"Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet..."

[Rikurzhen]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

Like healthcare, he wants the Internet reserved for those who can afford it

It scares me that you are allowed to vote in elections.

Cruz would just as soon auction off the Internet to the highest bidder. Same as he wants for healthcare

Auction off? You think the internet is owned by the government?

 

[ricechickie]

Yep. That's why he's made himself a dictator.

And why no one may criticize him upon pain of death.

Yep.

Ridiculous.

Criticizing Obama won't get you killed, it will just get you audited.

How many times have you been audited, UnC?

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

Those ARE government agencies and this isn't about Obama and the progressives. This us about government. Government never does anything efficiently, and it is never ever satisfied with the power and authority that it has. Your example of the EPA is a case in point. It has way too often overstepped its bounds and gone off the rails. If you let the government get it's hooks into the Internet then that will be all she wrote, and it won't matter who is in the White House. In the "interest of fairness", or the "security of the nation" blah blah blah. No freedom.

Okay. I don't agree, but okay. You never answered my original question. So, your solution would be...?

I have no idea what would be the best solution. That is why I said we were screwed either way. I do believe that the goverent would be more evil than Comcast simply from my perspective since I can afford the higher speeds. Other than that I can't see a good ending here.

So, just to be clear:

We can't do nothing, because the Corporations will just keep chipping away at our access to the internet until they have complete control.
We can't ask the government to put protections in place to keep that from happening, because you don't trust the government.​

You get that this is about so much more than internet speeds, right? This is also about who gets to decide what content is made available. It is about who gets to use the internet, and for what. If all you're worried about are your internet speeds, then they have already won.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many times have you been audited, UnC?

{Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Read more: House Republicans find 10 of tea party donors audited by IRS - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter}

They were rightly going to impeach Nixon for this shit, but Obama gets a pass because democrats are above the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, just to be clear:

We can't do nothing, because the Corporations will just keep chipping away at our access to the internet until they have complete control.
We can't ask the government to put protections in place to keep that from happening, because you don't trust the government.​

You get that this is about so much more than internet speeds, right? This is also about who gets to decide what content is made available. It is about who gets to use the internet, and for what. If all you're worried about are your internet speeds, then they have already won.

Well, that's a lie - but how are you going to get away with looting the property of others without a few lies?

You are a Progressive, you seek to place the means of production into the hands of the central authority. Such a goal does not involve knowledge or understanding, you have your talking points, which is all you need.

Networks operate on the OSI model, which is comprised of a series of layers;

Layer 6: The presentation layer. This layer is usually part of an operating system (OS) and converts incoming and outgoing data from one presentation format to another (for example, from clear text to encrypted text at one end and back to clear text at the other).

Layer 5: The session layer. This layer sets up, coordinates and terminates conversations. Services include authentication and reconnection after an interruption. On the Internet, Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provide these services for most applications.

Layer 4: The transport layer. This layer manages packetization of data, then the delivery of the packets, including checking for errors in the data once it arrives. On the Internet, TCP and UDP provide these services for most applications as well.

Layer 3: The network layer. This layer handles the addressing and routing of the data (sending it in the right direction to the right destination on outgoing transmissions and receiving incoming transmissions at the packet level). IP is the network layer for the Internet.

Layer 2: The data-link layer. This layer sets up links across the physical network, putting packets into network frames. This layer has two sub-layers, the Logical Link Control Layer and the Media Access Control Layer. Ethernet is the main data link layer in use.

Layer 1: The physical layer. This layer conveys the bit stream through the network at the electrical, optical or radio level. It provides the hardwaremeans of sending and receiving data on a carrier network.

What is OSI reference model Open Systems Interconnection - Definition from WhatIs.com

The backbone, that which you seek to rape, operates on layer 1 - please explain to the class how EXACTLY one could regulate content at layer 1 - which is all the backbone can see?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

Like healthcare, he wants the Internet reserved for those who can afford it

It scares me that you are allowed to vote in elections.

Cruz would just as soon auction off the Internet to the highest bidder. Same as he wants for healthcare

Auction off? You think the internet is owned by the government?

Shitflinger thinks YOU are owned by the government. All assets including people are property of the state and his beloved party - in his alleged mind.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

Those ARE government agencies and this isn't about Obama and the progressives. This us about government. Government never does anything efficiently, and it is never ever satisfied with the power and authority that it has. Your example of the EPA is a case in point. It has way too often overstepped its bounds and gone off the rails. If you let the government get it's hooks into the Internet then that will be all she wrote, and it won't matter who is in the White House. In the "interest of fairness", or the "security of the nation" blah blah blah. No freedom.

Okay. I don't agree, but okay. You never answered my original question. So, your solution would be...?

I have no idea what would be the best solution. That is why I said we were screwed either way. I do believe that the goverent would be more evil than Comcast simply from my perspective since I can afford the higher speeds. Other than that I can't see a good ending here.

So, just to be clear:

We can't do nothing, because the Corporations will just keep chipping away at our access to the internet until they have complete control.
We can't ask the government to put protections in place to keep that from happening, because you don't trust the government.​

You get that this is about so much more than internet speeds, right? This is also about who gets to decide what content is made available. It is about who gets to use the internet, and for what. If all you're worried about are your internet speeds, then they have already won.

Regulation is an imposition on people and when government imposes it must have a reason, a need to fix a wrong. What wrong is CURRENTLY taking place? What CURRENT wrong will regulation solve?

And allowing government to decide what content is made available will result in mandatory Obama-TV for everyone.

 

[Roadrunner]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

Damn you are a dupe.

IRS scandal ring a bell?

No government agency is independent of the party in power.

And the usurpation of power by Obama is going to come back and bite libs in the ass.

 

[Stephanie]

Regulation is

and Obama want's his grubby commie hands on our FREEDOMS OF SPEECH and he also sees, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for him and his tyrants in Governement

Anarchist, eh?

No, but you're a real idiot

 

[Roadrunner]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

And so your "third option" would be...


And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

But TV is under government control. And it is never a good idea to have government control anything.

Really? No. In China television is under government control. In most Middle East countries television is under government control. If television were truly under government control do you honestly believe that the NSA story would ever have seen the light of day? I'm not sure you really understand what "government control" actually means. You should speak to someone who had to grow up under a totalitarian regime sometime, and you might have a some idea of what "government controlled" media actually looks like.

If anything television is under corporate control. Although, fortunately, even that is not universal - yet.

TV is under government control, it's called the FCC. You cannot just open up a TV station and begin broadcasting, you cannot put anything you want to on your station. Television is regulated out the wazoo. Try showing midget nude mud wrestling on channel two at 6 pm and see if it isn't regulated.

Regulation is not the same as control, and you know it. Come back when you have something more substantial than , "I have to follow rules, so my government is a dictatorship!!!"

"Regulation is not the same as control,"

How fuckin' Orwellian.

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids is not the same as pedophilia .

We know your type.

 

[BULLDOG]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

 

[Roadrunner]

Regulation is

and Obama want's his grubby commie hands on our FREEDOMS OF SPEECH and he also sees, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for him and his tyrants in Governement

He wants, above all, the power to have the government give free high speed internet and computers to the dependent class as a basic human right!

 

[Roadrunner]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

 

[Stephanie]

Regulation is

and Obama want's his grubby commie hands on our FREEDOMS OF SPEECH and he also sees, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for him and his tyrants in Governement

He wants, above all, the power to have the government give free high speed internet and computers to the dependent class as a basic human right!

yep, buy some more votes then try and push voting over the Internet so we really have no CONTROL over our elections

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm a Republican and I all for net neutrality as are many Republicans that I know. Someone in Ted Cruz's camp needs to explain to him why comparing the internet to Obamacare is political suicide. This should be a no brainer bipartisan topic.

I just want to point out that Fang appears to be the only RW who has the integrity to stand against the radical right.

Could we have an actual Conservative in our midst?

Sorry, but there are no actual conservatives left. They were overrun by crazy right wingers. and became extinct about the time Gingrich became prominent. There have been reports of sightings lately, but no actual proof that they exist. Of course, you hope to find that somewhere a few have been saved from the extinction, as do I, but for now, that is just a hope with little chance of coming true.

 

[BULLDOG]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

 

[Roadrunner]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

 

[PredFan]

Regulation isn't control? What are you smoking? At any rate regulation certainly isn't freedom now is it?

This is the misinformation of our recent age.

Regulation is a set of rules, a framework within which you can act.

Sorry, you can't hunt your neighbor's dog, feed it to your kid, and build your tent city on airport property. You can't cook the dog meat on your car's engine and sell it to strangers, and call yourself a street vendor. You can't stand on the public street and scream at the top of your lungs at 3 in the morning, and you can't walk into the White House and complain personally to the President.

You are REGULATED.

Yes, thus you are controlled.

 

[PredFan]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

Those ARE government agencies and this isn't about Obama and the progressives. This us about government. Government never does anything efficiently, and it is never ever satisfied with the power and authority that it has. Your example of the EPA is a case in point. It has way too often overstepped its bounds and gone off the rails. If you let the government get it's hooks into the Internet then that will be all she wrote, and it won't matter who is in the White House. In the "interest of fairness", or the "security of the nation" blah blah blah. No freedom.

Okay. I don't agree, but okay. You never answered my original question. So, your solution would be...?

I have no idea what would be the best solution. That is why I said we were screwed either way. I do believe that the goverent would be more evil than Comcast simply from my perspective since I can afford the higher speeds. Other than that I can't see a good ending here.

So, just to be clear:

We can't do nothing, because the Corporations will just keep chipping away at our access to the internet until they have complete control.
We can't ask the government to put protections in place to keep that from happening, because you don't trust the government.​

You get that this is about so much more than internet speeds, right? This is also about who gets to decide what content is made available. It is about who gets to use the internet, and for what. If all you're worried about are your internet speeds, then they have already won.

Nice strawman you've built yourself there.

It's about more than internet speeds? Tell that to the people pushing "Net Neutrality". My worry is exactly about content and use. that's why the government cannot be allowed into it. If you think that they will leave it alone and let us do our thing then you are as ignorant as people in this tread claim you are.

 

[PredFan]

I'm a Republican and I all for net neutrality as are many Republicans that I know. Someone in Ted Cruz's camp needs to explain to him why comparing the internet to Obamacare is political suicide. This should be a no brainer bipartisan topic.

I just want to point out that Fang appears to be the only RW who has the integrity to stand against the radical right.

Could we have an actual Conservative in our midst?

Sorry, but there are no actual conservatives left. They were overrun by crazy right wingers. and became extinct about the time Gingrich became prominent. There have been reports of sightings lately, but no actual proof that they exist. Of course, you hope to find that somewhere a few have been saved from the extinction, as do I, but for now, that is just a hope with little chance of coming true.

Here's a clue since you seem to be devoid: When you find yourself agreeing with Luddley, you are seriously in error.