Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[DiveCon]

Net Neutrality sought to prevent the monopolization of information by a small segment of the population. Without it, only corporate-friendly messages will survive. The ability to protest corrupt wars or shine a light on derivative crimes will now disappear. Any message that runs contrary to the interests of weapons manufacturers, or Wall Street, or health insurance monopolies will never see the light of day. Only paid-for propaganda will survive.

Democracy requires MAXIMUM access to information. By defeating Net Neutrality, Republicans have once again concentrated power in the hands of big business. They don't get it: concentrated corporate power is concentrated government power. They are killing democracy. We want MAXIMUM competition when it comes to information. We want more not less information. We don't want to live in a world where only a small group of citizens have the resources to promote their ideas.

Republicans, by destroying competition on the internet -- by narrowing our information choices -- are turning us into a parody of the old Soviet Union. God help us.

oh BULLSHIT

 

[DiveCon]

I think he was referring to WWI

the NAZI didnt take power till well after WWI

Methinks he was referring to the greater sociopolitical trends leading up to the extermination camps.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics-Germany/dp/1403965021]Amazon.com: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (9781403965028): Richard Weikart: Books[/ame]

stop trying to give him an out he doesnt deserve

 

[JBeukema]

?

I don't understand.


Are you saying I'm giving him too much credit?

 

[DiveCon]

?

I don't understand.


Are you saying I'm giving him too much credit?

the one you are trying to support
yes

 

[daveman]

Come on now, don't you ever get tired of making up this kind of pure CRAP!!!

You can't get any more Right wing extremist whacko CON$ervative than the Heritage Foundation!!!

That's not a conservative position.

Of course it is, it just depends on what day of the week it is. CON$ have no principles, they are for AND against same thing, whichever suits their purposes at the MOMENT!!! Mandated coverage is just another example.

Wrong. Idiot leftists can stamp their feet and pout all they want, but it's not a conservative position.

 

[edthecynic]

I would remind you not to confuse "Republican" and "conservative". The two are not synonymous.

Republicans may have supported the individual mandate. Conservatives never have.

Come on now, don't you ever get tired of making up this kind of pure CRAP!!!

You can't get any more Right wing extremist whacko CON$ervative than the Heritage Foundation!!!

Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System | The Heritage Foundation

The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not.

That's not a conservative position.

Of course it is, it just depends on what day of the week it is. CON$ have no principles, they are for AND against same thing, whichever suits their purposes at the MOMENT!!! Mandated coverage is just another example.

Wrong. Idiot leftists can stamp their feet and pout all they want, but it's not a conservative position.

Wrong. Idiot Right wingers can deny CON$ervative orginizations and presidents, etc., are CON$ every time they are caught in their hypocrisy, but the fact remains that Heritage Foundation is the most CON$ervative of all CON$ervative think tanks, and is parroted by all other CON$ because CON$ are incapable of "thinking" for themselves and therefore are completely dependent on think tanks.
But keep making a fool of yourself trying to claim the Heritage Foundation is not CON$ervative, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

 

[Contumacious]

Net Neutrality , another socialist scam

.

 

[Vanquish]

Net Neutrality isn't a socialist scam.... it's a movement to stop profiteering gluttons from putting a financial stranglehold on a public utility!

I don't mind people making profits. I'm a small businessman...I love profit. I love ENORMOUS profits. And let's go further...I know that businesses constructed and maintain the infrastructure for this utility...but it's not socialist to say we want the keep the net the way it's always been...and you can't divert me or slow me down just because you want more money!

this isnt about liberals wanting to take control of speech. This is about CONSERVATIVES wanting to let big business take control of speech!

 

[Full-Auto]

Come on now, don't you ever get tired of making up this kind of pure CRAP!!!

You can't get any more Right wing extremist whacko CON$ervative than the Heritage Foundation!!!

That's not a conservative position.

Of course it is, it just depends on what day of the week it is. CON$ have no principles, they are for AND against same thing, whichever suits their purposes at the MOMENT!!! Mandated coverage is just another example.

Wrong. Idiot leftists can stamp their feet and pout all they want, but it's not a conservative position.

Wrong. Idiot Right wingers can deny CON$ervative orginizations and presidents, etc., are not CON$ every time they are caught in their hypocrisy, but the fact remains that Heritage Foundation is the most CON$ervative of all CON%ervative think tanks, and is parroted by all other CON$ because CON$ are incapable of "thinking" for themselves and therefore are completely dependent on think tanks.
But keep making a fool of yourself trying to claim the Heritage Foundation is not CON$ervative, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

And you suck democrat tit.

Your point?

 

[Common Sense]

you people have to realize that without net neutrality those who own the infrastructure of the internet are the gate keepers. they can limit the bandwidth of the websites they dont like and boost the bandwidth of those whom they do. or in otherwords, verizon, at&t, comcast, time warner and such could charge individual website a premium in order to use a certain amount of bandwidth. say like youtube.com. since they stream live video to your computer, they tend to use a larger amount of bandwidth than a website that just provides text and information. thus internet providers could charge youtube more money to use more bandwidth.

this opens a whole new can of worms for the internet, and is a bad idea.

 

[Contumacious]

Net Neutrality isn't a socialist scam.... it's a movement to stop profiteering gluttons from putting a financial stranglehold on a public utility!!

When/How did the Internet become a "public utility"?!?!?!?

.

 

[Vanquish]

You've never heard the argument that the internet is a public utility? Keep up, man.

 

[beowolfe]

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

Hmnmm......according to your article. It was Kay Bailey Hutchinson, not 'republicans' who did this.

 

[Contumacious]

You've never heard the argument that the internet is a public utility? Keep up, man.

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

 

[beowolfe]

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

 

[hortysir]

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

 

[Vanquish]

You've never heard the argument that the internet is a public utility? Keep up, man.

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to **** that up...get ready for a fight.

 

[RDD_1210]

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

Where does it say that? Are we making things up again?

 

[Vanquish]

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

nice try at characterizing net neutralists as free-loaders or socialists. That's not the point.

we just want to keep the ******* thing like it is. no reshuffling. no increased costs for less bandwidth.

why is that so hard to understand?

look I get that companies are going to fight to make the most profit they can. But the consumer has the right to fight back.

 

[hortysir]

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

Where does it say that? Are we making things up again?

Simply a question.
Do you have an answer?