smitty Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 If obama and soros, two socialist, want it, then it must be the WRONG thing to do! http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702 Quote
SKINS Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 That whole article is nothing but bashing, where is the info on the actual story? Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 If obama and soros, two socialist, want it, then it must be the WRONG thing to do! http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702 Good article....very informative as to the fascist groups supporting this Gestapo takeover of the internet......... Quote
EnlightenedMessiah Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Smitty, Can you explain to me what net neutrality means? Thanks Quote
stevenash Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 It means more government involvement in our daily lives. Isn't that great? Quote
EnlightenedMessiah Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Consumer is screwed either way here. Government gets involved or telecom companies start raising prices, throttling Internet speeds, slicing and dicing different websites/services into additional costs, etc. Quote
smitty Posted February 26, 2015 Author Report Posted February 26, 2015 Smitty, Can you explain to me what net neutrality means? Thanks One can put any title on it that sounds good. One can put lip stick and pearls on a pig. But it's still a pig. Answer me this, other than the military, what does government do that is actually good? As I see it it, every thing they've tried is bankrupt. And the point of the article was that if soros is involved to the tune of that amount of money, well, it can't be good for America. Quote
EnlightenedMessiah Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 In other words you have no idea what it is, typical. You are the definition of a low information voter. Quote
bullets13 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 pretty typical article from one of these websites: riles up the conservative reader without explaining what is happening or why? A whole article bashing the net neutrality movement and its supporters, but no explanation as to what it actually is. Not that any of their readers need an explanation to hate something Obama's behind. EnlightenedMessiah and Mr. Buddy Garrity 2 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 pretty typical article from one of these websites: riles up the conservative reader without explaining what is happening or why? A whole article bashing the net neutrality movement and its supporters, but no explanation as to what it actually is. Not that any of their readers need an explanation to hate something Obama's behind. Is this good or bad in your opinion, and why? Quote
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 pretty typical article from one of these websites: riles up the conservative reader without explaining what is happening or why? A whole article bashing the net neutrality movement and its supporters, but no explanation as to what it actually is. Not that any of their readers need an explanation to hate something Obama's behind. 99% of Conservatives reading the article already KNOW what net neutrality is and disagree with it wholeheartedly........the only inaccuracy in the thread's title is that "obama" should be changed to "out of control federal tyrants".......He's not doing this alone.........:) smitty 1 Quote
smitty Posted February 26, 2015 Author Report Posted February 26, 2015 In other words you have no idea what it is, typical. You are the definition of a low information voter. I know exactly what the title would infer. But that's not what it's going to do. Do you believe it would achieve net neutrality and not actually make it worst? Again -- if a socialist like obama and soros wants it then it has to bad for America. The name was titled Net Neutrality so the "Low Information Voter" would fall for it and actually think it's gonna help... PS -- they want to use Title II of the "1934" Communication Act to broaden control of the internet. This is "government" control. Gives me warm and fuzzy feeling... Quote
smitty Posted February 26, 2015 Author Report Posted February 26, 2015 pretty typical article from one of these websites: riles up the conservative reader without explaining what is happening or why? A whole article bashing the net neutrality movement and its supporters, but no explanation as to what it actually is. Not that any of their readers need an explanation to hate something Obama's behind. The article just exposed soros as being financially behind this push. So, are you saying that this article is wrong and soros is not funding millions to to get this passed? If this is wrong, please show us the truth... Quote
stevenash Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Google Mark Cubans thoughts on net neutrality Quote
EnlightenedMessiah Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 This forum must have the 10% of low information voting conservatives who don't know what it is then, because I've yet to see someone explain it to me. All I see is the usual "Obama bad, conservatives smart" lines repeated over and over.99% of Conservatives reading the article already KNOW what net neutrality is and disagree with it wholeheartedly........the only inaccuracy in the thread's title is that "obama" should be changed to "out of control federal tyrants".......He's not doing this alone.........:) Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
bullets13 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 99% of Conservatives reading the article already KNOW what net neutrality is and disagree with it wholeheartedly........the only inaccuracy in the thread's title is that "obama" should be changed to "out of control federal tyrants".......He's not doing this alone......... :)I highly doubt that 30% of the conservatives reading the article know what it is, and if they do, they have a knowledge of it based on information gleaned from low information articles such as this one. Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Smitty posted an article that you two want to bash but rather than bash the article and why we conservatives don't understand it, try explaining the merits in net neutrality that you obviously see that we don't. Quote
EnlightenedMessiah Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Can you explain what it is first? Surely if you don't like it then you must have an understanding of what it means.. Right? Oh wait. Obama bad, conservatives smart. I forgot.Smitty posted an article that you two want to bash but rather than bash the article and why we conservatives don't understand it, try explaining the merits in net neutrality that you obviously see that we don't. Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
CraigS Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Can you explain what it is first? Surely if you don't like it then you must have an understanding of what it means.. Right? Oh wait. Obama bad, conservatives smart. I forgot. I'll bite! I'm not real sure what it is, at least not enough to KNOW what it means to the future of the internet. With that said, I will agree with the statement "Obama bad" and that I do understand, and have plenty of reasons to think so. But, if you'll be so kind as to explain "net neutrality" to me, I'll then decide if Obama gets a plus, or yet another negative. I can surely say, I agree with the stance that other than our military, not much the Feds get involved with works, so I am skeptical about the Feds getting involved....however you choose to explain it to me. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Can you explain what it is first? Surely if you don't like it then you must have an understanding of what it means.. Right? Oh wait. Obama bad, conservatives smart. I forgot. Read back where I said anything about it one way or another...I didn't. You jumped in to bash the article so why don't you explain why instead of your usual deflection. Or Buddy Garrity, since you like the comment he made and must agree with it, you explain why this is a good thing for the internet since he won't. Quote
bullets13 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 I'll bite! I'm not real sure what it is, at least not enough to KNOW what it means to the future of the internet. With that said, I will agree with the statement "Obama bad" and that I do understand, and have plenty of reasons to think so. But, if you'll be so kind as to explain "net neutrality" to me, I'll then decide if Obama gets a plus, or yet another negative. I can surely say, I agree with the stance that other than our military, not much the Feds get involved with works, so I am skeptical about the Feds getting involved....however you choose to explain it to me.I appreciate your honesty. And that being said, I respect the fact that you generally have your finger on the pulse of current issues, even if you and I may butt heads on them from time to time. So if you aren't familiar with the issue, then I think it's safe to say that many, if not most folks aren't familiar with it either. And this is the whole point of my issue with this article... I don't have a problem with someone having a stance one way or the other on this issue, but I do have a problem with a propaganda site spending this much time and effort into riling up their readers without making ANY effort to actually educate their readers on the issue. This article is fodder for mindless sheep. Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote
Mr. Buddy Garrity Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Read back where I said anything about it one way or another...I didn't. You jumped in to bash the article so why don't you explain why instead of your usual deflection. Or Buddy Garrity, since you like the comment he made and must agree with it, you explain why this is a good thing for the internet since he won't. Im waiting for his first question to be answered. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Im waiting for his first question to be answered. And I simply asked if net neutrality was good or bad...and why. And I got the typical "you hate obama" response. So I'm still waiting too. Quote
EnlightenedMessiah Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Usual deflection? Not a single conservative in this topic has explained to me what net neutrality means! How can you say you don't see the merits when you don't even understand the issue? Lumraiderfan has confirmed his status as a low information voter, congrats!Read back where I said anything about it one way or another...I didn't. You jumped in to bash the article so why don't you explain why instead of your usual deflection. Or Buddy Garrity, since you like the comment he made and must agree with it, you explain why this is a good thing for the internet since he won't. PAMFAM10 1 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 Usual deflection? Not a single conservative in this topic has explained to me what net neutrality means! How can you say you don't see the merits when you don't even understand the issue? Lumraiderfan has confirmed his status as a low information voter, congrats! An article was posted, you didn't like it but won't say why when questioned...usual deflection. Why don't you explain to us what net neutrality is...google it if you need to...there are tons of articles on it. I'm a low information voter??? Good one. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.