Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Net Neutrality.

He doesn't.

Tell me this, then, what could soro's motivations possibly be to shell out 190 million to get this done? Is he concerned about anti-trust? Is this the first thing he's spent that kind of money on without nefarious intent, primarily to limit freedom and usher in more socialism?

Just more evidence you just can't be bothered with thinking for yourself. You just see who's talking about it, and that makes up your mind. That's a sad state of affairs. I'll bet you wonder why America's so f-d up.

And they did this using public ROW and (forced) easements on private property. Guess there should be no restrictions on that, eh?

no surprise that lefties love 'net neutrality'.

As complicated at the issue is, ALL you need to know about it, in order to make an informed decision as to it's advisability, is who is for it, and who is against it.
With Kevin and obama on the same page, you KNOW that this is bad ju ju.

ends justify means is your answer in essentia.

Dangerous stance to take the next time war, Christianity, or anything else comes up.

But hey, every situation is different, and there is no way this FCC net neutrality business won't ultimately go against us.

Rock on....

Live the dream.

I'll be over here, not understanding....

No my man - I just know who the enemy is. The concept of critical thinking is not lost on me.

I have no idea what Soros is up to. And he's probably up to no good.

But here's the thing, I'm not going to screw free speech and capitalism over the internet on the off chance that Soros might be up to no good.

Again, no new law has been passed. So no one got any special considerations, no pork, no special deals.

Maybe Soros has stock in Netflix, or some other company that was being screwed by the ISP's. I really don't know.

All I do know is when I OBJECTIVELY look at the issue, net neutrality is the right thing to do.

Do I like that Soros and Obama were all for it, no I don't.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do. It's best for capitalism and it's best for free speech.

What I am saying and have said repeatedly, is that government regulation has often been demonstrated as bad, and when zero and soros are involved nothing good can come of it. At least not for freedom loving people.

The internet is the one of the last bastions of freedom in the world. Other countries control and limit that freedom because they hate it, but in America, at least until now, freedom on the internet still exists. To let soros and the traitor in the whitehouse have any influence at all in how the internet will work, is a day American's will regret forever.

And now they can & will tax it & control it at will, simply by doing what they do..........

Take a look at your phone bill & see how much tax you pay as a ratio of the cost for the actual service.......it's completely disgusting.

And the govt control brings absolutely NOTHING, NOTHING to the value of the service.

MM

You know Sam, I never took you for the kind of guy who would abdicate his right to think for himself.

I don't like Obama at all. I don't like Soros. I don't trust either one. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And despite their supoort, I objectively looked at it and realized it's the right thing to do.

There is no such thing as a 190 million off chance. The only interest zero and soros have in free speech and capitalism is the suppression and destruction of both. You cut off your nose to spite your face. There is nothing objective about that.

Hmmm.... A Gibson thread.

Haven't read a word but lemme guess? Obama's balls are being licked, and we're all stupid?




Travis

Succinct!

Can you show me in the 1934 Communications act where they can tax it. Or is that just the rumor you hear?

Do you really think you're not paying taxes on your internet content today?

So you'd just give the internet over to big ISP's who could then be given the ability to legally commit anti-trust, and arbitrarily decide who can have high speed and who couldn't. Or who couldn't be on the internet altogether? Because that's the alternative, that's the only alternative unless someone wants to talk about some other law.

And it's not government control, it's just regulatory rules. Rules that say you can't degrade someone's bandwidth if they're a competitor. You can't block content because it's competition.

It's now open to everyone on an even basis, just like radio and television.

Not when the hands are broke off

Okay let's use YOUR analogy. Because Obama's for it, I'll give the internet over to ISP's and allow them to determine who gets good bandwidth and who doesn't, and allow them to decide what can and cannot be on the internet.

There are already are restrictions in place.

Due to net neutrality I am now monitoring you

you should have posted
"even a stopped clock is right twice a day"

Carry on fellas

There already were laws and regulations in place.

He's drowning in a pool of koolaid.