1
359
360

Reddit right now (i.imgur.com)

submitted by etrnloptimist

all 174 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]The_Glockness_Monste 126 ポイント127 ポイント

Net neutrality should be a constitutional right

Ignores the fact that guns are a constitutional right but believes it should be a crime to own one.

[–]tarekd19 16 ポイント17 ポイント

a much better analogy

[–]chip1592 13 ポイント14 ポイント

Actually I find reddit to be pretty pro-gun for the most part

[–]no-soup-4-You 7 ポイント8 ポイント

I think it depends what time of the day you're on here. If people from other parts of the world are on, you're going to get a biased toward more gun control.

[–]The_Glockness_Monste 16 ポイント17 ポイント

If that is in fact the case, which I doubt given the droves of self righteous Europeans and idiotic college/high school students, their slavish devotion to Obama is even more hilarious

[–]chip1592 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Agreed

[–]Groomper -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

/r/politics is pretty hard on Obama. Yeah, they're harder on conservatives, but they haven't let up on Obama at all.

[–]The_Glockness_Monste 8 ポイント9 ポイント

That's a huge load of crap, those charlatans would vote for him again in an instant.

[–]Groomper 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Compared to Romney or some other GOP candidate? Yeah, of course. But they're not sucking his dick like people used to.

[–]The_Glockness_Monste 1 ポイント2 ポイント

That doesn't change a damn thing. Apologetically ravaging the nation is the same as doing it with pride.

[–]SonsofAnarchy113 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yeah, they think he hasn't sank this country to hell far enough.

[–]tunnelworm2001 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Are you knew to Reddit?

[–]vgsgpz -1 ポイント0 ポイント

that they are even the most liberal. Why you think? pot. thats why.

[–]YamiHarrison 42 ポイント43 ポイント

Constitution is fun and infallible when it fits your agenda, outdated and racist when it doesn't. Liberal 101.

[–]Groomper -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I have literally never heard anyone say it should be a crime to own a gun. Who says that? I've heard people say there should be gun restrictions and background checks, but I've never heard someone say, "If you have a gun, you should be in prison."

[–]The_Glockness_Monste 15 ポイント16 ポイント

That's what gun regulation means, it's a death by a thousand cuts.

It's a crime to have a gun if...

It's a crime to have a gun where...

It's a crime to have a certain type of gun...

These charlatans have to mask their contempt for our rights, but it well understood that the authoritarian leftists that masquerade as "progressives" want to take your guns away.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here." -Diane Feinstein

[–]greencurrycamo 5 ポイント6 ポイント

I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell

[–]Groomper -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Who the fuck is Rosie O'Donnell?

[–]greencurrycamo 2 ポイント3 ポイント

It's not my fault you don't know who she is. A lot of people certainly do.

[–]Groomper -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Is she a politician?

[–]foodstampsforpussy 3 ポイント4 ポイント

How old are you??

[–]xwhy 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Google is your friend.

[–]ButtholeJuice 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yeah, she is actually. She ran for President in 2012.

[–]vgsgpz -1 ポイント0 ポイント

guns kill people... net neutrality does not.

[–]The_Glockness_Monste 0 ポイント1 ポイント

That's a pathetic obfuscation, if the burden of freedom and self reliance is to much for your craven shoulders you can show yourself the door.

[–]ChiliManiac -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

That's much better than this retarted analogy.

[–]Cdwollan 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Why are you trying to hold onto traditional light bulbs? LEDs last way longer and use a smaller fraction of the electricity than even cfls.

[–]markscomputer -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Incandescent have a much better range of light. If I was building an office building, I'll use LEDs, If I am building my home, I'd prefer to use incandescent.

[–]Cdwollan 8 ポイント9 ポイント

And pay more than triple for power? Do you enjoy swapping out bulbs every few weeks to every few months? Do you not realize the range on LEDs have expanded to include soft and bright white lights that are common in the home?

[–]markscomputer 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I think the expansion of "soft" and "cool" lights you are referring to is from the CFL family, not LED family. But that's kinda beside the point. Lights do not use the majority of a homes power, not by a long shot.

Furthermore, my house used to be rigged up with 200W monsters at outdoor lighting areas where halogen wouldn't work because it's too directional. Now I'm stuck with crappy CFL lights that do not produce the equivalent light as advertised, or under-powered 75W incandescents.

Finally, in my experience CFLs extended life has been advertised but never delivered, when I've looked into it it's because they have longer life in certain orientations and conditions, but incandescent work universally.

I do think that longterm LED is a better option. Even today, like I said, in a workplace I would choose LED or CFL. In my home, I want options.

[–]Cdwollan 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I think the expansion of "soft" and "cool" lights you are referring to is from the CFL family, not LED family. But that's kinda beside the point. Lights do not use the majority of a homes power, not by a long shot.

Nope, Philips has them in their more expensive bulbs. They're working their way down to the cheaper models.

Furthermore, my house used to be rigged up with 200W monsters at outdoor lighting areas where halogen wouldn't work because it's too directional. Now I'm stuck with crappy CFL lights that do not produce the equivalent light as advertised, or under-powered 75W incandescents.

A little bit of work and light planning will go a long way. Omnidirectional lights can be pretty wasteful for a home setting.

Finally, in my experience CFLs extended life has been advertised but never delivered, when I've looked into it it's because they have longer life in certain orientations and conditions, but incandescent work universally.

Which is why I don't recommend CFLs. Warm up times in cold weather are a killer, they do not dim for mood lighting, and they are hazmat when they burn out or break. From an environmental perspective, CFLs are pretty bad.

I do think that longterm LED is a better option. Even today, like I said, in a workplace I would choose LED or CFL. In my home, I want options.

As I said, your options are growing. Dimmable LEDs in various incandescent colors are becoming more widely available and even if they only run for half of their projected work time they're pay for themselves in time and energy you spend. The big problem is the high startup cost.

Take a look at this guy as a replacement for a standard (most common) 60w bulb

[–]IntelWarrior 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Don't bring facts into this.

[–]IntelWarrior 15 ポイント16 ポイント

I still can't belief that liberal Democrat George W. Bush signed the regulation of light bulbs into law...

[–]wethedownvotedNeoconservative 16 ポイント17 ポイント

That's because GWB knew how to govern. You don't do it by hard-lining the opposition at every turn, you give them concessions -- like light bulbs.

GWB got Hilary Clinton to sign the dotted line on the Iraq war -- the man was a political genius.

Think Obama could do the same with his opposition?

[–]no-soup-4-You -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Lying about WMDs and having Colin Powell look like a complete jack-ass in front of the UN. Political genius at work.

[–]Red_means_go 4 ポイント5 ポイント

You have proof that he lied? You still wish Saddam was in command?

[–]no-soup-4-You 11 ポイント12 ポイント

Seriously? You're saying they're still over there and after ten years we just haven't found them? And yeah, for that price tag I don't care if Saddam was still in power. The country is in ruins, we've racked up a pretty huge tab from it and Iran couldn't have gotten a better situation in regards to Iraq. Not to mention our troops that we screwed over pretty bad and that have to deal with the injuries sustained from war. Not worth it at all. Jesus, I thought conservatives want to cut spending and you're gonna sit here and defend that crap.

[–]KazROFL 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Yes, of course. We've caused the death of hundreds of thousands and destabilized a country that was a fairly prosperous oil country.

[–]xwhy -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Lying about lying about WMDs isn't genius, either. Although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you aren't lying. You just don't know any better. So it wouldn't be lying.

[–]no-soup-4-You 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I'm all ears. Explain it to me. I remember Bush saying Sadam was looking to purchase yellowcake from Africa which didn't turn out to be true, his "Sadam was connected to 9/11" wasn't true, they never did find those WMDs. I'm not being argumentative here, I genuinely have not heard any other side of this. Did they find WMDs? Joe Wilson was lying? Colin Powell has said he regrets his UN speech. Why?

[–]monic_binomial 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I still can't belief that liberal Democrat progressive republican George W. Bush signed the regulation of light bulbs into law...

ftfy

Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make. The two are virtually indistinguishable.

[–]IntelWarrior 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yeah, the Democratic Party really is pretty conservative in comparison to traditional definitions of the word, as well as in comparison to the rest of the world. I just wish the low information crowds on both sides would realize that.

[–]thepotatoman23 10 ポイント11 ポイント

So liberals are for regulations on light bulbs, and are for regulations on internet service providers.

Is there some sort of hypocrisy I'm missing here?

[–]TBoneTheOriginal 3 ポイント4 ポイント

There's a difference between regulating the use of lightbulbs and regulating an industry that wants to fuck everyone who uses it. Healthcare is another example of this. The government failed to regulate properly, and look at the mess we're in.

[–]markscomputer 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Not that Obamacare is the right solution. But I generally view the healthcare system as trying to fuck me, and I'm not sure whether you agree with me on that or not.

[–]TBoneTheOriginal 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Of course it is. So is Obamacare. The problem is that private insurance worked fine until recent history when they weren't regulated properly. So they took advantage of their customers, can't compete over state lines, etc. It's all bullshit, and Obamacare is no better.

[–]markscomputer 1 ポイント2 ポイント

cool, totally agree!

[–]IntelWarrior 1 ポイント2 ポイント

It's all bullshit, and Obamacare is no better.

I eagerly await a Congressional Republican solution that is better. I won't hold my breathe though.

[–]TBoneTheOriginal -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

That's a poor mindset. We don't have an amazing alternative, so we'll try a slightly less shitty method?

No, there's a happy medium somewhere. I don't care what political party comes up with it. But Obamacare isn't it. I say that as someone who signed up for it, got fucked, and had to get out of it.

[–]Steakonomics 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I dont know I kind of disagree. I'm still torn on whether net neutrality is the best solution, but what got us into this problem in the first place was government regulation -- in the 80's and 90's state governments went so gung ho to get internet that everyone signed away the free market to get natural monopolies...without the monopolies, the cable companies wouldn't have gotten so big and even though the market would have taken really long to get cable to some places, it defintely wouldn't be so consolidated now. This is really just my tenuous grasp on the history of internet but to me it seems like the govt kinda messed up here.

[–]bluefootedpig 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Before ACA, insurance loved to screw me over. Not sure how much things have really changed.

[–]IntelWarrior 1 ポイント2 ポイント

They have fewer ways by which they can screw you.

[–]TheThinMan34 13 ポイント14 ポイント

I fail to see how those two subjects are comparable. I think it's bullshit that ISP's can basically extort websites for traffic. But regular household light bulbs aren't dangerous or problematic. LED lights are great, but they're still in development and quite expensive initially. Give them a few more years.

[–]ajtexasranger 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Light bulbs? I missed something.

Can someone get me a link?

[–]TBoneTheOriginal 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Regular bulbs were banned from sale.

[–]redditbotsdocument 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Incandescent light bulbs are more effective as heaters than light bulbs. C'mon...not everything the gov. does is bad. Over 3/4's of the energy is used for heat instead of light.

I'm just sad about stocking up on CFLs when LEDs are better.

[–]etrnloptimist[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント

You're conflating the goodness/badness of the thing with the government's need to mandate it. Why does the government care to which appliance the kwh's I pay for goes to?

Why is my (electric) net not neutral?

[–]redditbotsdocument 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Our gov. passes about 70,000 pages of new laws every year. This one could actually be benevolent...in the long term. I'm happy when the gov. isn't screwing things up. Surprised too.

[–]etrnloptimist[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It is not the benevolence of the law that is the issue. I will grant you that it may be the case that every single one of those 70,000 pages of new laws are benevolent or have benevolent intent. That's not the issue.

The issue is necessity. Are they necessary? Is it necessary for the government to force someone to do something?

Because I'll tell you. I hate CFLs and I love LEDs. I think that's universally accepted. Without the government mandating the light bulb, we very well would have obsoleted the incandescent lamp naturally with LED technology.

And, without the government intrusion, we would have bypassed the flawed, environmentally sketchy CFLs entirely, which were (rightly) met with incredible resistance even after being mandated. The law just isn't necessary. At all.

And as you can see even this simple law has broad negative unintended consequences. When the market makes an unintentional bad decision, making it right is a consumer choice. When the government makes an unintentional bad decision, making it right is called "illegal."

[–]turlian 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Just playing devil's advocate here - do you agree with the law banning lead in gasoline?

[–]etrnloptimist[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Yup. I'm a big fan of pollution controls and environmental protection. I take tragedy of the commons seriously.

But please don't try to make the argument linking the banning of lead in gas to the inefficiency of light bulbs. Please.

[–]turlian 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I don't need to make it as it's a simple fact. More efficient light bulbs = less coal burned = less air and water pollution.

Banning incandescent light bulbs is a direct pollution control. Please tell me how that's different from banning leaded gas.

[–]etrnloptimist[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Because you can use that argument to ban anything ever connected to the grid. It's a slippery slope reductio ad absurdum argument.

[–]GrahamBeRad -1 ポイント0 ポイント

The crony capitalism in it is also a problem. They handed tons of taxpayer dollars to companies to make poisonous CFBs, when halogens are ultimately superior--and the free market would've solved that.

[–]hobomouthwashparty 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The "electric net" is not neutral. The electricity that is pumped into the network is in such high demand that it needs to come from fossil fuels, which isn't entirely awful; we get very useful and hard to synthesize chemicals from petroleum distillants. Energy coming from fossil fuels has the drawback of toxic chemicals being released from the organic matter that trapped it eons ago. In North Carolina we are learning that despite regulation the company is going to dump, or over stockpile until there is leakage, into runoff streams which feed into water supplies for whole areas. Come November/December I am not going to be surprised in the slightest if there is an epidemic of birth defects in northeastern North Carolina.

So, using less energy is essential until we find a way or utilize ways to create more cleaner energy so our woman don't poison our children just by drinking water.

Now, as to why the government needs to mandate less energy usage, I could ask my neighbor to use less energy so we dont have to deplete our coal resources as rapidly, but if they have enough money to enjoy paying an high electricity bill they won't care to use less energy or weird swirly lightbulbs. In order to safegaurd my region I would have to force that neighbor to use weird swirly lightbulbs to limit the potential of negatively affecting the future populace throught the release of toxic chemicals.

My bottom line, I don't know how anyone else feels about the topic, is that I am my brothers keeper and I have to keep him, his own, my own and even ones that aren't mine SAFE.

[–]etrnloptimist[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Yes, it's neutral. Why can't I have incandescents if I want them in my 2 br apartment but my neighbor can have an electric heater for his fucking pool and a 5 gigaton central AC system?

True net neutrality would be my neighbor pays an arm-and-a-leg for his higher-tier energy use. And if I want to recreate disneyland with twinkly light bulbs in my apartment and use as much energy as him, I can, and I will pay exactly as much as him.

edit: to address your pollution angle: if you think there's an environmental cost that is not being taken into consideration, then your electricity should simply cost more per kwh, in order to incorporate that cost. A naturally higher cost of electricity not only better models the situation as you've laid it out, it also incentivizes people to use less electricity, which will naturally gravitate them to the swirly lightbulbs of horror. And if the rich and stupid don't care about their tiered energy cost, then treat the added capital as a luxury tax and use it to clean up the mess.

[–]BarcweedConservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Still not sure why they think the internet is a "right"....

[–]Ben_Stark 33 ポイント34 ポイント

Internet isn't a right. Uninhibited access to all (legal) material on the internet should be a right. Your ISP shouldn't be able to limit your access to some websites (by restricting bandwidth). It would be similar to the idea that your phone company can block calls from companies or political organizations without your approval.

[–]highnventor 6 ポイント7 ポイント

one should have access to all material, including illegal material because if you limit it to just legal material, it would be simple for a dictator to declare their rival parties' websites "illegal"

tl;dr "legal" material is a moving line, give everyone access to ALL the material

[–]Ben_Stark 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Well, I tend to agree. I think there are certain things we shouldn't have access to such as being able to make black market purchases, but you're right, it is a slippery slope.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Uninhibited access to all (legal) material on the internet should be a right.

I guess there should also be uninhibited access to all legal cable tv channels, right?

[–]Ben_Stark 4 ポイント5 ポイント

All cable channels that you pay for. To equate cable tv to net neutrality. If I pay for basic service. I should get the same quality across all channels that I have the rights to view. If I pay a premium for access to HBO and Cinemax, should the cable company be able to take a kick-back from HBO to reduce the quality on Cinemax? If I pay for access to the internet, my ISP be allowed to clip the bandwidth of Netflix while giving me more bandwidth when I am streaming from their premium service?

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

If I pay for access to the internet, my ISP be allowed to clip the bandwidth of Netflix while giving me more bandwidth when I am streaming from their premium service?

Maybe you can buy premium service from your ISP also. If enough people are unsatisfied with ISPs throttling bandwidth to certain sites it will only expedite competitors to challenge them (i.e., Google Fiber)

[–]Ben_Stark 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Well, that's true, I was just using that as an example. My point was, that an ISP should not be allowed to dictate how much bandwidth a website receives.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

On what basis should they not be allowed to decide what services they sell?

Maybe we should have the government tell FedEx they can't charge more for heavier packages.

[–]Ben_Stark 6 ポイント7 ポイント

That's not what I am saying. If I pay for 50 mb/s internet, and I want to watch Netflix my ISP should not be reducing Netflix bandwidth to 3mb/s to save themselves power. I.E. should your phone company be able to say "he talks to his wife to much, we are going to reduce to call quality between he and his wife to save bandwidth on our cell towers"? Why should it be any different for the data I am downloading off the internet?

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

I don't know about you, but I pay a lot more to make international calls. Do you want the government to step in and reduce your phone bill by ordering what services phone companies provide at what price?

If you have a problem with your ISP slowing down Netflix, that will only encourage Google to bring Fiber everywhere sooner and cause current ISPs to offer better service. Don't get so antsy. In 1999 people wanted to regulate DSL service because they thought it was a monopoly, then just a few years later DSL providers were usurped by cable internet providers. This shit will settle itself without the government mandating what services certain companies must provide.

[–]Rommel79Conservative 6 ポイント7 ポイント

I don't think it's that people view the internet as a right, as much as the right to communicate and express ideas is a right.

But it is funny that the same people who think that the second amendment allows for the restriction of guns also believe that the first amendment doesn't allow for any restrictions of communications.

[–]TXSG -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Yup. Pretty much. Oh the ironies.

[–]whtsnk 3 ポイント4 ポイント

How is it ironic? They are both positions that support government regulation of private industry.

[–]Ojisan1 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Completely disingenuous and overly simplistic to presume that the same millions of individuals who support net neutrality are the same as the small groups of monied special interests (GE, environmental NGOs) who support light bulb bans.

[–]vgsgpz 0 ポイント1 ポイント

whats with you conservatives and love for shitty light bulbs?

[–]_Mayor_Rob_Ford_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yes literally millions upon millions of unique visitors are discussing this.

[–]Tarchwood 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Advances in LEDs are great right now and lightbulbs are a kind of curmudgeon-y thing in terms of getting people to switch

but the backlash against reddit supporting gay marriage in two states versus net neutrality was fucking hilarious

[–]TheoreticalFunk 1 ポイント2 ポイント

"You can only get gigabit connections or 56k modems. The sale of 9600 baud modems have been banned."