Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[JBeukema]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators

Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality - Slashdot

 

[Oddball]

Good.

 

[Agit8r]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators

Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality - Slashdot

That is disgusting. Her constituents should be ashamed

 

[JBeukema]

Good.

It's good for politicians to put riders into unrelated bills to avoid an honest vote on something?


We'll remember that the next time the Dems do it and you bitch about it.

 

[Jroc]

Thats good news, Stop the tyrants!! Here is one of them, Yeah lets let guys like this (the elites) decide what news and info we get...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good.

It's good for politicians to put riders into unrelated bills to avoid an honest vote on something?


We'll remember that the next time the Dems do it and you bitch about it.

Why would that be wrong? Unless both the Senate and the House rewrite their rules to make every single bill that gets passed standalone, prohibiting any amendment that does not directly bear on the original bill, that is the way things will always get done. Can you imagine the gridlock if Congress had to debate every issue separately, and deliver an up or down vote based solely on the merits of that issue? The government would grind to a halt, and the only things that would get done each year would be the things that are impossible to ignore. While I, and others like me, would view that as an improvement, I suspect you would soon be clamoring for a return to the status quo.

 

[daveman]

And the efforts to legislate THOUGHTCRIME are pushed back another step.

 

[007]

Good.

It's good for politicians to put riders into unrelated bills to avoid an honest vote on something?

We'll remember that the next time the Dems do it and you bitch about it.

Fight fire with fire. The FCC is over stepping their bounds in the first place to pull such a stunt. I'm tired of these pud faced liberal commies and their activism pissing all over the constitution. Fuck 'em. They need to be bitch slapped and told to sit the fuck down and quit meddling in affairs that are out of their authority limits.

 

[The Infidel]

That is disgusting. Her constituents should be ashamed

Well for once... Im not ashamed of her.

 

[The Infidel]

Good.

It's good for politicians to put riders into unrelated bills to avoid an honest vote on something?

We'll remember that the next time the Dems do it and you bitch about it.

Fight fire with fire. The FCC is over stepping their bounds in the first place to pull such a stunt. I'm tired of these pud faced liberal commies and their activism pissing all over the constitution. Fuck 'em. They need to be bitch slapped and told to sit the fuck down and quit meddling in affairs that are out of their authority limits.

I agree.... Its sickening how they are making The Constitution irrelevant.

They should all be tossed out on their asses

 

[The T]

Thats good news, Stop the tyrants!! Here is one of them, Yeah lets let guys like this (the elites) decide what news and info we get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

 

[Agit8r]

Thats good news, Stop the tyrants!! Here is one of them, Yeah lets let guys like this (the elites) decide what news and info we get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

 

[daveman]

Thats good news, Stop the tyrants!! Here is one of them, Yeah lets let guys like this (the elites) decide what news and info we get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

...with government oversight.

It's not government's job to birddog the free exchange of ideas.

 

[007]

Thats good news, Stop the tyrants!! Here is one of them, Yeah lets let guys like this (the elites) decide what news and info we get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

Bull shit. It's the Fairness Doctrine all dressed up with a name change being snuck in through the back door. It's sneaky and underhanded. So if that's the way they want to play it, then I say play the game right back at them.

 

[Jroc]

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

...with government oversight.

It's not government's job to birddog the free exchange of ideas.

They just have to make sure there is equal time.

 

[The T]

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

...with government oversight.

It's not government's job to birddog the free exchange of ideas.

*Tip of the Fidora.

 

[Agit8r]

I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Now as to the Status of this 'RIDER'...Bad form. The rider as any of them should be fronted to survive in it's own right.

Albiet I agree with the premise of the rider? It's presentation should be done separately.

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

Bull shit. It's the Fairness Doctrine all dressed up with a name change being snuck in through the back door. It's sneaky and underhanded. So if that's the way they want to play it, then I say play the game right back at them.

lol. conservatives won't be happy til we are just like China

 

[The T]

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

...with government oversight.

It's not government's job to birddog the free exchange of ideas.

They just have to make sure there is equal time.

And as to that time? Detractors have all the time in the world. Problem is? Not all are willing to listen or watch...and is a personal decision by the receiver as to watch or listen.

It is perceived therefore by these politicians that 'equal time' doesn't exist, and therefore must be forced.

 

[007]

Actually net neutrality means that providers can't decide what you get to see and hear o_0

Bull shit. It's the Fairness Doctrine all dressed up with a name change being snuck in through the back door. It's sneaky and underhanded. So if that's the way they want to play it, then I say play the game right back at them.

lol. conservatives won't be happy til we are just like China

Got news for ya door knob, it's not the conservatives trying to turn us into china. It's the shit stain liberal socialists... you know... start with obama and work down.

 

[rdean]

Thats good news, Stop the tyrants!! Here is one of them, Yeah lets let guys like this (the elites) decide what news and info we get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhQ5z5CWTM

200 millions dollar a day trips isn't "news". It's lies.

Besides, Fox is owned by Australians and Arabs. Do you seriously think they are "neutral"? Seriously? Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gives telethons to raise money for suicide bombers and he believed the 9/11 terrorists were "heroes". What does that tell you?

“Sky will approach it from the point of view of being a sound commercial opportunity.”

FT.com / Media - BSkyB signs Arabic news channel deal

Hmmm, a "sound commercial opportunity"? Like Fox does here in the US? How many people were talking about Obama's trip that cost 200 million dollars a day? Broadcasting bullshit makes money. It's just that simple.