Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
BOOM, roasted!
READ his tweet, Jackass. Ajit Pai voted against it.
Reading Comprehension is a major part of the SAT. This explains so much.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
BOOM, roasted!
READ his tweet, Jackass. Ajit Pai voted against it.
Reading Comprehension is a major part of the SAT. This explains so much.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Your Freedom:
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
The FCC’s Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain’t broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don’t do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to “fix something that is far from broken.”
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC’s new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC’s new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
“The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet,” said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated “like a parallel version of the FCC itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission’s vote wasn’t transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday’s 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency’s five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
1. Those companies have been stagnant for years. The technology already exists. They've been lobbying to block its implementation. Fucking liars.
2. They already held Netflix hostage. Netflix caved. Savings were not passed on to customers *shocker*
3. I'm surprised how little you fucks know about this. And believe it or not, I hold you all in slightly higher regard than the average American. Well maybe not PLSS. That poll question is loaded bullshit, and distracts from the actual issue.
4. Flat out lie. Neutrality prevents those with more resources from purchasing better services, effectively blocking smaller/individual voices. Imagine HH going up against the Fox owned Scout.com network if they were paying to stifle small competitors.
5. Welcome to the real world. The White House always makes their policy wishes known. Why is this even a point?
6. Literally the only valid poont on this list. Knowing the details would allow for informed discussion and critique.
7. CHRIST. They're already spying on us. This changes nothing. Please stay on topic.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
It's cute that d2d thinks Comcast and Verizon take the interests of the public more seriously than the feds. Tell me again how the current rules--where Comcast operates in a near monopoly in the Seattle area--are superior?
And it's certainly not shocking that Pai pushed for neutering the new rules, considering that he used to work for Verizon.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Your Freedom:
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
The FCC’s Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain’t broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don’t do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to “fix something that is far from broken.”
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC’s new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC’s new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
“The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet,” said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated “like a parallel version of the FCC itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission’s vote wasn’t transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday’s 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency’s five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
1. Those companies have been stagnant for years. The technology already exists. They've been lobbying to block its implementation. Fucking liars.
2. They already held Netflix hostage. Netflix caved. Savings were not passed on to customers *shocker*
3. I'm surprised how little you fucks know about this. And believe it or not, I hold you all in slightly higher regard than the average American. Well maybe not PLSS. That poll question is loaded bullshit, and distracts from the actual issue.
4. Flat out lie. Neutrality prevents those with more resources from purchasing better services, effectively blocking smaller/individual voices. Imagine HH going up against the Fox owned Scout.com network if they were paying to stifle small competitors.
5. Welcome to the real world. The White House always makes their policy wishes known. Why is this even a point?
6. Literally the only valid poont on this list. Knowing the details would allow for informed discussion and critique.
7. CHRIST. They're already spying on us. This changes nothing. Please stay on topic.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
It's cute that d2d thinks Comcast and Verizon take the interests of the public more seriously than the feds. Tell me again how the current rules--where Comcast operates in a near monopoly in the Seattle area--are superior?
And it's certainly not shocking that Pai pushed for neutering the new rules, considering that he used to work for Verizon.
Obviously Verizon didn't come close to topping Soro's bid.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Your Freedom:
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
The FCC’s Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain’t broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don’t do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to “fix something that is far from broken.”
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC’s new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC’s new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don’t need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
“The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet,” said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated “like a parallel version of the FCC itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission’s vote wasn’t transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday’s 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency’s five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
1. Those companies have been stagnant for years. The technology already exists. They've been lobbying to block its implementation. Fucking liars.
2. They already held Netflix hostage. Netflix caved. Savings were not passed on to customers *shocker*
3. I'm surprised how little you fucks know about this. And believe it or not, I hold you all in slightly higher regard than the average American. Well maybe not PLSS. That poll question is loaded bullshit, and distracts from the actual issue.
4. Flat out lie. Neutrality prevents those with more resources from purchasing better services, effectively blocking smaller/individual voices. Imagine HH going up against the Fox owned Scout.com network if they were paying to stifle small competitors.
5. Welcome to the real world. The White House always makes their policy wishes known. Why is this even a point?
6. Literally the only valid poont on this list. Knowing the details would allow for informed discussion and critique.
7. CHRIST. They're already spying on us. This changes nothing. Please stay on topic.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a Commissioner at the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He was nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012 and was sworn in on May 14, 2012 for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016. Pai previously worked as a lawyer for Verizon Communications.
It's cute that d2d thinks Comcast and Verizon take the interests of the public more seriously than the feds. Tell me again how the current rules--where Comcast operates in a near monopoly in the Seattle area--are superior?
And it's certainly not shocking that Pai pushed for neutering the new rules, considering that he used to work for Verizon.
Obviously Verizon didn't come close to topping Soro's bid.
Huh?
He voted the way Verizon would want: against net neutrality.
Reading Comprehension is a major part of the SAT. This explains so much.
I trust the free market over the government. Monopolies are granted by the government. I don't use Comcast. Breaking up the Bell system and deregulating telecommunications was the best thing that could happen. Regulating the internet with 332 pages of shit the government doesn't want you to see hardly inspires trust.
I guarantee that if Bush were President Paradise and Tommy Hill would agree with me
When I lived in Seattle there was one cable company. I got a satellite dish and DirecTV. There was one cable company because the Seattle City government wanted it that way. Shitty service and high costs.
The government is far more likely to rape you. Corporations want your money so they buy you dinner and whisper sweet nothings in your ear to get you to put out
I actually misstated what's happening. It would appear that the new rules merely prevent the ISPs from squeezing speeds in the future, which as Fremont pointed out e.g. netflix, would be a very real possibility. The new rules don't really do anything about the Comcast monopoly, which hopefully will get attacked next.
The d2ds and Race Bannons of the board would scream bloody murder, but the idea of a city-wide fiber system would be really promising.
I actually misstated what's happening. It would appear that the new rules merely prevent the ISPs from squeezing speeds in the future, which as Fremont pointed out e.g. netflix, would be a very real possibility. The new rules don't really do anything about the Comcast monopoly, which hopefully will get attacked next.
The d2ds and Race Bannons of the board would scream bloody murder, but the idea of a city-wide fiber system would be really promising.
Only if it was done in secret. If they can sell the voters on it why would I scream?
I trust the free market over the government. Monopolies are granted by the government. I don't use Comcast. Breaking up the Bell system and deregulating telecommunications was the best thing that could happen. Regulating the internet with 332 pages of shit the government doesn't want you to see hardly inspires trust.
I guarantee that if Bush were President Paradise and Tommy Hill would agree with me
When I lived in Seattle there was one cable company. I got a satellite dish and DirecTV. There was one cable company because the Seattle City government wanted it that way. Shitty service and high costs.
The government is far more likely to rape you. Corporations want your money so they buy you dinner and whisper sweet nothings in your ear to get you to put out
They "wanted" it that way because their corporate donors wanted it that way. Don't play dumb.
Ed Murray was bought and paid for by Comcast. As soon as he wins the election, the Seattle fiber plan is killed, and Comcast's contract gets re-upped.
This isn't a Bush vs Obama, red vs blue, or Dem vs Rep issue. If you don't understand the issue, maybe educate yourself before popping off.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
Since you're taking this Soros thing for granted, I decided to do some second grade level googling to try to figure out from where it came.
Which cites a guy named Phil Kerpen from a group called American Commitment as saying, “Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content.”
Now if you google American Commitment and Phil Kerpen, you would find that Kerpen was previously involved with Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, and Club for Growth, each of which advocates for the advancement of the interests of big business in the public space. I would say it's fair to say that those interests do not align with those of the average consumer--i.e. lower prices.
As for making this a partisan issue, I would say that Kerpen and AC have done that on their own. American Commitment spent $196,000 on Republican candidates or conservative causes in the 2014 cycle, $1.1 million against Democrats in 2012, and $700,000 for Republicans in 2012. opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90013640&cycle=2012
So are you really saying that Kerpen and AC are unbiased voices on net neutrality?
It's probably safe to say that most of those donations were not for net neutrality, unless you were confused.
This is exactly the sort of crony capitalism that several people on here rail about, or at least until it runs up against their hatred for anything Obammer.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Of course I know what it is and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Of course I know what it is and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Of course I know what it is and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
It's not irrelevant if you understand it.
HTH
So tell us how this executive order addresses it. With links please
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Of course I know what it is and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
It's not irrelevant if you understand it.
HTH
So tell us how this executive order addresses it. With links please
Your eyes are as good as mine.
Stalling for time to research net neutrality? Or are you even gonna bother? I'm guessing not.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Of course I know what it is and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
It's not irrelevant if you understand it.
HTH
So tell us how this executive order addresses it. With links please
Your eyes are as good as mine.
Stalling for time to research net neutrality? Or are you even gonna bother? I'm guessing not.
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I already admitted that I am reserving final judgment until the details are published. Obama could very well fuck this up. I'm not selling the plan.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
Of course I know what it is and it's irrelevant to this discussion.
It's not irrelevant if you understand it.
HTH
So tell us how this executive order addresses it. With links please
Your eyes are as good as mine.
Stalling for time to research net neutrality? Or are you even gonna bother? I'm guessing not.
"You're wrong because you don't know what's in the bill. But I'm right because I know what is, even though I actually don't know any more than you. But that doesn't matter because I distrust Obama, and you should too."
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
Since you're taking this Soros thing for granted, I decided to do some second grade level googling to try to figure out from where it came.
Which cites a guy named Phil Kerpen from a group called American Commitment as saying, “Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content.”
Now if you google American Commitment and Phil Kerpen, you would find that Kerpen was previously involved with Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, and Club for Growth, each of which advocates for the advancement of the interests of big business in the public space. I would say it's fair to say that those interests do not align with those of the average consumer--i.e. lower prices.
As for making this a partisan issue, I would say that Kerpen and AC have done that on their own. American Commitment spent $196,000 on Republican candidates or conservative causes in the 2014 cycle, $1.1 million against Democrats in 2012, and $700,000 for Republicans in 2012. opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90013640&cycle=2012
So are you really saying that Kerpen and AC are unbiased voices on net neutrality?
It's probably safe to say that most of those donations were not for net neutrality, unless you were confused.
This is exactly the sort of crony capitalism that several people on here rail about, or at least until it runs up against their hatred for anything Obammer.
Thank you for enlightening me. I think I've got it now. Republicans are evil and are constantly taking bribes, and you can't bribe a democrat. Thanks.
Comments
READ his tweet, Jackass. Ajit Pai voted against it.
Reading Comprehension is a major part of the SAT. This explains so much.
Reading Comprehension is a major part of the SAT. This explains so much.
A vote against means he opposes net neutrality.
Just like his Verizon master wanted.
Idiot.
And it's certainly not shocking that Pai pushed for neutering the new rules, considering that he used to work for Verizon.
And it's certainly not shocking that Pai pushed for neutering the new rules, considering that he used to work for Verizon.
Obviously Verizon didn't come close to topping Soro's bid.
Huh?
He voted the way Verizon would want: against net neutrality.
Reading Comprehension is a major part of the SAT. This explains so much.
You suck at this.
I guarantee that if Bush were President Paradise and Tommy Hill would agree with me
When I lived in Seattle there was one cable company. I got a satellite dish and DirecTV. There was one cable company because the Seattle City government wanted it that way. Shitty service and high costs.
The government is far more likely to rape you. Corporations want your money so they buy you dinner and whisper sweet nothings in your ear to get you to put out
The d2ds and Race Bannons of the board would scream bloody murder, but the idea of a city-wide fiber system would be really promising.
If this is so wonderful why is it secret?
Ed Murray was bought and paid for by Comcast. As soon as he wins the election, the Seattle fiber plan is killed, and Comcast's contract gets re-upped.
This isn't a Bush vs Obama, red vs blue, or Dem vs Rep issue. If you don't understand the issue, maybe educate yourself before popping off.
I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.
So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.
Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
I support net neutrality. You still don't know what it is. Who needs more time again?
If you google "Soros" and "net neutrality," you'll get this article from the National Review.
nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund
Which cites a guy named Phil Kerpen from a group called American Commitment as saying, “Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content.”
Now if you google American Commitment and Phil Kerpen, you would find that Kerpen was previously involved with Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, and Club for Growth, each of which advocates for the advancement of the interests of big business in the public space. I would say it's fair to say that those interests do not align with those of the average consumer--i.e. lower prices.
As for making this a partisan issue, I would say that Kerpen and AC have done that on their own. American Commitment spent $196,000 on Republican candidates or conservative causes in the 2014 cycle, $1.1 million against Democrats in 2012, and $700,000 for Republicans in 2012.
opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90013640&cycle=2012
So are you really saying that Kerpen and AC are unbiased voices on net neutrality?
As for Soros, the article that d2d seems to be citing (newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/?ns_mail_uid=4855943&ns_mail_job=1610301_02262015&s=al&dkt_nbr=uzndcd79) states that, "From 2000 to 2013, the Ford Foundation has donated $113.6 million and the Open Society Foundations, founded by Soros, has donated $82.7 to pro-net neutrality groups, the Media Research Center is reporting." Not that you would know that the money has been doled out over the last decade and a half, to listen to d2d.
It's probably safe to say that most of those donations were not for net neutrality, unless you were confused.
This is exactly the sort of crony capitalism that several people on here rail about, or at least until it runs up against their hatred for anything Obammer.
HTH
Stalling for time to research net neutrality? Or are you even gonna bother? I'm guessing not.
Am I dialed in?