Crushing Defeat For Socialists/Progressives: "Net Neutrality."

[Londoner]

Opponents of net neutrality want to turn the internet into cable TV, where a handful of mega-corporations control content. By their design, outsiders with different voices and innovative ideas will face impossible entrance barriers, thus limiting competition and reducing consumer choice. This will turn the internet into one more monopolized communication medium, owned by the same concentrated powers which have purchased government. Over the past 30 years we have seen this Orwellian nightmare where supposed proponents of the free market have turned sector after sector (from energy to health care) into anti-competitive cesspools of corruption. In each sector profits now operate inversely to efficiency, innovation, and competitive price models. The market winners divert profits to Washington (rather than innovation) for the purpose of blocking legislation that would create an even playing field, thereby maximizing competition. Over a decade ago, when the electric car movement popped up in California, it was crushed by government before it could successfully compete for consumer dollars.

The role of Government is now to make it impossible for foreign and generic drug makers to compete with those who possess the largest market share. In exchange for blocking competition-friendly regulation, elections are funded, junkets are sponsored, and wallets are stuffed. The market winners not only divert money to their Washington puppets, but to a massive ideological bull horn which keeps voters in a hermetically sealed bubble (where anything that concentrates money and power is called 'freedom'). One day the OP is going to realize that his party has literally become a vast monopoly protectorate. I say Free The Pipes, so the little guys can crawl over the bones of the living and the dead to give me maximum content choice. Last thing I want is to go into a public library and do search for 'global warming" which leads to content sponsored by Halliburton and Exxon. (Wow, just wow)

 

[barenakedislam]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet? I thought by definition it merely prohibits providers from denying access to it. I suspect this is just some corporatist drivel.

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms. Other countries are griping that the US has too much jurisdiction over the internet and Odumbo agrees with them.

So when Odumbo relinquishes control of the technology that we alone developed, other countries get to impose their own rules and regulations over content, hate speech, etc.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Yea the Governent will make it all better. Such Bull Shit.

It takes a law sometimes to limit the government's reach. That constitution you pretend is in need of an automated electronic defibrilator was written by members of a fucking primitive government.

 

[Father Time]

Yea the Governent will make it all better. Such Bull Shit.

You keep parroting those old talking points, hoping they'll apply to this issue instead of making an argument.

There is no government overseeing the internet all there is, is that the government nor ISPs can restrict your access to (legal) sites.

 

[Father Time]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet? I thought by definition it merely prohibits providers from denying access to it. I suspect this is just some corporatist drivel.

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Source NAO!

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms.

And don't for a second think that passing this bill will somehow make it easier for the U.S. government to control content like they do with TV.

 

[LiberalNut]

Yup, they are spewing the corporate dogma again. Net neutrality = bad. Why? Er, cause, er, it's big gubbermint, yeah! SOCIALISM! Yeah.

It has nothing to do with freedom or anything.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[shintao]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Oh, so "net neutrality" is about the government taking over their internet, that they took over under Bush? I am a bit confused here. I thought "neutrality" meant "neutral," like in the middle, not favoring any side or the other.

Exactly what is government trying to take over, that they haven't already done with Homeland Security??

 

[shintao]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet? I thought by definition it merely prohibits providers from denying access to it. I suspect this is just some corporatist drivel.

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms. Other countries are griping that the US has too much jurisdiction over the internet and Odumbo agrees with them.

So when Odumbo relinquishes control of the technology that we alone developed, other countries get to impose their own rules and regulations over content, hate speech, etc.

Oh, the infidel with no credibility, since FOXVIEWS says she is lying about the 200 M a day for Obama's trip. We should take this assumed terrorist and ignore the message here, as just another fabrication.

 

[The T]

Wow what an awful day for Democrats in general on Election Day but it was especially brutal for the 95 Democrats who signed a pledge supporting Net Neutrality. All 95 Democrats who signed the pledge were soundly defeated by their Republican opponents. Now that's what you call a wipe out. Don't let the Socialists/Progressives take control of the Net. Stand up to them and fight back.

‘Net Neutrality Protectors’ Swept Away by Midterm Wave - Big Government

Serves them right. They probably would have gone for the Fairness Doctrine as well. Fuckin' idiots.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet? I thought by definition it merely prohibits providers from denying access to it. I suspect this is just some corporatist drivel.

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms. Other countries are griping that the US has too much jurisdiction over the internet and Odumbo agrees with them.

So when Odumbo relinquishes control of the technology that we alone developed, other countries get to impose their own rules and regulations over content, hate speech, etc.

So if any attempt at passing net neutrality is just some attempt at granting government control to other foreign governments as I think your suggesting, how do we keep it free and uncensored? China and Syria appear to be blocking sites within their boundaries... some isps want to limit access, not just bandwidth, based on a tiered pay system.

 

[barenakedislam]

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet? I thought by definition it merely prohibits providers from denying access to it. I suspect this is just some corporatist drivel.

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms. Other countries are griping that the US has too much jurisdiction over the internet and Odumbo agrees with them.

So when Odumbo relinquishes control of the technology that we alone developed, other countries get to impose their own rules and regulations over content, hate speech, etc.

So if any attempt at passing net neutrality is just some attempt at granting government control to other foreign governments as I think your suggesting, how do we keep it free and uncensored? China and Syria appear to be blocking sites within their boundaries... some isps want to limit access, not just bandwidth, based on a tiered pay system.

I don't think its our place to control what other countries do within their own boundaries. I'm only concerned with censorship in this country. Not sure how I feel about the tiered pay system (How do ISPs make money anyway?) but I don't like the idea of the government taxing products sold on the internet.

 

[LiberalNut]

Forget it retread. You're attempting fact and reason. It has no hope here.

They've been told by their suzerians that net neutrality = bad. It's over for them. They are just droning now.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms. Other countries are griping that the US has too much jurisdiction over the internet and Odumbo agrees with them.

So when Odumbo relinquishes control of the technology that we alone developed, other countries get to impose their own rules and regulations over content, hate speech, etc.

So if any attempt at passing net neutrality is just some attempt at granting government control to other foreign governments as I think your suggesting, how do we keep it free and uncensored? China and Syria appear to be blocking sites within their boundaries... some isps want to limit access, not just bandwidth, based on a tiered pay system.

I don't think its our place to control what other countries do within their own boundaries. I'm only concerned with censorship in this country. Not sure how I feel about the tiered pay system (How do ISPs make money anyway?) but I don't like the idea of the government taxing products sold on the internet.

I don't care for taxes either but net neutrality or whatever you wish to call it has nothing to do with taxation.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Forget it retread. You're attempting fact and reason. It has no hope here.

They've been told by their suzerians that net neutrality = bad. It's over for them. They are just droning now.

Due diligence. Had to give it a shot. I think the topic is very poorly understood.

 

[edthecynic]

Libocalypse, you genuinely don't know what net neutrality is. It seems from your posting here you'd support Net Neutrality and what you're describing as "net neutrality" is the opposite.


Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication allowed.

Net neutrality seeks to ensure ISP and the government CANNOT ever "take over" or regulate the internet, the takeover you describe is what net neutrality advocates oppose. Net neutrality really is about freedom online, you have your terms backwards and thus what you're celebrating I'd expect you to be decrying as it provides the opportunity for corporations or the government to further control internet use.

Your expectations are based on taking CON$ at their word, something that can never be done. CON$ hate what they pretend to stand for and stand for everything they decry!!!! That's why CON$ make PERFECT contrarian indicators. Whatever they say, just add the word NOT.

For example, if CON$ say they are for small government, they mean they are NOT for small government.

 

[edthecynic]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet? I thought by definition it merely prohibits providers from denying access to it. I suspect this is just some corporatist drivel.

The word neutrality is just Smoke and Mirrors, like the healthcare bill which isn't good for anyone's healthcare. If you can look thru the smoke, you will see elements of the Fairness Doctrine in there. I don't have all the details at hand, but while nobody can deny access, that comes at the price of more controls by the government, whether it's in ordering that you print opposing points of view or limiting what you can and can't say, i.e. government defined hate speech.

Don't for a minute think that once government gets its filthy hands on the internet that it won't limit your freedoms. Other countries are griping that the US has too much jurisdiction over the internet and Odumbo agrees with them.

So when Odumbo relinquishes control of the technology that we alone developed, other countries get to impose their own rules and regulations over content, hate speech, etc.

What a brainwashed mindless drone!!!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Forget it retread. You're attempting fact and reason. It has no hope here.

They've been told by their suzerians that net neutrality = bad. It's over for them. They are just droning now.

Due diligence. Had to give it a shot. I think the topic is very poorly understood.

You notice it's always "poorly" understood whenever we don't agree with a liberal?

It can't be we DO understand the subject and don't agree with it.

Nooooooooooooooooo, it's always that we don't understand it, and that's why we need liberals to force it down our throats regardless of what we think.

Liberals know what is best for us! We might as well accept that now!

 

[oreo]

Socialists/Progressives have been trying to accomplish their Government-Takeover of the Net for years. So Americans better always watch them. Make no mistake about it,they will try again.

Well--if you wave a dollar bill under a democrat politicians nose--they're going to grab it. Regulate--regulate--tax--tax--tax--then expand--regulate--regulate--tax--tax--tax--then expand--etc. etc. etc.

That's all they know how to do.

 

[shintao]

Libocalypse, you genuinely don't know what net neutrality is. It seems from your posting here you'd support Net Neutrality and what you're describing as "net neutrality" is the opposite.


Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication allowed.

Net neutrality seeks to ensure ISP and the government CANNOT ever "take over" or regulate the internet, the takeover you describe is what net neutrality advocates oppose. Net neutrality really is about freedom online, you have your terms backwards and thus what you're celebrating I'd expect you to be decrying as it provides the opportunity for corporations or the government to further control internet use.

Your expectations are based on taking CON$ at their word, something that can never be done. CON$ hate what they pretend to stand for and stand for everything they decry!!!! That's why CON$ make PERFECT contrarian indicators. Whatever they say, just add the word NOT.

For example, if CON$ say they are for small government, they mean they are NOT for small government.

Hmm, so we should call them, NOTCONS. That is getting closer to "nothings."

 

[QUENTIN]

Forget it retread. You're attempting fact and reason. It has no hope here.

They've been told by their suzerians that net neutrality = bad. It's over for them. They are just droning now.

Due diligence. Had to give it a shot. I think the topic is very poorly understood.

You notice it's always "poorly" understood whenever we don't agree with a liberal?

It can't be we DO understand the subject and don't agree with it.

Nooooooooooooooooo, it's always that we don't understand it, and that's why we need liberals to force it down our throats regardless of what we think.

Liberals know what is best for us! We might as well accept that now!

Well, on this issue, it is apparently poorly understood for reasons that don't have anything to do with liberalism or conservatism.

Libocalypse described net neutrality as a government takeover of the internet when it's precisely the opposite, it's legislation to ensure neither the government nor corporations nor the businesses that provide internet service can take over the internet, control content or access based on their own desires and whims.

So on this topic at least, it was genuinely a case where some posters at least demonstrated they fundamentally don't understand the issue. They have it backwards in fact.

Libocalypse, you genuinely don't know what net neutrality is. It seems from your posting here you'd support Net Neutrality and what you're describing as "net neutrality" is the opposite.


Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication allowed.

Net neutrality seeks to ensure ISP and the government CANNOT ever "take over" or regulate the internet, the takeover you describe is what net neutrality advocates oppose. Net neutrality really is about freedom online, you have your terms backwards and thus what you're celebrating I'd expect you to be decrying as it provides the opportunity for corporations or the government to further control internet use.

Your expectations are based on taking CON$ at their word, something that can never be done. CON$ hate what they pretend to stand for and stand for everything they decry!!!! That's why CON$ make PERFECT contrarian indicators. Whatever they say, just add the word NOT.

For example, if CON$ say they are for small government, they mean they are NOT for small government.

Well, he may be disingenuous, I dunno. I was only responding to the fact that he had his terms wrong and didn't understand the issue, so I was assuming that since he claimed to oppose a government takeover he'd support net neutrality. Maybe he is genuinely against it for other reasons, but his expressed rationale at least is totally wrong and in opposition to his stated aims. So I'll recognize that he's misinformed before I assume he was also lying about what he wants (though that is possible).

I'd actually argue conservatives are for small government by definition. Those who oppose small government and want a vast surveillance state and invasive laws abridging personal freedom based on religious texts and an enormous, ever-expanding military-industrial complex and whatnot simply aren't conservatives, regardless of what they call themselves.

Just as a someone who identifies as liberal but supports presidential assassination orders and due process-free indefinite detention and laws that segregate citizens based on their sexuality isn't actually a liberal because they don't meet its definition.

It's not that all conservatives are liars about the issues, just that a whole bunch of people who aren't conservative falsely label themselves as such. But they don't have the ability to change the definition of the word to fit whatever it is they believe based on the policies of a party rather than an ideology.