——————Then we’ve been a socialist country practically since our founding. You are redefining nationalization to fit your theory.———————
No, to both.
One, Stuart chase died in 1985. I didn’t redefine nationalization, he did.(though, I’m sure other progressives wrote basically the same thing)
Two, (to keep this in line with the internet) current internet regulations are very, very basic. They don’t amount to nationalization. It’s the difference between having a referee, and the referees being the players on the field - You can’t beat the rule makers.
————That is exactly the view of net neutrality proposed by the FCC.————
You can’t say that until they are done.
-—————If all this is done in secret, then how was there a notice of PROPOSED rulemaking released last year before the final rules?-—————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2725573/posts
-————it has to go public long before it can become a rule.-——————
I see no evidence of that. They have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it.
Or, perhaps I could word this better if we took the time to define “public”. On one hand, all these people put a nice good smiley face on internet regulations, while on the other hand they are scheming with shady characters like Free Press at their “public” NCMR meetings and their “public” emails.
This is why I come off as sounding foolish sometimes. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. What they say for public consumption should be disregarded. What they say when they think nobody’s looking, that’s when they’re being more sincere.
I see, it becomes nationalization when it's something you don't like, but other regulation is okay. This is as opposed to the normal way, where you don't like something because it is nationalization.
It’s the difference between having a referee, and the referees being the players on the field
Read the published order, clearly referee. If they are to be a player, show me in the order where it says that. Put up or shut up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2725573/posts
That's the actual regs that have to follow the order, long after the order has been made public. Do you not know anything about rulemaking procedures?
They have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it.
That's Congress, and making fun of Pelosi. This is the FCC, and there are rules governing how the FCC operates. One of the rules is a completely public process for rulemaking. And as far as Congress is concerned, they have published bills for net neutrality, nothing in secret.
on the other hand they are scheming with shady characters like Free Press at their “public” NCMR meetings and their “public” emails.
Exactly, public. This is how the FCC deals with all sides of the issue. With your logic, they have been "scheming" with shady characters in the telco industry in public meetings and emails, and indeed with everyone, since the whole process is PUBLIC.
What they say for public consumption should be disregarded.
Yet not long ago you used what they said in public as evidence to prove a point. You can't have it both ways. And as I've been showing you, what they say in private doesn't matter. What gets published in this very long and open process, is what becomes FCC regulations, and finally matters.