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

[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.

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.

Well--if you wave a dollar bill under a GOP politicians nose--they're going to steal it, and then blame you for their stealing it.

That's all they know how to do.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

The problem is CON$ are to stupid to know how obvious their ignorance is. They have convinced themselves that they know everything and therefore no one can possibly know enough to teach then anything.

 

[edthecynic]

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
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.

The problem with your very kind and generous defense of Conservatisn overlooks the fact that CON$ervative extremists like Stuttering LimpTard, mAnn Coulter, Lying Sean HanNITWITy, etc., have hijacked the title of CON$ervative and the Conservatives you describe are powerless to take it back from them. That's why I call them CON$ rather than Conservatives.

 

[newpolitics]

If it weren't for Malkin and Beck this guy would still be in charge:

What this guy has said is unbelievably true, but something NOBODY wants to believe, because they believe that our government is fundamentally good, when it isn't. It is corrupt. Corporations do rule our country, and our planet. It's all driven by greed, baby. Money, money, money... we're all still cavemen fighting over scarce resources, but we have cellphones and nice grey suits, and Lamborghini's, and fighter jets... but, we're still the same inside.

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

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.

The problem with your very kind and generous defense of Conservatisn overlooks the fact that CON$ervative extremists like Stuttering LimpTard, mAnn Coulter, Lying Sean HanNITWITy, etc., have hijacked the title of CON$ervative and the Conservatives you describe are powerless to take it back from them. That's why I call them CON$ rather than Conservatives.

Ah, fair enough. As long as you differentiate that seems fair. I mostly agree with your assessment. And the dollar sign seems an accurate descriptor.

A small note, since we do seem to agree. Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and the like are obvious and clear targets of obvious and clear substantive criticism. When you resort to childish nicknames when you mention them, I think you devalue that argument and render it more simplistic, ad hominem, and easily ignored. A critique of the policies and approach of George W. Bush for instance has real benefit, merely calling him "Dubya, Dumbya," etc. will immediately turn off anyone who doesn't yet share your view, limiting its benefit, and it is frankly immature. Just my opinion.

 

[edthecynic]

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.



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.

The problem with your very kind and generous defense of Conservatisn overlooks the fact that CON$ervative extremists like Stuttering LimpTard, mAnn Coulter, Lying Sean HanNITWITy, etc., have hijacked the title of CON$ervative and the Conservatives you describe are powerless to take it back from them. That's why I call them CON$ rather than Conservatives.

Ah, fair enough. As long as you differentiate that seems fair. I mostly agree with your assessment. And the dollar sign seems an accurate descriptor.

A small note, since we do seem to agree. Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and the like are obvious and clear targets of obvious and clear substantive criticism. When you resort to childish nicknames when you mention them, I think you devalue that argument and render it more simplistic, ad hominem, and easily ignored. A critique of the policies and approach of George W. Bush for instance has real benefit, merely calling him "Dubya, Dumbya," etc. will immediately turn off anyone who doesn't yet share your view, limiting its benefit, and it is frankly immature. Just my opinion.

I try to speak to CON$ in a language they will understand, so I follow their patterns, especially since they profess to be Christians so I apply the Golden Rule.

They have insulting nicknames for all Libs so that means as Christians they want to be be called by insulting nicknames. For example, HanNITWITy calls Abner Louima "Lying Louima" and Senator Schumer "Chuckie Cheese Schumer" so I came up with a similarly complimentary name for him. Who am I not to show sincere respect for their professed religious beliefs?

 

[editec]

Come on.

Look at the quality behind these so-called objections to net neutality.

They're not giving us informed opinions, they probably haven't even looked into the issue, hven't a clue what its about and couldn't care less, either way

These people are merely sloganeering - posting their usual litany of ignorant content free "We hate socialism, don't we have big dicks?" nonsense that they imagine makes them players in this world of ideas.

Trying to discuss issues with these ignorant trolls is wasted effort.

Reponding to such silly tripe only encourages them to post more of it.

 

[code1211]

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.

Just to inject a little perspective:

Wasn't there just a little fluff up between Google and China about internet access and freedom of information access to the citizens there?

Regulation is just French for control. We all know that. The internet gives instant visibility to all views and so does a printing press- at least that was the thinking of the Founders.

The truth always seems to surface in time. The internet has been evolving for about a decade plus a couple and is now changing the world.

Just as McCarthy was exposed by the light of Television, so others will be exposed by the light of the Internet. What is exciting is the exposure of different disciplines of thought colliding with each other.

This is the stuff that mutates societies.

 

[code1211]

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??

How does a law written by people with bias, interpreted by people with bias and enforced by people with bias then litigated by people with bias enhance the freedom of something that has no regulation to restrict freedom?

 

[code1211]

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.

WE cannot keep anything free outside of our borders. Our laws pertain only to those within our borders.

What are you talking about? Your examples are excellent warnings to us that our government should not be given the authority to regulate access through the net.

 

[Father Time]

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?

PC would disagree with you, in fact she goes on and on about she has to enlighten everyone who just doesn't understand ... whatever.

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

He's all ready demonstrated a lack of understanding of what it does.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"The Government will make things all better" is fantasy. They will instead do what they always do...Harass the People and **** it all up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use:

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use