• nobody's_hero's Avatar
    12-10-2017, 04:51 PM
    Meh. Repealing NN only addresses half of the problem. https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ Broadband providers have either no interest in competing with one another or are barred from doing so. The argument that repealing net neutrality will lead to increased competition is rather weak, IMHO.
    2 replies | 119 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    12-09-2017, 04:06 PM
    Interestingly enough, the classics that are running the streets in Cuba are old enough to be considered real cars. https://jalopnik.com/heres-what-cubas-car-scene-looks-like-in-2017-1791963244 And some are some sort of Frankenstein-like mish-mash of parts, lol
    10 replies | 180 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    12-09-2017, 06:53 AM
    Good. Maybe gas will get cheaper for folks who want vehicles that can make it up a hill without having to recharge.
    10 replies | 180 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    12-07-2017, 06:58 PM
    Again with the delayed accusations. 2006. This happened in 2006. Why? Why does it take so long? Do they not realize how much suffering they could have saved the country if they had exposed and ruined Franken's reputation in 2006?
    154 replies | 4046 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    12-05-2017, 09:14 PM
    I swear, in D.C. it is like, "I'll see your scandal and raise you a bigger scandal."
    24 replies | 577 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    12-05-2017, 08:13 AM
    I guarantee that if you told the ISPs that they can either give up their protected monopolies in exchange for a repeal of net neutrality, or, alternatively, keep their monopolies and have to continue to operate under the rules of net neutrality, they would not hesitate to keep their monopolies. I predict that as long as ISPs lobby to keep other providers out of the market, repealing net neutrality will lead to corporatism/crony capitalism on steroids. That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it.
    11 replies | 235 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-29-2017, 01:53 PM
    It's a complex issue, indeed. Ideally something either needs to be 100% gov't run or 100% private, otherwise you run into the problem of corporatism. Not everything out there is so cut-and-dry, obviously. Deregulating while leaving the government's (taxpayer's) wallet open for well-connected private industries to use is a TERRIBLE idea, but people with knee-jerk attitudes jump on the opportunity to deregulate just because of the word 'deregulate', as if to automatically assume that it makes things better. I fear that is where libertarians are falling on the issue of net-neutrality. If you are gonna deregulate without a plan to change over to 100% private simultaneously, it's probably better to just leave things the way they are. Otherwise you've created a corporatist monster. Even Ron Paul had to admit that Glass-Steagall had some usefulness (he even voted "no" to repeal it in '99). Again, it wasn't ideal by libertarian standards because it was government-initiated regulation, but getting rid of it didn't make everything better simply because 'free-market'. I'd post a video on Ron Paul's explanation for why he voted no, but . . .
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-29-2017, 01:31 PM
    Re-phrased it. I'm not trying to be dense. Honestly. But I see too many people who just scream "free market!" without actually laying out how the free market would lead to efficiency in certain industries out there. To their credit, I've actually seen some well-laid out plans for privatization of police forces in some of these threads but that's about it. I'm not sure if they actually visualize competing private police forces, though, because when I picture how it would operate, it still seems somewhat impractical to me. And if something is impractical, it will typically fail in a private sector and give way to something else that is more efficient. Basically my question to the libertarians on the forum is: Can everything exist in a state of competition? (and you gotta be more specific than simply 'yes' for an answer) My county's fire department, which is government-operated and manned largely by volunteers, is fairly efficient, but it's far from a money-making enterprise (if anything it loses money). When a call goes out, there's no confusion over who responds, or who has the 'right' to fight the fire. If one local county or municipal govt's fire dept. needs help from another, they ask for mutual aid. There's no competition to race to the same fires. No shrugged shoulders and disappointment if someone else gets there first, pack up and go home. No competing command structures (speaking from experience of my time in the fire service, one fire chief on scene is already one too many, lol, C.H.A.O.S. = Chief Has Arrived On Scene). You go there, do your best to put the fire out, save what you can, and go back to station to clean up. Okay, so it's more than fairly efficient, it *IS* efficient. Now imagine five separate competing companies trying to get to the same fire in order to make a buck. . .
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-29-2017, 12:54 PM
    You gotta be more in-depth with that explanation. Simply saying one or two-word phrases like 'free trade' or 'competition' or 'free enterprise' doesn't lay out how competition works in a utility industry. Do they get to use the same poles? How many lines do they put on one pole before they have to add more poles? How many lines are too many? Do the lines just zig-zag all over the terrain, telephone poles everywhere? At what point does it become impractical? Are they even allowed to use the same poles since I assume they would be privately owned, or does a separate chain of telephone poles have to be built running right alongside the first one so the competing company can hang their lines to access your home? Then another row of poles for the next competitor? Swordsmith may be right. 2 or 3 competitors is better than one monopoly, but now you've simply gone from who gets to be the lucky one to the lucky three providers.
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-29-2017, 12:22 PM
    Those aren't really choices considering the differences in technology. That's like saying "there are many methods of transportation to choose from. You can go with Delta Airlines or even ride a horse." No dial-up service is in any real competition with cable. They might compete with other dial-up providers if any exist any more.
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-29-2017, 01:01 AM
    Playing devil's advocate . . . take for example, the street directly in front of your residence. There's probably just one. In a private market for roads, just how many streets would you need to enjoy efficient transportation routes to and from your house? If someone has the right to build a private street in front of your house, then I should have the right to build another one next to it and offer cheaper toll rates. And of course someone else would have the right to build a 3rd street on the other side of mine and try to undercut me. I'm not trying to be facetious, but, you really didn't need more than one street connected to your driveway. Sure, now there's competition and you have choices, but all that asphalt around your house now looks like a giant parking lot. And now is it really that much more efficient than the one street you had to begin with? And don't go anywhere near the power poles, because I'm thinking all those competing power company lines so close as to be lying on top of each other would constantly be shooting sparks. You're right though, that we don't currently have a free market for a lot of utilities and services. If Georgia Power wants to do anything with their business, they have to go get the Georgia General Assembly's blessing, so it's much closer to corporatism than capitalism. I will say though, that I do have power, and the people in Flint Energy's entirely separate areas of coverage also have power. It ain't pretty by libertarian standards, but it works.
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-28-2017, 05:09 PM
    Net neutrality would most likely win. I don't know any customer who wants to pay to be limited and then pay even more to have those limitations relaxed a bit. It's what Comcast wants, though. Nickeling and diming folks.
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-28-2017, 04:42 PM
    I'm kind of torn on it, TBH. It's like power companies. You don't really get a choice. I suppose you could go solar if your area's climate supports it. While on paper, the libertarian argument is that there would be 500 separate competing cable internet lines running between every telephone pole and you just choose the company you want, I'm not sure how practical that is. It's why I'm not hardcore on private roads either. You won't ever see 20 two-lane roads owned by private entrepreneurs, running parallel to each other 10 feet apart and you just pick the one with the best prices. Not saying the government does a great job, though. I don't think there'd be much grass left if it were left up to private companies.
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-28-2017, 06:51 AM
    Comcast is probably the worst provider out there.
    90 replies | 1890 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-27-2017, 02:13 PM
    I think it is to try to make Trump look bad at the expense of making the media's behavior excusable. Please, as much as some of you hate Trump, please let the mainstream media crash and burn. If nothing else comes of his presidency, at least he will have delivered a death blow to the biased networks and there is no circumstance whatsoever that they should be resuscitated. If they get a foot back in the doorway, we're right back where we started. They were wrong. Their credibility has been demolished. Count your blessings.
    30 replies | 637 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    30 replies | 637 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-27-2017, 01:28 PM
    It's only been a year and there's still lots of time to for things to change, but I don't really feel Trump's policies as much as I did Obama's. I'd even go so far as to say he hasn't really done much. Which, as far as presidents go, is not really a bad thing. If they were to just sleep in their office for 4 years and only ever come out to play golf, we'd be much better off.
    14 replies | 543 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-24-2017, 07:01 AM
    I think equality is over-rated. What we are missing is that gender roles complement each other. They aren't meant to be equal. If true equality is what we strive for, then I might as well marry another man who will play the role of provider and protector. But I don't swing that way, so . . . Speaking frankly, any woman who wants to be equal to a man is really underselling her value as a woman, but that's a very unconventional way of seeing it, I realize, in modern times. At some point society (chiefly the feminist movement) started teaching women that they don't have any value unless they're out in the workforce. I want a woman who can fill in the parts of my life that I'm missing, and hopefully I can be the man who complements her missing pieces as well. And that's enough romantic visualization for me today.
    32 replies | 834 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-21-2017, 06:18 PM
    The voters haven't turned against Trump. I'm not talking about the Jeff Flakes and the McCains. They'll never vote for him regardless. But he's got the GOP voter base locked in. And mark my words he could do pretty much anything he wants and they'll continue to support him. Just like the GOP supported Bush until he couldn't run anymore due to term limits. Just like the democrats supported Obama until he wasn't able to run anymore. "he's our guy! defend him!" Once you're in the white house, you get a certain degree of immunity from internal criticism and an overly-generous benefit-of-the-doubt granted by the average voter. We just gotta figure out how to get our guy in there.
    65 replies | 1828 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-21-2017, 08:22 AM
    I'm not above the Trojan horse strategy. I've joked before that we should take a candidate and make him out to be the most blood-thirsty foreign interventionist and drug-warrior in the Republican race. Because, once you win, your party is going to defend everything you do, and the other party is going to attack you no matter what you do. We are too polarized as a nation for that to stop happening. Once safely in office, rip off your shirt and reveal the giant L on your chest, and watch as the people who voted for you defend you even if you call all the troops home, end the Fed, stop funding the war on drugs, etc. Voters are stupid. I say we stop trying to win them over and instead fool them into freedom.
    65 replies | 1828 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    32 replies | 834 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-20-2017, 06:57 PM
    Kudos for handling it then and there.
    6 replies | 159 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-20-2017, 04:33 PM
    Why does it take so long to report these things though? My patriarchal mind cannot comprehend. Someone stole a toolbox out of my garage one day when I left the door open. I didn't wait 5 years to report, 'oh yeah, someone stole a toolbox out of my garage 5 years ago when I left the door open.' Must be a woman thing.
    6 replies | 159 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-20-2017, 03:58 PM
    I wonder if 'culture' is a mis-nomer. Ideology seems to be the biggest threat. Historically I suppose culture and ideology have gone hand-in-hand, but everything seems to be spilling over the edges these days.
    9 replies | 308 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-19-2017, 08:42 AM
    That's not the impression I get, when the solution to co-opting is to start a fresh, even more-obscure party. It very much looks like we are the ones running—infinitely divisible. That's not a problem when you are discussing secession, but when trying to build a political party with enough clout to do anything worthwhile . . .—just, NO we do not need another political party, that's my opinion, and this is a poll thread so I'm giving it. the point is that we wrote them all off as 'teocons.' Any new recruits we might have gained were rinsed into the gutter with the real troublemakers. We basically helped the leftist media and the neocon establishment kill the Tea Party movement. it's a shame too, because there was more common ground between the libertarians and tea-partiers than any other political force out there.
    65 replies | 1828 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-18-2017, 11:01 AM
    And then do we run from this party too when people start coming in that don't align 100% with the stated goals? Do we again just throw our hands up in the air and cry 'woe is me, we've been co-opted!'? Pretty much when some of us were out distributing End the Fed flyers at Tea Party rallies, other people on these forums were whining about "Teocons" when in truth many of these average republican voters were disgusted with the GOP and ready to leave the party. It was a prime audience. The two movements now have more common ground than ever before, the enthusiasm drained from them like a Wall Street crony's corporate account before pulling the ripcord on his golden parachute. A lot of libertarians on these forums don't seem to grasp the concept that the road to 'no government' and the road to 'smaller government' share the same stretch of asphalt for much of the way, but you won't work with anyone who doesn't land on Chance and proceed to full blown anarcho-capitalistic, collect $200.
    65 replies | 1828 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-17-2017, 10:19 AM
    Indeed, no real republican will be safe from women coming out of the woodwork claiming they were raped/fondled 200 years ago but just didn't feel like reporting it to anyone until it was politically convenient.
    1090 replies | 22598 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    11-14-2017, 07:12 AM
    That still pales in comparison to the likelihood of black people being victims of violent crime at the hands of a "person of color." A poignant question would be: Can "people of color" be friends with "people of color"? But you will never hear them ask that, because people would quickly realize that it's not really the white man keeping the black man down anymore.
    21 replies | 647 view(s)
More Activity

3 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Don't give up!!! The revolution starts with education even in the face of denial. Facts will prevail.
  2. check back
  3. View Conversation
    Nice profile pic!
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 3 of 3
About nobody's_hero

Basic Information

Signature


Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
7,900
Posts Per Day
2.19
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
3
Most Recent Message
07-07-2011 07:49 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:04 PM
Join Date
01-23-2008
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica is offline

    Member

    CaptainAmerica
  2. georgiapeach georgiapeach is offline

    Member

    georgiapeach
  3. HarrySeaward HarrySeaward is offline

    Member

    HarrySeaward
  4. RCA RCA is offline

    Member

    RCA
  5. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast

12-07-2017


12-05-2017


12-01-2017


11-29-2017


11-28-2017


11-22-2017


11-21-2017


11-20-2017


11-19-2017



Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast