Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[Quantum Windbag]

Phishing - In the field of computer security, phishing is the criminally fraudulent process of attempting to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication.

So Reid was trying to steal peoples usernames/passwords and CC info? Still want to stand by that phishing claim?

You can apologize anytime you're ready.

Again, phishing, as defined by US law, is exactly what Reid was doing. You can run around and pop up with the definition of phishing in Timbuktu if you want, but the fact remains that Reid, or his campaign, was phishing under US law. If you have a problem with that take it up with Congress, not me.

LOL, Ok. Show me where you get your "legal definition". I just Googled 'Phishing, legal definition' and this is the first result that came up.

Phishing Law & Legal Definition

Directly from their site: Phishing is the act of attempting to fraudulently acquire through deception sensitive personal information such as passwords and credit card details by assuming another's identity in an official-looking email, IM, etc.

So, again, you've been shown to be wrong since Reid never attempted to steal anyones passwords or credit info just like I stated earlier. You obviously do not understand what you're talking about. Care to admit your mistake now?

Do we really have to go through this again?

Title 18, Chapter 63, is the Federal law that covers phishing, and it includes what Reid did because he set up a fraudulent web address to obtain personal information, namely email address and names of Angles supporters and donors. You might want to restrict the definition to make it only applicable if he was asking for credit card information, but federal law is not that narrowly written. It lumps everything into a single, catchall definition. In fact, phishing, and all other cybercrimes, is still covered under mail fraud.

I will repeat this for you one last time, if you have a problem with this take it up with Congress, not me. Feel free to blather on and strut about like you proved something if your ego requires it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Stop the net. Nazis, period.

Another person who has no clue what is actually going on. Shocking.

Robert M. McDowell: The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com

Ahhh I get it. You're all about freedom, just not freedom of information.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stop the net. Nazis, period.

Another person who has no clue what is actually going on. Shocking.

Robert M. McDowell: The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com

Don't expect him to say anything beyond you are wrong, without offering any evidence of what he thinks net neutrality actually does.

 

[DiveCon]

Another person who has no clue what is actually going on. Shocking.

Robert M. McDowell: The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com

Don't expect him to say anything beyond you are wrong, without offering any evidence of what he thinks net neutrality actually does.

which he just did

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, some people on this board are so brainwashed that they have no idea what's going on anymore, period.

Let's clear up some things here:

1. Just because a rule says that providers cannot dictate traffic on the internet does NOT mean that government is allowed to by default. The point of net neutrality is to allow users to access the internet freely, without any kind of inteference.

2. When certain individuals in the media are telling you that "Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet", they are saying that because they are representing the very companies that stand to gain the most from a lack of net neutrality. The providers and the media companies are interchangeable much of the time.

 

[RDD_1210]

Again, phishing, as defined by US law, is exactly what Reid was doing. You can run around and pop up with the definition of phishing in Timbuktu if you want, but the fact remains that Reid, or his campaign, was phishing under US law. If you have a problem with that take it up with Congress, not me.

LOL, Ok. Show me where you get your "legal definition". I just Googled 'Phishing, legal definition' and this is the first result that came up.

Phishing Law & Legal Definition

Directly from their site: Phishing is the act of attempting to fraudulently acquire through deception sensitive personal information such as passwords and credit card details by assuming another's identity in an official-looking email, IM, etc.

So, again, you've been shown to be wrong since Reid never attempted to steal anyones passwords or credit info just like I stated earlier. You obviously do not understand what you're talking about. Care to admit your mistake now?

Do we really have to go through this again?

Title 18, Chapter 63, is the Federal law that covers phishing, and it includes what Reid did because he set up a fraudulent web address to obtain personal information, namely email address and names of Angles supporters and donors. You might want to restrict the definition to make it only applicable if he was asking for credit card information, but federal law is not that narrowly written. It lumps everything into a single, catchall definition. In fact, phishing, and all other cybercrimes, is still covered under mail fraud.

I will repeat this for you one last time, if you have a problem with this take it up with Congress, not me. Feel free to blather on and strut about like you proved something if your ego requires it.

You're the one who made the claim he was phishing, not congress. That's why I took it up with you since your definition of Phishing is NOT correct. Go on claiming that what he did was phishing but we both know he wasn't and all you're doing is living up to your username.

 

[Contumacious]

OK, some people on this board are so brainwashed that they have no idea what's going on anymore, period.

Let's clear up some things here:

1. Just because a rule says that providers cannot dictate traffic on the internet does NOT mean that government is allowed to by default. The point of net neutrality is to allow users to access the internet freely, without any kind of inteference.

2. When certain individuals in the media are telling you that "Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet", they are saying that because they are representing the very companies that stand to gain the most from a lack of net neutrality. The providers and the media companies are interchangeable much of the time.

There is a big difference between the federal government and ISP's. Is easy to switch ISP's , is a lot more difficult to change governments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

.

 

[RDD_1210]

Robert M. McDowell: The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com

Don't expect him to say anything beyond you are wrong, without offering any evidence of what he thinks net neutrality actually does.

which he just did

LOL, now here comes the guy who showed us he has no idea how the tax system in this country works yet feels compelled to argue about it. One "educated citizen" after another in this thread.

 

[Vast LWC]

NewsCorp, for instance, has been rapidly gobbling up various internet properties, and has partnered with Verizon in a alliance against Viacom, and Viacom of course has it's own stakes in Net neutrality.

They all want it done away with, so their media can dominate on the internet.

 

[RDD_1210]

OK, some people on this board are so brainwashed that they have no idea what's going on anymore, period.

Let's clear up some things here:

1. Just because a rule says that providers cannot dictate traffic on the internet does NOT mean that government is allowed to by default. The point of net neutrality is to allow users to access the internet freely, without any kind of inteference.

Bingo

 

[Vast LWC]

There is a big difference between the federal government and ISP's. Is easy to switch ISP's , is a lot more difficult to change governments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Depending on where you live, no, it's not easy to switch ISP's.

And, more importantly, if certain ISP's are being subsidized by media outlets to prioritize their media, then they will drive other ISP's out of business.

And the federal government is not trying to grab any power with this at all. There is no provision in this for the government to gain any more power than it already has.

 

[Vast LWC]

And it is much easier for voters to get someone voted out of office than it is to undo corporate control of the media.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Another person who has no clue what is actually going on. Shocking.

Robert M. McDowell: The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com

Ahhh I get it. You're all about freedom, just not freedom of information.

Again dude you amuse me.

 

[JBeukema]

OK, some people on this board are so brainwashed that they have no idea what's going on anymore, period.

Let's clear up some things here:

1. Just because a rule says that providers cannot dictate traffic on the internet does NOT mean that government is allowed to by default. The point of net neutrality is to allow users to access the internet freely, without any kind of inteference.

2. When certain individuals in the media are telling you that "Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet", they are saying that because they are representing the very companies that stand to gain the most from a lack of net neutrality. The providers and the media companies are interchangeable much of the time.

There is a big difference between the federal government and ISP's. Is easy to switch ISP's , is a lot more difficult to change governments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

.

 

[edthecynic]

Good. Now, are you going to back up your claim:

The MANDATE that everyone should have to have insurance in order for the healthcare bill to be passed was a REPUBLICAN addition to the healthcare bill.​

...?

In a thorough search to back that claim, I am going to have to adjust my wording on that. I have been reading about all this and it was my assumption. Truth is, Obama realized he wouldnt be able to pass it without paying for it, and since the Republicans supported the individual mandate through past years of health care reform litigation, he most likely figured it would be the only way he could get the bill through.

So, Im going to have to wipe the egg off my face on this one, but I still say that the republicans are being disengenuous by trying to use this part of the bill as political weight, since they have supported it in the past.

I would remind you not to confuse "Republican" and "conservative". The two are not synonymous.

Republicans may have supported the individual mandate. Conservatives never have.

Come on now, don't you ever get tired of making up this kind of pure CRAP!!!

You can't get any more Right wing extremist whacko CON$ervative than the Heritage Foundation!!!

Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System | The Heritage Foundation

The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not.

 

[JBeukema]

In a thorough search to back that claim, I am going to have to adjust my wording on that. I have been reading about all this and it was my assumption. Truth is, Obama realized he wouldnt be able to pass it without paying for it, and since the Republicans supported the individual mandate through past years of health care reform litigation, he most likely figured it would be the only way he could get the bill through.

So, Im going to have to wipe the egg off my face on this one, but I still say that the republicans are being disengenuous by trying to use this part of the bill as political weight, since they have supported it in the past.

I would remind you not to confuse "Republican" and "conservative". The two are not synonymous.

Republicans may have supported the individual mandate. Conservatives never have.

Come on now, don't you ever get tired of making up this kind of pure CRAP!!!

You can't get any more Right wing extremist whacko CON$ervative than the Heritage Foundation!!!

Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System | The Heritage Foundation

The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not.

Heritage = progressive liberal nazi source


you realize that, right?

This is the same group that said Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada are all better than America.


In fact they still do. It's right here, on the right-hand side of the page.


They say 'Mexico is one of the most improved' and 'United States is among the most declined'


Maybe the America-bashing commies can move the Mexico!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL, Ok. Show me where you get your "legal definition". I just Googled 'Phishing, legal definition' and this is the first result that came up.

Phishing Law & Legal Definition

Directly from their site: Phishing is the act of attempting to fraudulently acquire through deception sensitive personal information such as passwords and credit card details by assuming another's identity in an official-looking email, IM, etc.

So, again, you've been shown to be wrong since Reid never attempted to steal anyones passwords or credit info just like I stated earlier. You obviously do not understand what you're talking about. Care to admit your mistake now?

Do we really have to go through this again?

Title 18, Chapter 63, is the Federal law that covers phishing, and it includes what Reid did because he set up a fraudulent web address to obtain personal information, namely email address and names of Angles supporters and donors. You might want to restrict the definition to make it only applicable if he was asking for credit card information, but federal law is not that narrowly written. It lumps everything into a single, catchall definition. In fact, phishing, and all other cybercrimes, is still covered under mail fraud.

I will repeat this for you one last time, if you have a problem with this take it up with Congress, not me. Feel free to blather on and strut about like you proved something if your ego requires it.

You're the one who made the claim he was phishing, not congress. That's why I took it up with you since your definition of Phishing is NOT correct. Go on claiming that what he did was phishing but we both know he wasn't and all you're doing is living up to your username.

Blathering and strutting demonstrated. Do you enjoy being predictable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NewsCorp, for instance, has been rapidly gobbling up various internet properties, and has partnered with Verizon in a alliance against Viacom, and Viacom of course has it's own stakes in Net neutrality.

They all want it done away with, so their media can dominate on the internet.

And this is bad because...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And it is much easier for voters to get someone voted out of office than it is to undo corporate control of the media.

 

[JBeukema]

NewsCorp, for instance, has been rapidly gobbling up various internet properties, and has partnered with Verizon in a alliance against Viacom, and Viacom of course has it's own stakes in Net neutrality.

They all want it done away with, so their media can dominate on the internet.

And this is bad because...

Ask Beck. He wants rivers of blood to prevent the Master Jew from doing just that very same thing.