Author Net Neutrality  (Read 1255 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2017, 01:31:08 AM »
That's your reflexive answer for EVERYTHING! Like I said, you need some new material. This shit's played out!  ::)

What is my reflexive answer for EVERYTHING? nm I'm going to go finish my book

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2017, 01:37:11 AM »
What is my reflexive answer for EVERYTHING? nm I'm going to go finish my book

Projection. You know, like when Hillary accuses Trump of Russian collusion when she's actually guilty of it.  :D

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2017, 01:39:28 AM »
I actually saw it more as an exchange of ideas. But I won't argue about if it was an argument. Sweet Dreams

That is how I thought of it too, to be honest.  G'night.  Darn cat got out and now I have to wait until he gets it out of his system.


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2017, 01:42:11 AM »
Just for your own edification argument can also mean a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.  ;)

That is exactly what I meant by the word not the nasty meaning.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2017, 01:45:40 AM »
Projection. You know, like when Hillary accuses Trump of Russian collusion when she's actually guilty of it.  :D


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2017, 02:38:17 AM »
Ok. You tell me why


Let's get back to the polenta

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2017, 03:20:56 AM »


When a few corporations start making the rules I have to be concerned.  Damn, I hope the George Soros outright buys a few ISP's for fun. 

What will be funny is when the large ISP's (let's face it- most are probably controlled by liberal leaning corporations) decide to slow down access to Fox news, and no longer allow access to right leaning websites or those they deem "inappropriate."

Right now, I can make a website telling the world that Vegas was a false flag.  I can claim that Trump is the best president ever, and I can (supposedly) be assured that it will have an equal chance against CNN.

Now let the Internet companies decide who can view what and pick the "winners" and "looses".  I know- you would switch providers.  The only problem is that there are so few of them. (Again, I hope Soros invests a pile in them.)  :)

Anyhow, I hope everybody enjoys Comcast showing them only what they allow... I don't know why it has to be a "free for all" or regulated to death.  There are problems- fix them.  In this case that does not mean complete deregulation and allowing a few companies completely free reign.


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2017, 03:28:04 AM »

When a few corporations start making the rules I have to be concerned.  Damn, I hope the George Soros outright buys a few ISP's for fun. 

What will be funny is when the large ISP's (let's face it- most are probably controlled by liberal leaning corporations) decide to slow down access to Fox news, and no longer allow access to right leaning websites or those they deem "inappropriate."

Right now, I can make a website telling the world that Vegas was a false flag.  I can claim that Trump is the best president ever, and I can (supposedly) be assured that it will have an equal chance against CNN.

Now let the Internet companies decide who can view what and pick the "winners" and "looses".  I know- you would switch providers.  The only problem is that there are so few of them. (Again, I hope Soros invests a pile in them.)  :)

Anyhow, I hope everybody enjoys Comcast showing them only what they allow... I don't know why it has to be a "free for all" or regulated to death.  There are problems- fix them.  In this case that does not mean complete deregulation and allowing a few companies completely free reign.

You've convinced me the opposite is true. When all the liberals want this and are routing for George Soros you know it must be bad.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #68 on: November 30, 2017, 03:30:07 AM »
You've convinced me the opposite is true. When all the liberals want this and are routing for George Soros you know it must be bad.
Indeed.  Go George!  :)

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #69 on: November 30, 2017, 08:45:47 AM »
Well, sober pate. Obama and the Democrats enacted the bill to protect us and make net neutrality the law of the land. Trump and the Republicans want to overturn it. I.e. get rid of laws requiring net neutrality

Net neutrality is yet another “free stuff” messure that democrats have used historically to buy votes.  The below article sets forth the argument against it fairly concisely.  It costs ISPs money to provide faster line speed and it amounts to value added.  They are entitled to a fair profit and any abuses can be dealt with on a case by case basis.  This is how it works in virtually all other industries.


https://qz.com/1139278/net-neutrality-the-economic-case-against-a-free-internet/


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2017, 12:10:02 PM »
My last word on the subject (please stop cheering). I'm less concerned about the money issue although I have never heard that Comcast, et al, monopolies aren't already making a tidy profit. And no one here complains about their phone/cable/satellite bill?

I'm much more concerned about the restriction of content. This is the first thing dictatorships do. Restrict access to sites on the internet deemed "unsuitable". And you are willing to pay for it. I know many of you have built your own little echo chambers served by Rupert Murdoch, Bain Capital, the Mercers and let's not forget Alex Jones.  But I'm a free-range TigerLily. I'm not willing to give more money to a handful of media moguls who will decide what I can see. Hey! What if they take away your porn?

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2017, 12:38:02 PM »
My last word on the subject (please stop cheering). I'm less concerned about the money issue although I have never heard that Comcast, et al, monopolies aren't already making a tidy profit. And no one here complains about their phone/cable/satellite bill?

I'm much more concerned about the restriction of content. This is the first thing dictatorships do. Restrict access to sites on the internet deemed "unsuitable". And you are willing to pay for it. I know many of you have built your own little echo chambers served by Rupert Murdoch, Bain Capital, the Mercers and let's not forget Alex Jones.  But I'm a free-range TigerLily. I'm not willing to give more money to a handful of media moguls who will decide what I can see. Hey! What if they take away your porn?

So, in other words, you're scared of the Trump administration treating the internet the way the Obama administration did. For you, it was OK that Obama did this. You just don't want someone on the other team doing it. Oh, what a sore loser.  ::)

Obama won on the Eric Schmidt plan. Hillary tried the same fix but too many were on to it by then. Sorry about your luck, honey.  ;D

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2017, 12:48:41 PM »
So, in other words, you're scared of the Trump administration treating the internet the way the Obama administration did. For you, it was OK that Obama did this. You just don't want someone on the other team doing it. Oh, what a sore loser.  ::)

Obama won on the Eric Schmidt plan. Hillary tried the same fix but too many were on to it by then. Sorry about your luck, honey.  ;D

Yeah. Not a winner like you

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #73 on: November 30, 2017, 12:51:14 PM »
Yeah. Not a winner like you

Right. You've got no legit comeback and so now it's time to make it personal. Feels like winning to me.  ;D

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #74 on: November 30, 2017, 01:17:03 PM »
All you have to do is look who’s in favor of net neutrality to oppose it.

Nuff said!



Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #75 on: November 30, 2017, 04:57:07 PM »
My last word on the subject (please stop cheering). I'm less concerned about the money issue although I have never heard that Comcast, et al, monopolies aren't already making a tidy profit. And no one here complains about their phone/cable/satellite bill?

I'm much more concerned about the restriction of content. This is the first thing dictatorships do. Restrict access to sites on the internet deemed "unsuitable". And you are willing to pay for it. I know many of you have built your own little echo chambers served by Rupert Murdoch, Bain Capital, the Mercers and let's not forget Alex Jones.  But I'm a free-range TigerLily. I'm not willing to give more money to a handful of media moguls who will decide what I can see. Hey! What if they take away your porn?

So I better start downloading and saving my TL porn to thumbdrives?  Or can I keep you in the cloud?

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #76 on: November 30, 2017, 06:56:48 PM »

When a few corporations start making the rules I have to be concerned. Damn, I hope the George Soros outright buys a few ISP's for fun.

What will be funny is when the large ISP's (let's face it- most are probably controlled by liberal leaning corporations) decide to slow down access to Fox news, and no longer allow access to right leaning websites or those they deem "inappropriate."

Right now, I can make a website telling the world that Vegas was a false flag.  I can claim that Trump is the best president ever, and I can (supposedly) be assured that it will have an equal chance against CNN.

Now let the Internet companies decide who can view what and pick the "winners" and "looses".  I know- you would switch providers.  The only problem is that there are so few of them. (Again, I hope Soros invests a pile in them.)  :)

Anyhow, I hope everybody enjoys Comcast showing them only what they allow... I don't know why it has to be a "free for all" or regulated to death.  There are problems- fix them.  In this case that does not mean complete deregulation and allowing a few companies completely free reign.

You know he would be blamed even if he didn't own any ISP. I swear if a Democrat suggest you not eat a shitcake, Trumpers and right wingers will say that shitcake is the best tasting cake out there and eat it every day because "Those fuckin Dems!!!"

So right-wingers who yell and scream whenever twitter or Youtube suspends or bans a video, now want ISP to determine the flow of information. Where do you even start with that logic.

I guess the same logic that said "fuck those multi-nationalist" last year to oooh these poor company need all the profits they can have in a span of a months


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2017, 07:13:43 PM »
You know he would be blamed even if he didn't own any ISP. I swear if a Democrat suggest you not eat a shitcake, Trumpers and right wingers will say that shitcake is the best tasting cake out there and eat it every day because "Those fuckin Dems!!!"

So right-wingers who yell and scream whenever twitter or Youtube suspends or bans a video, now want ISP to determine the flow of information. Where do you even start with that logic.

I guess the same logic that said "fuck those multi-nationalist" last year to oooh these poor company need all the profits they can have in a span of a months
My problem with YouTube (and some other outlets) is that they get so much government $$$. As a private company, homeowner, church, countryclub, sorority, club, restaurant, or business anybody should be able to censor, fire/hire, or discriminate against anyone, I think. Including on race, gender, political beliefs, income level, legal status, sexual orientation, or whatever. But if you take federal or government funds, get tax abatements, get government contracts, get public property easements, use tax-payer funded utilities, except in cases where everyone is getting the same access and usage (like the street) etc shouldn't be able to do so. The mix of so many powerful companies getting government $$, buying up media, censoring media, getting start up funding from "agencies", and donating to political causes is troubling- regardless if they are "globalists" or "NAZIs" or "Joose" or whatever. Millionaires should buy and build their own stadiums. Zillionaires should lay their own fiber optics and pipelines and pay landowners more than fair and a real market price for land or disruption of business/traffic. And none should get government money or contracts, especially when politically they are often against the government or have personal political ideas. I don't like out-sourcing or PPPs in many areas. No tollroads unless totally private or if voters approve and when building cost is paid by toll they become free. Some it makes sense, obviously (for cost or for political deniability) but contracts should be short, limited, have more oversight, open bidding, and penalties for over-runs etc.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #78 on: November 30, 2017, 09:15:02 PM »
You know he would be blamed even if he didn't own any ISP. I swear if a Democrat suggest you not eat a shitcake, Trumpers and right wingers will say that shitcake is the best tasting cake out there and eat it every day because "Those fuckin Dems!!!"

I guess you just shouldn't have lied so much. Like I posted earlier, you guys have a serious credibility problem now.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #79 on: December 01, 2017, 12:08:28 PM »
Right. You've got no legit comeback and so now it's time to make it personal. Feels like winning to me.  ;D

I know. But you're such an easy target

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #80 on: December 01, 2017, 12:11:21 PM »
I guess you just shouldn't have lied so much. Like I posted earlier, you guys have a serious credibility problem now.

Need I remind you? "Donald Trump says something that isn't true 5.5 times a day. Every day."

"By the Fact-Checker's estimates, Trump -- if he keeps up his current pace -- will blow past 2,000 misstatements and/or untruths in his first year in office.

Stop. Go back and read that last sentence. Then read it again."

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #81 on: December 01, 2017, 12:42:09 PM »
Need I remind you? "Donald Trump says something that isn't true 5.5 times a day. Every day."

"By the Fact-Checker's estimates, Trump -- if he keeps up his current pace -- will blow past 2,000 misstatements and/or untruths in his first year in office.

Stop. Go back and read that last sentence. Then read it again."

Yes, according to your group of media gatekeeper CIA liars, you fucking brainless lemming.  ::)

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #82 on: December 01, 2017, 12:42:50 PM »
I know. But you're such an easy target

Any easy target for you to fail at?! I don't get it.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #83 on: December 01, 2017, 06:34:29 PM »

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #84 on: December 01, 2017, 06:59:57 PM »

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #85 on: December 01, 2017, 08:27:11 PM »

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #86 on: December 02, 2017, 06:36:14 PM »
My last word on the subject (please stop cheering). I'm less concerned about the money issue although I have never heard that Comcast, et al, monopolies aren't already making a tidy profit. And no one here complains about their phone/cable/satellite bill?

I'm much more concerned about the restriction of content. This is the first thing dictatorships do. Restrict access to sites on the internet deemed "unsuitable". And you are willing to pay for it. I know many of you have built your own little echo chambers served by Rupert Murdoch, Bain Capital, the Mercers and let's not forget Alex Jones.  But I'm a free-range TigerLily. I'm not willing to give more money to a handful of media moguls who will decide what I can see. Hey! What if they take away your porn?


I too am concerned about restricted content.  I oppose censorship in all its forms but what this does is put government officials into the role of gatekeepers.  No way do I want that.  Better that gatekeepers be those manufacturing the content aka private business.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #87 on: December 02, 2017, 06:45:18 PM »

I too am concerned about restricted content.  I oppose censorship in all its forms but what this does is put government officials into the role of gatekeepers.  No way do I want that.  Better that gatekeepers be those manufacturing the content aka private business.

That's the way it already is. Eric Schmidt came up with a plan to rig the election for Obama twice. They tried to do it for Hillary but enough bright people had caught on by then. You really want to keep that kind of corruption going?!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #88 on: December 02, 2017, 06:47:19 PM »
That's the way it already is. Eric Schmidt came up with a plan to rig the election for Obama twice. They tried to do it for Hillary but enough bright people had caught on by then. You really want to keep that kind of corruption going?!

That is because Obama sponsored "net neutrality" and enacted it to a certain degree.  Take it away from government authorities by getting rid of net neutrality.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #89 on: December 02, 2017, 06:50:07 PM »
That is because Obama sponsored "net neutrality" and enacted it to a certain degree.  Take it away from government authorities by getting rid of net neutrality.

Right! It's a sleazy lawyer trick that they've been doing for years: Title it something that on the surface sounds like something anyone would want but in the fine print do the opposite. Like how The Patriot Act actually took away some of our rights and freedom.  ;)