Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
George Soros Paid $196 Million to Lobby For Net Neutrality.
Comments
-
You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.ThomasFremont said:
I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.d2d said:
They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.ThomasFremont said:
The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.Southerndawg said:
Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.ThomasFremont said:@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.
That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.
And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend -
Fair enough, we haven't read the details. If they are bad, I'll hammer it. But I support the idea of net neutrality.RaceBannon said:
You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.ThomasFremont said:
I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.d2d said:
They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.ThomasFremont said:
The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.Southerndawg said:
Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.ThomasFremont said:@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.
That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.
And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend
Kinda like hiring Chris Petersen. We need to wait and see what he does here before we can judge him as a HC at UW. But hiring a proven HC was a smart move regardless of the results.
d2d is condemning the bill before reading it. Which means he either hates Obama blindly, or doesn't support net neutrality. Maybe abundance. I find both positions stupid, regardless of political beliefs. I support the net neutrality bill the same way I support the Petersen hire. If they end up sucking, I'll lead the Door.Ass.Out. chant. -
Terrible analogy. Firing Urban Meyer in February 2015 is far, far easier than repealing shitty legislation. And your analogical fans there would have to be required to go to the games. And so on.ThomasFremont said:
Fair enough, we haven't read the details. If they are bad, I'll hammer it. But I support the idea of net neutrality.RaceBannon said:
You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.ThomasFremont said:
I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.d2d said:
They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.ThomasFremont said:
The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.Southerndawg said:
Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.ThomasFremont said:@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.
That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.
And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend
Kinda like hiring Chris Petersen. We need to wait and see what he does here before we can judge him as a HC at UW. But hiring a proven HC was a smart move regardless of the results.
d2d is condemning the bill before reading it. Which means he either hates Obama blindly, or doesn't support net neutrality. Maybe abundance. I find both positions stupid, regardless of political beliefs. I support the net neutrality bill the same way I support the Petersen hire. If they end up sucking, I'll lead the Door.Ass.Out. chant. -
We couldn't even fire Sark. And Ty got year 4. Maybe firing a HC isn't the top dick analogy you thought it was...GrundleStiltzkin said:
Terrible analogy. Firing Urban Meyer in February 2015 is far, far easier than repealing shitty legislation. And your analogical fans there would have to be required to go to the games. And so on.ThomasFremont said:
Fair enough, we haven't read the details. If they are bad, I'll hammer it. But I support the idea of net neutrality.RaceBannon said:
You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.ThomasFremont said:
I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.d2d said:
They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.ThomasFremont said:
The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.Southerndawg said:
Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.ThomasFremont said:@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.
That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.
And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend
Kinda like hiring Chris Petersen. We need to wait and see what he does here before we can judge him as a HC at UW. But hiring a proven HC was a smart move regardless of the results.
d2d is condemning the bill before reading it. Which means he either hates Obama blindly, or doesn't support net neutrality. Maybe abundance. I find both positions stupid, regardless of political beliefs. I support the net neutrality bill the same way I support the Petersen hire. If they end up sucking, I'll lead the Door.Ass.Out. chant.
We don't know if the bill is shitty. But d2d declared it shitty cuz he read it in a cartoon.
That's the poont. -
it's not a bill, its an executive order. Some of you need to learn the difference.
-
So if it sucks, it will be even easier to repeal?RaceBannon said:it's not a bill, its an executive order. Some of you need to learn the difference.
-
It's up to the king
-
This.ThomasFremont said:
We couldn't even fire Sark. And Ty got year 4. Maybe firing a HC isn't the top dick analogy you thought it was...GrundleStiltzkin said:
Terrible analogy. Firing Urban Meyer in February 2015 is far, far easier than repealing shitty legislation. And your analogical fans there would have to be required to go to the games. And so on.ThomasFremont said:
Fair enough, we haven't read the details. If they are bad, I'll hammer it. But I support the idea of net neutrality.RaceBannon said:
You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.ThomasFremont said:
I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.d2d said:
They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.ThomasFremont said:
The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.Southerndawg said:
Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.ThomasFremont said:@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.
That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.
And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend
Kinda like hiring Chris Petersen. We need to wait and see what he does here before we can judge him as a HC at UW. But hiring a proven HC was a smart move regardless of the results.
d2d is condemning the bill before reading it. Which means he either hates Obama blindly, or doesn't support net neutrality. Maybe abundance. I find both positions stupid, regardless of political beliefs. I support the net neutrality bill the same way I support the Petersen hire. If they end up sucking, I'll lead the Door.Ass.Out. chant.
We don't know if the bill is shitty. But d2d declared it shitty cuz he read it in a cartoon.
That's the poont.
It's not that I say it's perfect. I could care less if it's Obama, Boehner, Romney, etc. Net neutrality on the surface is a great idea. If the bill sucks, then I'll be on board to say fuck it, regardless of the party that pushed it.
But people like death read shit, from cartoons and news sources that have shown to lie on this forum, and he eats it up. It's awfully embarrassing. -
I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed. -
Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.topdawgnc said:I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying".
