George Soros Paid $196 Million to Lobby For Net Neutrality.
Comments
-
Completely missed the point, but how am I not surprised.d2d said:
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.doogsinparadise said:
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.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.
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.
Come back when you have something better. -
Nodoogsinparadise said:"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?
I'm not arguing against the executive order not a bill. I'm arguing against the secrecy. If you blindly trust the government that's cool for you. I don't -
Exactly, and it is beyond Nancy Pelosi FS to support it without knowing what's in it. Slapping a positive name on it and then explaining what the name means does not equate to revealing what the order and regulations actually do. By the way, where is all of that transparency we were all promised?RaceBannon said:
Nodoogsinparadise said:"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?
I'm not arguing against the executive order not a bill. I'm arguing against the secrecy. If you blindly trust the government that's cool for you. I don't -
There's a difference between not trusting the government and thinking the government is always wrong. In addition, corporations are not to be trusted any more than the government.RaceBannon said:
Nodoogsinparadise said:"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?
I'm not arguing against the executive order not a bill. I'm arguing against the secrecy. If you blindly trust the government that's cool for you. I don't
I'm still reserving judgment until they publish the text. -
I trust the profit motive over the control motive. I never said the government is always wrong. Stop making shit up. If it's such a great order show us.
Why is it secret? -
Both are not to be trusted. Are you fucking serious?RaceBannon said:I trust the profit motive over the control motive. I never said the government is always wrong. Stop making shit up. If it's such a great order show us.
Why is it secret? -
You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
-
There's a difference between not trusting the government, and always thinking there some conspiracy theory to kill us all.RaceBannon said:You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
HTH -
Once again you're arguing against something I never said. How about trying to stay on point. Why is this secret?2001400ex said:
There's a difference between not trusting the government, and always thinking there some conspiracy theory to kill us all.RaceBannon said:You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
HTH
I said the profit motive over the control motive. You obviously trust the control over the profit. You think corporations are evil. They aren't. They exist to make money and they need us to do so. They don't have the power to jail or kill to enforce their desires. The government does.
That doesn't mean I think they always will -
When did I say corporations are evil? One entity has a sole purpose is profit. The other entity has the sole purpose to work for the people. And both are fucked up.RaceBannon said:
Once again you're arguing against something I never said. How about trying to stay on point. Why is this secret?2001400ex said:
There's a difference between not trusting the government, and always thinking there some conspiracy theory to kill us all.RaceBannon said:You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
HTH
I said the profit motive over the control motive. You obviously trust the control over the profit. You think corporations are evil. They aren't. They exist to make money and they need us to do so. They don't have the power to jail or kill to enforce their desires. The government does.
That doesn't mean I think they always will
Why is it secret? Who the hell knows, but it won't be secret long. To enforce regulations, there is kind of a requirement to publish the regulations.
