A good week for Rights

[TakeAStepBack]

What free market system?

 

[KNB]

What the fuck do Muslims with 17 wives have to do with keeping a lesbian couple who have been together for 45 years from seeing each other in the hospital as one lays dying? Allowing gay people equality under the law doesn't lead to polygamy, bestiality or rape.

As for the idiotic assertion that Comcast is somehow a "left-wing liberal mouthpiece", it's been explained that multi-billion-dollar corporations and the 1% CEOs who run them are not, at all, in any way, "liberal" or "progressive". They are businessmen whose jobs are to make more money for their shareholders. Or do all of these billionaires somehow make their preposterously huge fortunes by "redistributing" their wealth to the struggling poor? After all, they're so "liberal" proven by their corporations obvious "liberal" bias, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What free market system?

Well....the 'what was formerly an representation of a free market'....

 

[KNB]

"Private ownership of the media" today means that only 7 massive corporations (two of which aren't even American) produce 80% of news, radio, television, movies, books, magazines, billboards, advertisements, and all other forms of mindless commercialistic gibberish that the American people see, hear and read on a daily basis.

7 corporations (Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corp, Bertlesmann, and Comcast/GE) produce 80% of American media. That is not Progressive. They are 1% billionaires who do not care about you. They feed you shit and tell you that it's delicious.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Frankly under a true free market system, this is exactly how it should operate. Internet providers set the price through a contract negotiation with content providers for the fee to host their service, make it faster, put it at the top, etc...or even not allow cetain content providers due to the content they distribute. All fine and good there.

However, the governments, have already created the climate of monopolies and cartels in ISP. This means competition is gone, adn the cartel works out the details of payments, who gets what, how much for it, etc...Creating a syndicalism within the industry that can, under pressure/favor from sources/donors/legislators, regulate arbitrarily what content will get to be on the info highway and what can go fuck itself. Or, create favoritism. Such as offering Amazon a premium price for their streaming content, while telling netflix to pound sand. Or any combination there of.

Without the essential regulation of competition in the sector, more Govt. agency discretionary power will only further corporatism in that sector. You can bet your ass you will see a jump in subscription prices, as well as the vanishing of content you might have previously enjoyed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Private ownership of the media" today means that only 7 massive corporations (two of which aren't even American) produce 80% of news, radio, television, movies, books, magazines, billboards, advertisements, and all other forms of mindless commercialistic gibberish that the American people see, hear and read on a daily basis.

7 corporations (Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corp, Bertlesmann, and Comcast/GE) produce 80% of American media. That is not Progressive. They are 1% billionaires who do not care about you. They feed you shit and tell you that it's delicious.

If there are any others who believe that the excuses/explanations for 'regulating' the internet, consider this: the claims that would be used to ensure privacy, or protection of the citizenry are far outweighed by the massive potential for abuse.




Should that be a concept that any need mull over....look closely as the thug tactic employed by the current Leftist administration in using the Internal Revenue Service to stultify the activity of those organizations they felt might be antithetical to their machinations.

"IRS employees were “acutely” aware in 2010 that President Obama wanted to crack down on conservative organizations and were egged into targeting tea party groups by press reports mocking the emerging movement, according to an interim report being circulated Tuesday by House investigators."
: IRS officials thought Obama wanted crackdown on tea party groups, worried about negative press - Washington Times




Once they convince the easily led that they are simply looking out for you....

...it's all over.

 

[KNB]

Once they convince the easily led that they are simply looking out for you....

...it's all over.

That's called FOX News and any other corporate-owned media. "Once corporate news convinces the easily led that they are simply looking out for you.... it's all over."

 

[SmedlyButler]

"We already have the freest internet in the world" You'll have to say "had the freest internet in the world" if the principles of net neutrality are lost. I'd try to educate you on the subject but obviously your thick skull is already crammed to overflowing with fatuous Beckisms. One thing I can assure you if Verizon and their ilk have their way a lowly website like this won't survive the dollar driven bandwidth allotment.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Good news. The internet is a place for free exchange of thoughts and ideas, as well as for commerce. The internet extends far beyond American borders. You can't regulate something the whole world uses on a daily basis.

Thats why striking down Net Neutrality was bad.

Instead of offering all websites on equal plains striking down Net Neutrality makes the websites with the bigger pockets will have their info streaming with no problem. Sites like Netflix will of course pass that cost onto you.

Imagine this. You go onto your fav political blog and everything looks like 2D old Atari graphics. You find out that your fav blog didnt pay the fee to be streamed at the same level as the big boys.

If I am wrong someone please chime in but if I'm right...Thats fucked up

 

[g5000]

Courts strikes down the liberal misery known as Net Neutrality and they demand probable cause for digital content at borders. Who knows - maybe next they won't allow Obama to act like a dictator and bypass Congress!

U.S. appeals court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules | Reuters

Courts rule Reasonable Cause required for digital content | Computerworld

Goddam activist judges running roughshod over the Will of the People™!

Fucking Marbury v. Madison, man. Marbury v. Madison. It's been downhill ever since.

 

[Seawytch]

Rotty's correct...it was a good week for rights.



Oklahoma’s Ban on Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

As we've already covered SW, gays have enjoyed every right that straights have since the begging of the U.S. They enjoyed free speech, right to bear arms, protection against seizure, and 100% of all other rights.



But, like all homosexuals and liberals, you believe you are special and entitled to more than the "little" people who are "beneath" you.



Now here is an idea - why don't you dodge that question again about how you plan to discriminate against (and I quote) "consenting adults" which happen to be muslim and want 17 wives. And I forget, what was your plan again when the muslim makes the claim that an employee not providing free healthcare for all 17 of those wives is "discrimination"? Yeah - ole [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] never wants to discuss these realities. Because she's smart enough to realize it exposes her as a deplorable hypocrite. She always ends with the evasive and nonsensical "I wish them luck".

In over a dozen states and counting we have the same rights and judges are ruling on a new one every day it seems.

I do wish polygamists luck. Huge fan of Big Love.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's all about the money. Basically, people have been getting smart, ditching their cable, signing up to Netflix. The same ISP's that carry cable and Netflix see themselves getting cut out of the action and want a piece of the pie.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ]Ask A Ninja - Special Delivery 4 "Net Neutrality" - YouTube[/ame]

The odious thing is, the government in conjunction with their CFR buddies will use this as a means to stifle independent media and research. The public will consequently become less informed and channeled toward more MSM sources of information, information that is controlled and manipulated, peppered with disinformation for political purposes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

"We already have the freest internet in the world" You'll have to say "had the freest internet in the world" if the principles of net neutrality are lost. I'd try to educate you on the subject but obviously your thick skull is already crammed to overflowing with fatuous Beckisms. One thing I can assure you if Verizon and their ilk have their way a lowly website like this won't survive the dollar driven bandwidth allotment.

It's more likely that in order to be a participant, should a site like this ones owners choose, would be a paid fee to get the content to cover the fees imposed by the ISP. And this will be the norm until people no longer want to participate in internet based commerce.

Everything will be affected by a the pricing schemes of a few giant, state sponsored corps like verizon, comcast, etc...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's all about the money. Basically, people have been getting smart, ditching their cable, signing up to Netflix. The same ISP's that carry cable and Netflix see themselves getting cut out of the action and want a piece of the pie.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The OP thought striking down Net Neutrality was a good idea just because Obama likes it...no other reason

 

[MisterBeale]

"Private ownership of the media" today means that only 7 massive corporations (two of which aren't even American) produce 80% of news, radio, television, movies, books, magazines, billboards, advertisements, and all other forms of mindless commercialistic gibberish that the American people see, hear and read on a daily basis.

7 corporations (Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corp, Bertlesmann, and Comcast/GE) produce 80% of American media. That is not Progressive. They are 1% billionaires who do not care about you. They feed you shit and tell you that it's delicious.

If there are any others who believe that the excuses/explanations for 'regulating' the internet, consider this: the claims that would be used to ensure privacy, or protection of the citizenry are far outweighed by the massive potential for abuse.




Should that be a concept that any need mull over....look closely as the thug tactic employed by the current Leftist administration in using the Internal Revenue Service to stultify the activity of those organizations they felt might be antithetical to their machinations.

"IRS employees were “acutely” aware in 2010 that President Obama wanted to crack down on conservative organizations and were egged into targeting tea party groups by press reports mocking the emerging movement, according to an interim report being circulated Tuesday by House investigators."
: IRS officials thought Obama wanted crackdown on tea party groups, worried about negative press - Washington Times




Once they convince the easily led that they are simply looking out for you....

...it's all over.

You should really chill. The only regulations that are in place are to guarantee equal access. Tell me what is so terrible about that?

Seems to me, from a political standpoint, it is the parties of extremes that have the least financial resources to access the internet. End net neutrality, and it is the tea party, libertarian and the socialist sites that will go first, not the Democrats or RHIOS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We already have the freest internet in the world" You'll have to say "had the freest internet in the world" if the principles of net neutrality are lost. I'd try to educate you on the subject but obviously your thick skull is already crammed to overflowing with fatuous Beckisms. One thing I can assure you if Verizon and their ilk have their way a lowly website like this won't survive the dollar driven bandwidth allotment.

I explain things to you…now see if you can understand this….for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well.



1. The ability to control the flow of information is vital for centralized politics, as we saw in Eastern Europe under Soviet control. Attempts to control the media in the United States are defended through a progressive lens: information must be sorted through by experts, and knowledge vetted by the most knowledgeable among us. Leave it to experts so that nothing is left to chance.
This is the rationale of the Democrat FCC.

a. “…Chuck Schumer’s comments on Fox News this morning, reportedly comparing conservative opinion to pornography that needs to be regulated. Fairness Doctrine here we come.”
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another.”
Michelle Malkin | Fairness Doctrine Watch: Schumer likens conservative opinion to pornography (vid added) «


b/ “Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.”
Ibid.


c. “Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Ibid.


d. “The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses….Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting -- especially on political blogs,… "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, …”
Obama open to newspaper bailout bill | TheHill



Can you see what they're getting at?

The same people who you trusted to send guns to drug cartels, to use the IRS to block conservative groups in 2012, to cover up Benghazi using a bogus video, to lying about your ability to keep your doctor.......

....I mean....what kind of moron are you???

 

[RDD_1210]

Good news. The internet is a place for free exchange of thoughts and ideas, as well as for commerce. The internet extends far beyond American borders. You can't regulate something the whole world uses on a daily basis.

So you should be in favor of Net Neutrality.....

 

[RDD_1210]

Huh? Why do you label Net Neutrality a "liberal misery"? You would prefer an internet commercialized like cable tv? The web has been revolutionary as a medium for the democratization of knowledge and information because it has been open and mostly unfettered. You like China's model better?

What an absolutely absurd thing to say. It always amazes me how ignorant and completely uninformed Dumbocrats are on a topic, yet their willingness to weigh in on that topic anyway.

We already have the freest internet in the world. It is not censored in any way like China and Iran. It is not blocked in any way like China and Iran. So what "problem" exists that Net Neutrality is addressing?

Net Neutrality is trying to implement China's model. Yet, you are so ignorant of what Net Neutrality actually is, you're supporting exactly what you're against (typical fuck'n moron Dumbocrat).

Ummm, you're wrong. Net Neutrality wants to keep it the way it has been. Opponents of Net Neutrality want to change that. You just argued IN FAVOR of Net Neutrality but are too brainwashed to see it.

Seriously, educate yourself on this topic further.

 

[KNB]

What does Michelle Malkin have to say about 7 massive corporations owning 80% of the outlets for which most Americans rely on to be informed voters? How does Michelle Malkin feel about these same corporations lobbying our Congress to deregulate media ownership so that one corporation can own multiple newspapers, television networks and radio stations in any given city, which ultimately limits free speech by eliminating any views or content which the corporation deems "unacceptable"?