is how the american dream is sold. Negative rights über alles. A few collaterals here and there never hurt anyone, well, ya know…

Anonymous Coward says:

Although I don’t usually agree with him, I like people like Ted Cruz, since he thinks independently and seems to be one of the very few people in government –any government– who isn’t easily bought off.

There’s always the fear of the “slippery slope syndrome” — the same reason the U.S. gun lobby is dead set against any and all government regulation of guns, no matter how miniscule, benign, or demanded by voters.

Rico says:

Re: Re:

“who isn’t easily bought off.”

WOW – you must be seeing an entirely different politician than the rest of the world. Cruz and his whole party are plainly bought and paid for. That’s not to say the Democrats aren’t bought and paid for by a slightly differing set of sponsors, but they, at least aren’t quite so blatantly hypocritical as the GOP has been in recent http://gizmodo.com/how-much-money-big-cable-gave-the-politicians-who-overs-1657002442

the 1 says:

Re: Re:

No. Ted does not think independently and he has been bought off–He’s a freakin’ Dominionist. He believes that the US should be a Christian Theocracy. That said, I don’t know how his position on this issue advances his Dominion agenda, unless maybe he’s hoping for major bucks from the cable companies for his 2016 run for the presidency.

Anonymous Coward says:

“…Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.”

I read it as the “threat to” being the object that should be “treated seriously and subsequently defeated.”. Therefore he wants to defend the right to “quell speech” in the same way IP must be defended. Out of context, this rambling seems to take a shot at stupid internet activists who use free speech to attack IP and now the sovereignty of businesses.

Of course the “but” is cracking at that interpretation. I just wonder if it isn’t par for the course. When you write such a rambling sentence, it could look like he is rogueing it from speechwriters and revealing his true face.

Andyroo says:

Re: Re:

The nature of the internet is that it is free once you have access, that is how it all started and what it was started for. Now big business wants to control it but luckily the internet architects managed to create a system that routes around those that would control the flow of information, so now we have big business trying their damnedest to control the access we have which is the system I belive republicans should be shouting down more than the democrats not supporting.

cruz is an idiot and the majority of members of congress have openly stated they belive so, they have also stated that if he stands for something then it is normally the best thing to hold the opposite position, yes his words get written about but that is only becasue he is so crazy, when it comes to politicking he has been isolated as an idiot that should not be recognised in any way by most in politics today.

Whereas most politicians want to do there job cruz just wants to prevent anyone doing their job and he is one of the few politicians that is ignored and when you are ignored in politics it makes no difference how many supporters you have , if you cannot get support for bills you put forward becasue of who you are you have absolutely no power like Cruz.

Anonymous Coward says:

A moment of sanity!

For the record Cruz’s words are disturbing to me as well.

But it does not mean that he will be wrong. You have all seen it, the comity writing up the rules on the internet will ultimately be nothing more than window dressing.

This is a problem that was created by the punks in power to begin with.

If we had real competition, then we would have service providers BOASTING about their bandwidth to nutflix instead of hiding a shitty connection.

So while I still like Cruz and think he is knows jack and fuckall what he is talking about on this note, he is not entirely off base either. You all know that Obama will lie out his damn teeth to sucker you into what you think is a good deal and pull the rug right the fuck out from under you.

Fool me once…

Aaron Wolf (profile) says:

Re: A moment of sanity!

It seems absurd to me that you feel Obama deserves no trust whatsoever and you’ll continue liking Cruz. You gotta be clueless to not recognize both as sleazy politicians.

And I don’t know where you think competition comes from, but it doesn’t just magically appear and grand scales as soon as you deregulate things.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: A moment of sanity!

hold up…

I have yet to be lied to by Cruz that I am aware of… I am willing to change my stance on that the moment he does. Cruz does not have to be bought and paid for by the cable monopoly to be wrong or right.

However, I have far more knowledge of Obama than I do of Cruz as well, so for now, even though Cruz’s remarks look stupid, it is also stupid for us to run around and assume that Obama has any good will either.

You are correct, both may very well be sleazy politicians, but currently I am more focused on Obama as he has shown his willingness to abuse power, and is already on record for willingly lying to the American people he is SUPPOSED to serve, multiple times.

Also, you will notice that I said nothing of deregulating anything, I am however saying that REGULATIONS have only done what they were supposed to have prevented, instead of fixing those, you just wander off and take a known liar at his word to fix something?

My opinion of Cruz really are secondary here… and while I completely agree with the “words” coming out of Obama’s mouth in this case, I have serious doubts about his sincerity or actual desire to deliver on them!

Zonker says:

Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!

I have yet to be lied to by Cruz that I am aware of… I am willing to change my stance on that the moment he does.

Ted Cruz lies:

“Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist (for surgeon general).”
Lie. Nominee had an M.D. from Yale.

ISIS is “right now crucifying Christians in Iraq, literally nailing Christians to trees.”
Lie. Absolutely zero evidence supporting this assertion.

Says children are coming into the U.S. in “staggering numbers” because President Barack Obama “has been promising amnesty.”
Lie. Previous president reaffirmed policy letting children stay while immigration cases are heard.

Says President Barack Obama “is the first president we’ve ever had who thinks he can choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore.”
Lie. There’s a long history of pushing the envelope by past presidents.

“Virtually every person across this country has seen premiums going up and up and up” due to Obamacare.
Lie. Virtually, not even close to every person.

“A strong bipartisan majority” in the House of Representatives “voted to defund Obamacare.”
Lie. Two Democratic votes out of 190 isn’t bipartisan.

UPS left 15,000 employees’ spouses “without health insurance” and told them to, “go on an exchange with no employer subsidy.”
Lie. Spouses only kicked off plan if they can get coverage in their own jobs.

Says “President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception” to Obamacare.
Lie. Lawmakers will use new marketplaces.

“Expanding Medicaid will worsen health care options for the most vulnerable among us in Texas.”
Lie. A deliberate misreading of the studies conclusions.

Says the Democrats told the Catholic Church that they’ll use federal powers to shut down church charities and hospitals if the church doesn’t change its beliefs.
Lie. Hard to believe ’cause never happened.

Says Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary “has been publicly celebrated by the Iranian government.”
Lie. One man hoping Washington would become “respectful of the rights of nations”.

Says “the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates.”
Lie. Contradictions aren’t hard to find.

David Dewhurst “has never once cut one penny from the state budget.”
Lie. Sweepingly flawed.

“Did you know ObamaCare will cost nearly twice as much as initially expected — $1.8 TRILLION?”
Lie. 9 percent isn’t nearly double.

David Dewhurst has a “record of promoting an income tax.”
Lie. One remark shortly reconsidered.

Says Barack Obama “began his presidency going on a worldwide apology tour.”
Lie. Kindling on an old fire.

Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A moment of sanity!

I can agree with your last one, but most of those are really loaded opinions with no way to prove inherently as some benefit and others do not. You know as well as I do everyone plays those games with which are nothing more than bluster.

But there are some that put him square in the liars court. Sadly my opinion of him is falling. With that said… The first and fourth items are pretty damning, I would consider Dr. Vivek Murthy a genuine medical professional based on readily available information. But their wanting to block him on political reasons is fair game on either side that is the nature of politics. And Obama is damn sure not the first president to pull stupid shit, he is damn wrong there.

So look at it like this… let him keep running his mouth, its how we can tell if he is worth his shit or not… I think people are beginning to figure it out, but unfortunately that good old my party loyalty will gets more retards like bush and obama in still.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: A moment of sanity!

Agree so far…

All politicians lie, its practically their jobs because the American people actually and surprisingly can not and will not handle the bitter truth. A politicians job is sugar coat it for the weak hearted voters that lack the fundamental facilities to break things down to their common denominators. The Democrats pride themselves on making the road to the slaughter sound like a fun filled fairy tale adventure.

I could vote Dem… if he was a conservative one, but these days… the Dems just lie that they are for the little people and go do all the richy rich stuff they accuse the Reps of. No hypocrisy there eh?

Obama has greatly damaged this nation to the point where I am beginning to believe it is intentional.

Anonymous Coward says:

To many in the Net Neutrality camp want to have the Internet Declared a Public Utility thus subjugating it to the whims of local regulators and federal oversight.
Many Internet Service Providers (ISP) are also creators/gatekeepers of content their interest is in keeping you within the fold with efforts that inhibit your ability to select the content you wish to consume from sources that you wish to use.
This takes place with a slow down of your connection to a content provider that your content creating/gatekeeper ISP finds to be outside of that which they want you to use.
These slowdowns are then used by you ISP to blackmail content providers that want to provide a service to you by making them pay to deliver their content to you unencumbered.
We saw this with Comcast and Netflix.
Currently an Internet customer pays a monthly fee to get connected to the Internet at loosely defined speed and in most cases of Cable/FIOS/DSL unlimited monthly data amounts.
(Some regions have data caps and need to pay more for usage above a set amount)
What content/gatekeeper ISP’s are trying to do is create a two level Internet where content they want you to see gets better treatment than what you may wish to consume from services that they do not control.
My general feeling is a bit is a bit, a byte a byte, a packet a packet, they should be delivered with no arbitrary restrictions from a content creating gatekeeper ISP.
True Net Neutrality is that you get what you pay for and the government stays out of the Internet.
ISP’s are not allowed to slow down your connection for any reason that is within their control.
No two tiered Internet.
No Government Control.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

in the interests of sanity… this is where a good anti-monopoly law should be created and enforced..

Content creators, hosts, or licensers should not be allow to own in any part the roads their content travels on.

The conflict of interest is absolutely too huge!

I like free market, but we need strong anti monopoly laws to keep the big boys from getting to much power, because all they do is stifle the market when they get enough power.

ECA (profile) says:

I LOVE politics

i love it..
I LOVe when words appear out of their MOUTHS..
And the person using them, has NO IDEA the meaning of the words he is using..NO basic foundation in what is being said.

Does anyone here get the idea that this person DOES NOT READ??
He has OTHERS read, and interpret what OTHERS SAY..but no BASIC meaning to the words of concepts behind them..He only believes what HE IS TOLD..

PLEASE PEOPLE..This is an elected job..MAKE sure the person HIRED(yes hired) has an EDUCATION in something beyond, POLITICS and PARTYING..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: But They’re Engineers ...

Truthily, I know an engineering firm (filled with software and hardware engineers) almost filled with devoted Rupublicans. I know it’s almost filled instead of completely filled because I know of one dissident, there may be others afraid to speak their minds. Truthily, the only tv channel allowed in the ‘staff restaurant’ is Fox News (blech, need to wash mouth). Amazingly enough, this firm has a furrin HW in a part of the world where current Republicans would be regarded as devils incarnate, but in the part of the US where the subsidiary is located they dare not go against the tide. It is a sad state of affairs. I also know of at least one tech ‘self-made’ multimillionaire who dare not talk about his political views because of fears of retaliation against his young children in school. Cruz and his ilk are nothing more than dangerous demagogues inflaming their mob.

DNY (profile) says:

Cruz'n for a bruis'n

At best, Cruz is trying polish up his bona fides with the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party. At worst, he’s an idiot.

I’m inclined toward the latter view, despite agreeing the Cruz on perhaps 70% of issues facing the country: besides this stance, which as many have noted can be explained only by stupidity or having been suborned by telecom interests, there was Cruz’s ill-fated appearance at an event sponsored by Arab Christians, at which he put his foot in his mouth with an assertion that to the effect that Christians have no better friend than Israel — deeply offensive to Arab Christians, who in the Middle East have faired quite well under Ba’athist governments with their ideology of secular pan-Arab nationalism, and for which he was rightly heckled.

As in this instance, he doubled down on his gaffe.

I have a feeling that if GOP nominates Cruz in 2016, as the subject says, they’ll be Cruz’n for a bruis’n.

Rudyard Holmbast says:

I tell you, that handful of comments from self-described conservatives claiming to support so-called “net neutrality” really has me convinced that there is widespread support for “net neutrality”. Because if a half-dozen or so comments can’t convince you, nothing will. I love how people pretend that, for the first time in history, the increased oversight and involvement of a government leviathan will somehow enhance everyone’s internet experience.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I love how people pretend that, for the first time in history, the increased oversight and involvement of a government leviathan will somehow enhance everyone’s internet experience.

Yeah, we should let giant corporations with no competition do what they want with little oversight, because that generally works out great. I mean, our internet service is way better than those smelly socialists have with all their government interference and what not, because motherfucking eagles!

Rob Lewis (profile) says:

Apparently "Obamacare" is the new "Communist"

Trying to use the word “Obamacare” to stir up negative feelings about pretty much anything is a lot like calling somebody or something “Communist” or “socialist” used to be. It’s just an all-purpose synonym for “scary and bad” that has the added benefit of making you sound like you vaguely know something about public policy.

The delicious irony is that Republicans came up with the word to mock the Affordable Care Act, but when (as is likely) it becomes an entrenched and valued part of the health care system, it will enshrine the guy they hate so much in history.

Today’s young people no longer recoil in horror at “socialism”. Maybe someday the same will be true of “Obamacare”.

remainderman (profile) says:

There are reason’s why the terms “communist” and “socialist” have bad connotations to Americans, especially older ones. That is because they are systems of governance that are completely at odds with the freedom we enjoy in America. Communism started with deaths of tens of millions in Russia and China. By definition, it doesn’t allow for dissent and loss of personal freedom (prison) or loss of life is the penalty.

Socialism is also an oppression of the people. It allows for the power to shift from the people to the government. The government promises to pay (and does to some extent) for services of those “less fortunate” in return for obedience, loyalty, loss of individual freedom.

In our case today, America is steaming toward socialism. The democratic party has adopted the idea of socialism as its primary means of governance. It wants us to give up our personal freedom so that “other less fortunate” can have a dignified standard of living, whether earned or not. This is the big lie about socialism: it can’t deliver. Once you take away a man’s incentive to work, he stops working. Thus it enslaves the people it says it’s helping.

Obamacare is not socialism in the truest sense, but rather it is a bastardization of stunted capitalism and socialism. It’s purpose is not to provide services to the poor by taking from the rich. It’s goal is the complete destruction of the current (albeit broken) system. Then Obama can rise from the ashes and implement a complete government controlled socialist healthcare system.

This is why the term “Obamacare” should be even more feared than the terms communism or socialism.

Dirac says:

Obama can rise from the ashes and implement...

Jeez, talk about melodramatic. Are you even familiar with what the ACA actually does? Because you sound like someone duped by the overblown fear-mongering spread by manipulative individuals like Cruz, himself.

Is the ACA perfect? Hell no, it has plenty of problems. But Obama rising “from the ashes” to “implement a complete government controlled socialist healthcare system”? What kind of drugs have you been taking?

Bill Kidd says:

ted cruz

Is this a drug cartel member in sheep’s clothing? Are we kidding? I have a really bad feeling about this guy. As a matter of fact while typing this out I was kicked off the internet a few times. Sensoring at its finest people… Please do not vote for this guy our country obviously operates on a (brown) vote now and the outcome can’t be good. Especially for the american taxpayer. Our crime will soar to unpresidented new levels and what little jobs left over will be given by and granted to non-americans. I lost my job because of this. It sucks, but I guess this is the way it is considering the way our country is going.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow