George Soros Paid $196 Million to Lobby For Net Neutrality.

ThomasFremont

RaceBannon said:

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?

doogsinparadise

RaceBannon said:

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.

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.

RaceBannon

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

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.

ThomasFremont

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

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

RaceBannon

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

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

ThomasFremont

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

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.

RaceBannon

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

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.

Flail away. We're waiting

ThomasFremont

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

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.

Flail away. We're waiting

Looks like I am right, as usual.

doogsinparadise

"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."

Am I dialed in?

d2d

doogsinparadise said:

RaceBannon said:

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.

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.

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.