Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[mudwhistle]

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.

It's easier to let me know when they don't do it.....if that ever happens.

 

[daveman]

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.

No, they don't want equal time. They want to shut down Rush, Fox, and other conservative outlets.

 

[daveman]

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

China is what happens when leftists have free reign to do what they want.

 

[daveman]

...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.

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

 

[Revere]

The FCC's designs on the internet are "just like China."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

100% wrong.

 

[The T]

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.

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

About the crux of it. Of course these politicians are listening to the whiners that think thier word or thoughts aren't getting listened to for the drubbing they get...so we gotta have a LAW that forces it...

What's next? A law that will be on the streets that will ask pertinent questions of what's in the media? And what will be the consequence if one should answer wrong? A fine and/or court date?

Gotta follow the natural progression of these things especially in what is being foisted upon us these days if these Statists have their way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What does any of that have to do with the issue being discussed? This is about the FCC's attempt to take over the Internet, not about their attempt to shut down news they don't like.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

 

[The T]

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.

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

But nevermind that by consensus they made it LAW of the land...for folks like YOU to dismiss as old and moldy.

Right?



Let's just make law for the fuck sake of it because we have a minroity of fucking whiners...forget the Constitution. Outcomes HAVE TO be equal

 

[Oddball]

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

Total lie.

It means that some faceless federal bureaucrat will be in charge of who is "worthy" of bandwidth and who isn't.

 

[naomibee]

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

But nevermind that by consensus they made it LAW of the land...for folks like YOU to dismiss as old and moldy.

Right?



Let's just make law for the fuck sake of it because we have a minroity of fucking whiners...forget the Constitution. Outcomes HAVE TO be equal

or as obama would have it f k the american people what they think.

 

[The T]

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

But nevermind that by consensus they made it LAW of the land...for folks like YOU to dismiss as old and moldy.

Right?



Let's just make law for the fuck sake of it because we have a minroity of fucking whiners...forget the Constitution. Outcomes HAVE TO be equal

or as obama would have it f k the american people what they think.

That much is evident of Obamacare now that it is tied up in court.

 

[The T]

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

Total lie.

It means that some faceless federal bureaucrat will be in charge of who is "worthy" of bandwidth and who isn't.

Yep. It's an affront to speech no matter the vehicle of speech.

 

[daveman]

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.

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

There's a major difference:

The ideas in the Constitution limit the powers of government to maximize individual freedom.

The left's ideas seek to limit individual freedoms to maximize the power of government.

 

[The T]

Liberalism...ideas so good, they have to be mandated by law!

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

There's a major difference:

The ideas in the Constitution limit the powers of government to maximize individual freedom.

The left's ideas seek to limit individual freedoms to maximize the power of government.

These idiots know this. They post shit like this because they'd rather have Big Government cover their asses for thier own individual failings and portend to call everyone else crazy.

And they will NEVER admit their own failings in life to boot.

 

[daveman]

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

There's a major difference:

The ideas in the Constitution limit the powers of government to maximize individual freedom.

The left's ideas seek to limit individual freedoms to maximize the power of government.

These idiots know this. They post shit like this because they'd rather have Big Government cover their asses for thier own individual failings and portend to call everyone else crazy.

And they will NEVER admit their own failings in life to boot.

"You must spread some rep around etc."

 

[The T]

There's a major difference:

The ideas in the Constitution limit the powers of government to maximize individual freedom.

The left's ideas seek to limit individual freedoms to maximize the power of government.

These idiots know this. They post shit like this because they'd rather have Big Government cover their asses for thier own individual failings and portend to call everyone else crazy.

And they will NEVER admit their own failings in life to boot.

"You must spread some rep around etc."

A hearty glance and a tip of the fedora...and a thumbs UP

 

[Danaelle]

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

China is what happens when leftists have free reign to do what they want.

are you completely fucking insane???

china immigration policy:
1-China has severe penalties for any illegal immigrants. North Koreans in particular, who regularly flee the horrible North Korean regime by crossing their border with China, when caught get a minimum of 12 years of hard labor, and in many cases are executed upon capture.
American replublican stance!

China's policy toward homosexuals:
All major religions in ancient China have some sort of codex, which have traditionally been interpreted as being against exclusive homosexuality when it interferes with continuation of the family lineage. Confucians believe that begetting children (especially sons) is a very important duty, so a person who only has same-gender lovers is not dutiful. Taoism emphasizes maintaining the balance between Yin and Yang. An exclusively male relationship is thought to be a Yang-Yang relationship and believed to be imbalanced and destructive; similarly a female relationship would be read as Yin-Yin.
American Republican stance!

A government-affiliated association monitors the activities of each of the five faiths. In cities such as Shanghai, a significant number of non-sanctioned churches and temples exist, attended by locals and foreigners alike. China does not permit "foreign domination" of religious affairs and religious bodies, due to fears of past colonialism and imperialism on the part of foreign missionaries.[2]

Religious groups are required to register with the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA, formerly known as the central Religious Affairs Bureau) or its provincial and local offices (still known as Religious Affairs Bureaus (RABs)). SARA and the RABs are responsible for monitoring and judging the legitimacy of religious activity.
Most closely resembles the American Republican stance!

Ideologies of communism are basically that the government gets to tell people how to act, what to think, how to spend their time and money, how to live their lives...just about everything.

The American Republican stance pretty much says the same thing. Republicans seem to want to be in control of everything that goes on in this country, and that free will be destroyed. If a Republican thinks anything I do to be "immoral" or any other thing they dont agree with, they want to make a law against it.

The American Democratic stance basically states that every individual is protected against discrimination and is able to live their lives in relative peace and harmony, without fear that someone else be able to take away their right to independence of thought and action, under reasonable circumstances.

I submit to you, that if either of the "leftist" or "rightwing" theories in this country are to lead us to be closer to China, it would be the Republicans.

Thanks for playing

 

[daveman]

The American Republican stance pretty much says the same thing. Republicans seem to want to be in control of everything that goes on in this country, and that free will be destroyed. If a Republican thinks anything I do to be "immoral" or any other thing they dont agree with, they want to make a law against it.

Conservatives want maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

The American Democratic stance basically states that every individual is protected against discrimination and is able to live their lives in relative peace and harmony, without fear that someone else be able to take away their right to independence of thought and action, under reasonable circumstances.

Not really. The American Democratic stance is that no one is capable of making their own decisions, and must have Big Government looking out for them from cradle to grave. For instance, the government decided that YOU have to buy insurance, regardless of your health or economic circumstances.

I submit to you, that if either of the "leftist" or "rightwing" theories in this country are to lead us to be closer to China, it would be the Republicans.

Thanks for playing

Your submission is rejected. China is a Communist nation. Therefore, it is leftist. This is inarguable.