Re: Explaining law to Potts
"The Telecommunications Act was put into place in order to prevent Title II from having to be used to regulate data, amongst many other things...but it did not remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II, should that be required."
My students would receive a Fail mark for attempting such an argument. I have explained why already in this thread. Most tutors would also deduct points for vanity and arrogance. You don't just get it wrong, but you think you can bluster your way using rhetoric. For example:
" there are countries out there that do, in fact, "protect" their citizens from "people like me". You know, people who understand the law, the spirit and intent of the law...
You have demonstrated you don't understand the law at all. You don't understand the separation of powers, the boundaries of authority, the idea of legislative intent. You steamroller over all of them.
"...the larger economic and political issues..."
I think you mean "The Larger Potts". I described your behaviour earlier. Whenever you're challenged, you use the rhetoric of moral superiority. You're doing it again.
"The types of folks who build nations only to benefit the indulgent few "