Jump to content

obama Wants To Take Over The Internet...


smitty

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.........:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.........:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...