So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...

[IndependntLogic]

**** off, dickhead.

As you can see, I was having an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't act as though he's the smartest dicksmoker in the room.

Now, go take two heaping tablespoons of get the **** over yourself and call us in the morning.

Yeah, you just do what weak little sheeple do. Run from the challenge sweetheart. I don't blame you.
So remember Oddball, when faced with facts, issues or questions you don't want to deal with directly (in this case, you acknowledging the point of a Liberal or Independent with an opposing view), do what you always do:
Dodge the question
Change the subject
Insult
Moral Comparative
Cut & Run

Now you just Cut & Run along junior! Have a nice "intelligent conversation" with those who agree with your basic premises and do the above with everyone else. But do try to calm down. You seem rather hysterical and I am concerned for your health.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, I don't bother myself with insufferably arrogant and supercilious blowhards.

I fell for it too many times to number, only to have them eventually reveal themselves the overly verbose boors that they are.

That's the thing that's really grating about you self-professed "moderates" "centrists" and "independents"...Y'all actually believe that you're so unique and unheard of, when in actuality you're quite common and extremely trite.

 

[code1211]

Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.

Anytime a law is passed that specifically grants anything, the implication is that the government gave and so the government can take away.

Net neutrality is regualting something that needs no regulation. Even a cursory examination of the internet shows that it cannot be controlled and that it is an open door to anyone who wants to come in.

If you believe that ffeedom of speech is only speech that is regulated, you're crazy.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Sorry, I don't bother myself with insufferably arrogant and supercilious blowhards.

I fell for it too many times to number, only to have them eventually reveal themselves the overly verbose boors that they are.

That's the thing that's really grating about you self-professed "moderates" "centrists" and "independents"...Y'all actually believe that you're so unique and unheard of, when in actuality you're quite common and extremely trite.

Ah. The dodge / excuse. Well that wasn't hard to predict, now was it? Never is with the weak.

 

[Oddball]

Refusal lower myself to engaging an overbearing and pretentious douchebag isn't dodging anything...It's merely refusal to try and kick the football.

But, by all means, revel in your self-decalred victory!...That's nothing new either.

[

 

[uscitizen]

The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.

 

[Oddball]

The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.

I had no idea the likes of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul had "neocon sides" to them, to come out....Care to enlighten us?

BTW, opportunistic goofballs like Michelle Bachmann are merely hangers-on and suck-ups.

And what does any of that have to do with the "net neutrality" federal power grab?

 

[RDD_1210]

Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?

Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.

So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the right to view it all I want.

What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?

You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?

 

[uscitizen]

The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.

I had no idea the likes of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul had "neocon sides" to them, to come out....Care to enlighten us?

BTW, opportunistic goofballs like Michelle Bachmann are merely hangers-on and suck-ups.

And what does any of that have to do with the "net neutrality" federal power grab?

Umm 44 of them voted to keep the Patriot act intact and even expand it.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.

So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the right to view it all I want.

What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?

You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?

Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.

What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?

 

[RDD_1210]

So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the right to view it all I want.

What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?

You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?

Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.

What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?

Do you really need me to explain the difference between billboards and the internet? Really? Do you understand the role that the internet plays in our world and the increasing importance it has each and every day? The fact that you are comparing the power and importance of the internet to billboards, bumper stickers, etc.. tells me either you're incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality

So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?

Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.

So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.

Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...

Why do people who think they are intelligent support net neutrality? Do you understand what happens when the government starts making rules?

As Expected, FCC Approving Net Neutrality Rules That AT&T Wants | Techdirt

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality

So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?

Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.

So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.

Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...

The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.

Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.

I prefer that to the government making rules that favor one company over another like the proposed rules do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.

The market will decide who actually gets the business.

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.

So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?

Why don't you give me a list of all the companies that are denying people internet access or charging them for stuff that comes from other companies.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Oddball]

So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality

So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?

Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.

So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.

Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...

Why do people who think they are intelligent support net neutrality?

Because his definition of "intelligence" means you recognizing how utterly brilliant he is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.

The market will decide who actually gets the business.

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.

Yes unless they do like AT&T and just absorb all the competition and make certain products unavailable to everyone else (iPhone). That would great for the Internet that we helped pay to develop.

Apple made the iPhone, not AT&T. Since you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about we can ignore anything else you have to say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.

Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something. If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.

And you do that by having the government control either the companies or the internet. Another person who is incapable of discussing the subject intelligently and can be ignored by anyone who wants to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.

The FCC is currently protecting your right to visit any site you want.

I can see why you would hate that.

The FCC is currently doing no such thing, yet you still get to visit any site you want. I can see why you want the government to step in and change things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I say that?

Were you not asking the government to regulate the internet?

Are you really that obtuse. All the government is doing is saying providers can't regulate where you can go by varing the price.

If anyone ever starts trying that I will make sure to let you know.

What the government is actually objecting to is that providers charge people who spend a lot of time downloading torrents more than they do someone who only uses email. The only people I know who object to that are people who download massive amounts of torrents and idiots.

Which are you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?

Strange isn't it, they want to fix a problem that does not exist, and then wonder why people object to getting the government involved.