Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Necrosis on November 11, 2014, 04:30:16 AM
-
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/barack-obama-net-neutrality
Seems like the right move.
-
I have a problem with net neutrality. The problem is everyone is for it but everyone has a different definition of what constitutes what it is. Look on comcast and time warner's web site. They both say on their web sites they are for it but THEIR version. Same with Obama. Does he really believe in a completely free and unfiltered internet or does the democratic party wants ways to selectively steer searches concerning political issues?
Hopefully Obama is truly for net neutrality but I'm concerned about a hidden agenda just like the game Comcast and Time Warner is playing when they say they are for it.
-
My problem is the involvement of the FCC. The FCC is a regulatory body and as such would certainly seek to regulating the internet. What they regulate would become politicized. I'd prefer to avoid that pitfall.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/barack-obama-net-neutrality
Seems like the right move.
It is. But in the hands of the 1%. Cory Doctorow has been talking about this (non-stop) for the longest time @BoingBoing. Gonna be interesting.
-
Nobody even listens to Obama any more. Everybody's just watching the clock run out on his second term.
-
Im still waiting to see the exacr wording of the legislation. As someone else has pointed out, EVERYONE says their for net neurtraliy, their version of it.
So far i havemt seen anythinf but more worthless rhetoeric about it. Once i see what the FCC is actually trying to do, ill know whats up.
-
Im still waiting to see the exacr wording of the legislation. As someone else has pointed out, EVERYONE says their for net neurtraliy, their version of it.
So far i havemt seen anythinf but more worthless rhetoeric about it. Once i see what the FCC is actually trying to do, ill know whats up.
Allowing the FCC power to regulate content is a huge risk. Content regulation could be as bad or worse than ending net neutrality.
-
Im still waiting to see the exacr wording of the legislation. As someone else has pointed out, EVERYONE says their for net neurtraliy, their version of it.
So far i havemt seen anythinf but more worthless rhetoeric about it. Once i see what the FCC is actually trying to do, ill know whats up.
Getbig chaff. Nicely done. Kinda like global warming stuff.
-
Allowing the FCC power to regulate content is a huge risk. Content regulation could be as bad or worse than ending net neutrality.
Well currently, that's exactly what ISPs are doing. Before Netflix paid the cash to Comcast, they were restricting the bandwidth available for that... and the only reason that became public is because of the settlement. Who knows how many other websites or services are getting bottlenecked without our knowledge.
Treating the Internet as another public utility ought to help prevent that. Of course, the exact language of the legislation is very important. Considering that the head of the FCC is a former Comcast lobbyist, I'm a little concerned.
-
Well currently, that's exactly what ISPs are doing. Before Netflix paid the cash to Comcast, they were restricting the bandwidth available for that... and the only reason that became public is because of the settlement. Who knows how many other websites or services are getting bottlenecked without our knowledge.
Treating the Internet as another public utility ought to help prevent that. Of course, the exact language of the legislation is very important. Considering that the head of the FCC is a former Comcast lobbyist, I'm a little concerned.
Agreed.
Im so confused right now. Both sides are pointing the finger, everyone is saying their for net neutrality and the others against it, lots of buzz words flying and plenty of 'i back the need for a free and open internet' by everyone, but i have yet to actually see what theyre trying to put into the legislation.
No one seems to be able to tell me yet.
-
Agreed.
Im so confused right now. Both sides are pointing the finger, everyone is saying their for net neutrality and the others against it, lots of buzz words flying and plenty of 'i back the need for a free and open internet' by everyone, but i have yet to actually see what theyre trying to put into the legislation.
No one seems to be able to tell me yet.
Yes, they can. Liar!
-
Yes, they can. Liar!
well, tell me. Ive asked several times on the poli board, on here, and all thats been posted and everything ive seen has just been more talking points.
-
Yes, they can. Liar!
oh, wait... did i just totally have the sarcasm going flying over my head?
-
It won't be legislation, it'll be "rules" from the FCC.
My guess is that it'll be anything but "neutral".
Since the government always seeks to regulate what it wants to control, and always seems to fuck up whatever it regulates, I am ipso facto against this on principle.
Show me a compelling need for this regulation. You can't, because none exists. It's a thinly veiled vehicle for an Internet-based "Fairness Doctrine". Fact.
-
It won't be legislation, it'll be "rules" from the FCC.
My guess is that it'll be anything but "neutral".
Since the government always seeks to regulate what it wants to control, and always seems to fuck up whatever it regulates, I am ipso facto against this on principle.
Show me a compelling need for this regulation. You can't, because none exists. It's a thinly veiled vehicle for an Internet-based "Fairness Doctrine". Fact.
ISPs have been clandestinely controlling and restricting consumer access to the Internet, something that is arguably a public utility. I'm sure you're not in favor of that, either.
-
oh, wait... did i just totally have the sarcasm going flying over my head?
Pretty sure that's the only thing over your head.
/sorry
-
ISPs have been clandestinely controlling and restricting consumer access to the Internet, something that is arguably a public utility. I'm sure you're not in favor of that, either.
It sure as fuck is NOT a "public utility"
-
It sure as fuck is NOT a "public utility"
Why not? It's a service that requires a massive infrastructure, and is therefore prone to natural monopolization--just like electricity, water, and telephones.
Regardless of whether or not you consider it a public utility, are you in favor of your ISP restricting your internet access?
-
Pretty sure that's the only thing over your head.
/sorry
my bad. You know on getbig you always gotta remain on your toes. :D
-
Why not? It's a service that requires a massive infrastructure, and is therefore prone to natural monopolization--just like electricity, water, and telephones.
Regardless of whether or not you consider it a public utility, are you in favor of your ISP restricting your internet access?
Restricting it to what? Bandwidth limitations? Access to certain sites? If the latter, your "cure" is likely going to be worse than the disease.
-
my bad. You know on getbig you always gotta remain on your toes. :D
No shit. The lady-friend wants to do the library-book-saley-thingy. Wish me the best.
-
Restricting it to what? Bandwidth limitations? Access to certain sites? If the latter, your "cure" is likely going to be worse than the disease.
All of the above. I don't want ISPs to have the ability to control what I see and do on the Internet without a court order. I don't want ISPs to charge content providers a toll for quality service--like Comcast did with Netflix. And I definitely don't want ISPs to artificially degrade my Internet service because I'm using the Internet for 'undesirable' purposes. A packet of data should be treated just like any other packet of data, no matter its source or recipient.
A free market solution would be ideal, but natural competition is impeded due to the high cost of infrastructure. Ultimately, I guess I have more faith in the FCC than in any of the big ISPs--and I'm guessing that's where our opinions differ.
I'm sure we both want the same thing: unrestricted access to the Internet. How would you suggest that we achieve that, if not through government regulation?
-
It is. But in the hands of the 1%. Cory Doctorow has been talking about this (non-stop) for the longest time @BoingBoing. Gonna be interesting.
X2
-
Agreed.
Im so confused right now. Both sides are pointing the finger, everyone is saying their for net neutrality and the others against it, lots of buzz words flying and plenty of 'i back the need for a free and open internet' by everyone, but i have yet to actually see what theyre trying to put into the legislation.
No one seems to be able to tell me yet.
Everything is right here:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm
-
Here is whats at stake.
You like the internet the way it is and want to improve service with costs not going up for anyone or any site, you are with Obama and the Democrats and whoever else supports these regulations by the FCC.
or
You want to pay more for the internet, limit your ability to download at certain speeds, want a capped bandwidth, want limited access to sites, want more ads and a limited search engine all at higher costs, complete control goes to your ISP provider- you are with the Republicans and everything they wish to do.
The Republicans are not hiding this at all. They already voted in 2011 to end Net Neutrality. They WILL do this. There is no secret agenda, its not a conspiracy theory, its very real.
There is no fence. These are your choices.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/barack-obama-net-neutrality
Seems like the right move.
If obama said it, it must be the right move, hahahahahaha
-
Dont you pay for your cable monthly and that's that?
-
Dont you pay for your cable monthly and that's that?
Not if the Republicans have anything to do with it.
-
Here is whats at stake.
You like the internet the way it is and want to improve service with costs not going up for anyone or any site, you are with Obama and the Democrats and whoever else supports these regulations by the FCC.
or
You want to pay more for the internet, limit your ability to download at certain speeds, want a capped bandwidth, want limited access to sites, want more ads and a limited search engine all at higher costs, complete control goes to your ISP provider- you are with the Republicans and everything they wish to do.
The Republicans are not hiding this at all. They already voted in 2011 to end Net Neutrality. They WILL do this. There is no secret agenda, its not a conspiracy theory, its very real.
There is no fence. These are your choices.
::)
You really are a political rube.
-
Not if the Republicans have anything to do with it.
Please do regale us with your vast knowledge of what "the republicans" are going to do to broadband. Let me guess, it'll be "racist"
-
Please do regale us with your vast knowledge of what "the republicans" are going to do to broadband. Let me guess, it'll be "racist"
They aren`t hiding what they plan to do. They voted to get rid of Net Neutrality in 2011 and passed it in the Republican House, vetoed by the Democrats in the Senate.
They are actively trying to do it again. I thought you were involved in computers. Someone like you should know this stuff, but I guess not. All you need to know then is, if the Republicans get their way, our internet will be much worse than the way it already is. You should really educate yourself on this.
-
Not if the Republicans have anything to do with it.
Scary >:(
Hope these contagious thoughts don't spread to Sweden
-
They are actively trying to do it again. I thought you were involved in computers. Someone like you should know this stuff, but I guess not. All you need to know then is, if the Republicans get their way, our internet will be much worse than the way it already is. You should really educate yourself on this.
Oh, I have done quite a lot of actual research. Unlike you, who appears to take direction from the DCCC website.
A.) the "problem" that it is supposedly "solving" is unproven. Show me proof of throttling or censorship. Show me, not "I heard"
B.) airlines, telephone, utilities. Please tell me which one of these got a.) better and b.) cheaper with more federal regulation. I'll wait.
C.) nothing that the fedgov does is nonpartisan. My suspicion is that it is a thinly disgusted veil to actual censorship of political speech. Yes, it is my "suspicion" and unproven. That's the wonderful thing about The American political system, the very checks and balances favor inaction. And I support that.
-
Also, unsurprisingly, the largest, clunkiest, most vilified broadband provider supports Obama:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/surprise-we-agree-with-the-presidents-principles-on-net-neutrality-reiterating-our-strong-support-for-the-open-internet
You should ask yourself why. But that would hurt your progressive brain, so I will answer it. The "why" is that Comcast is a big supporter of the democrat party and expects to be paid. The bogus "net neutrality" rules will effectively freeze the state of the industry in place, which is fine for a company like Comcast, who already is on top.
Look, it's fine to be a brainless mouthpiece for your party, but at least have the decency to be honest about it.
-
No, thanks Obama.
You can keep your "change" on this one as well.
No Deal!
-
Oh, I have done quite a lot of actual research. Unlike you, who appears to take direction from the DCCC website.
A.) the "problem" that it is supposedly "solving" is unproven. Show me proof of throttling or censorship. Show me, not "I heard"
B.) airlines, telephone, utilities. Please tell me which one of these got a.) better and b.) cheaper with more federal regulation. I'll wait.
C.) nothing that the fedgov does is nonpartisan. My suspicion is that it is a thinly disgusted veil to actual censorship of political speech. Yes, it is my "suspicion" and unproven. That's the wonderful thing about The American political system, the very checks and balances favor inaction. And I support that.
Uh, Netflix.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
I also lived in the test area where they tried to implement tiered internet-luckily Chuck Schumer and some other Democrats halted it IMMEDIATELY. They were in place to do it, so yes, it can and will happen if left up to moron Republicans.
-
Also, unsurprisingly, the largest, clunkiest, most vilified broadband provider supports Obama:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/surprise-we-agree-with-the-presidents-principles-on-net-neutrality-reiterating-our-strong-support-for-the-open-internet
You should ask yourself why. But that would hurt your progressive brain, so I will answer it. The "why" is that Comcast is a big supporter of the democrat party and expects to be paid. The bogus "net neutrality" rules will effectively freeze the state of the industry in place, which is fine for a company like Comcast, who already is on top.
Look, it's fine to be a brainless mouthpiece for your party, but at least have the decency to be honest about it.
You are the brainless mouthpiece, not I. I don`t hold fast to any party. You do. I call it how I see it on all issues and use evidence and nothing else.
-
Uh, Netflix.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
I also lived in the test area where they tried to implement tiered internet-luckily Chuck Schumer and some other Democrats halted it IMMEDIATELY. They were in place to do it, so yes, it can and will happen if left up to moron Republicans.
Oh no! Tiered plans? Where you actually pay for more Internet!? The HORROR. You must really despise capitalism. Look man, the Internet is not like air or freedom. It's a commodity that needs to be paid for. Sorry.
You have freedom of speech, so don't give me that bs. The government is not required to provide you with a megaphone or radio station to help you fully realize that freedom.
-
Oh no! Tiered plans? Where you actually pay for more Internet!? The HORROR. You must really despise capitalism. Look man, the Internet is not like air or freedom. It's a commodity that needs to be paid for. Sorry.
You have freedom of speech, so don't give me that bs. The government is not required to provide you with a megaphone or radio station to help you fully realize that freedom.
The creator of the World Wide Web thinks you are full of shit.
(http://s29.postimg.org/xa8zirz7r/tumblr_n2c94qw_Wg_J1r83d7lo1_1280.jpg)
-
Oh no! Tiered plans? Where you actually pay for more Internet!? The HORROR. You must really despise capitalism. Look man, the Internet is not like air or freedom. It's a commodity that needs to be paid for. Sorry.
You have freedom of speech, so don't give me that bs. The government is not required to provide you with a megaphone or radio station to help you fully realize that freedom.
Only a complete moron like you would readily want to pay more for less of an internet than they currently have. Have fun with your 50 website subscription and your 15 GB Bandwidth.
-
Oh no! Tiered plans? Where you actually pay for more Internet!? The HORROR. You must really despise capitalism. Look man, the Internet is not like air or freedom. It's a commodity that needs to be paid for. Sorry.
You have freedom of speech, so don't give me that bs. The government is not required to provide you with a megaphone or radio station to help you fully realize that freedom.
Well, you asked for an example and he gave you one.
If you are so against the concept of regulation that you prefer to have private companies controlling your internet access unabated, I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
-
The creator of the World Wide Web thinks you are full of shit.
(http://s29.postimg.org/xa8zirz7r/tumblr_n2c94qw_Wg_J1r83d7lo1_1280.jpg)
I know Tim quite well. He's not all there on political matters.
-
TA right on the money with this one.
-
TA right on the money with this one.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for adding to TA's corpus of "knowledge" on this...
Speaking of Obama mouthpieces...
-
Oh no! Tiered plans? Where you actually pay for more Internet!? The HORROR. You must really despise capitalism. Look man, the Internet is not like air or freedom. It's a commodity that needs to be paid for. Sorry.
You have freedom of speech, so don't give me that bs. The government is not required to provide you with a megaphone or radio station to help you fully realize that freedom.
You don't get it do you. Your provider can actually restrict competitor websites or slow their speed to your computer on purpose if there was no net neutrality. Its about fair competition. Comcast can set up a shitty Facebook type website and then block, slow, or place a ton of ads in front before going to the actual Facebook. That's why its important to have it
-
You don't get it do you. Your provider can actually restrict competitor websites or slow their speed to your computer on purpose if there was no net neutrality. Its about fair competition. Comcast can set up a shitty Facebook type website and then block, slow, or place a ton of ads in front before going to the actual Facebook. That's why its important to have it
Opinion discounted. Please come to the adult's room prepared the next time.
I will say this TA: I don't trust either party on anything. So I am watching this VERY carefully. Crony capitalism is a sickness on both sides of the aisle. Right now, the dems are the big largess recipient, but I will expect that to change. I may not fit the mold of an Occupy Wall St. guy, but a lot of their gripes have resonance.
-
Opinion discounted. Please come to the adult's room prepared the next time.
I will say this TA: I don't trust either party on anything. So I am watching this VERY carefully. Crony capitalism is a sickness on both sides of the aisle. Right now, the dems are the big largess recipient, but I will expect that to change. I may not fit the mold of an Occupy Wall St. guy, but a lot of their gripes have resonance.
You're watching it closely. Oh man, we're really looking forward to your comments.... ::)
-
You're watching it closely. Oh man, we're really looking forward to your comments.... ::)
I will withhold them or annotate them as you likely wouldn't comprehend my thought process.
-
FCC head is a former industry insider, so there's that, too. ::)
-
FCC head is a former industry insider, so there's that, too. ::)
See? It's all bullshit.
-
Not if the Republicans have anything to do with it.
Will you stop with the lies about the Republicans. Comcast the biggest player in the game and is firmly connected to the Democrats. Don't show me the chump change they donated to the Republicans as proof they are neutral.
No Republicans are not against neutrality. As I said before everyone is for it but it's their version. Net neutrality is really a yes or a no answer. Not a yes but with these restrictions.
-
Will you stop with the lies about the Republicans. Comcast the biggest player in the game and is firmly connected to the Democrats. Don't show me the chump change they donated to the Republicans as proof they are neutral.
No Republicans are not against neutrality. As I said before everyone is for it but it's their version. Net neutrality is really a yes or a no answer. Not a yes but with these restrictions.
What fucking planet are you living on? The Republicans voted in 2011 to END Net Neutrality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/business/media/09broadband.html
House Votes Against ‘Net Neutrality’
-
"The Internet makes it hard to govern" - Joe Biden
-
What fucking planet are you living on? The Republicans voted in 2011 to END Net Neutrality.
Guy has to be a gimmick. No real person could truly achieve old-agedness being so ignorant. Would have got hit by a bus at 8, or something.
-
What fucking planet are you living on? The Republicans voted in 2011 to END Net Neutrality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/business/media/09broadband.html
House Votes Against ‘Net Neutrality’
You have yet to prove:
1.) there is a problem
2.) there is a problem that the government can salve via regulation ::)
3.) that the proposed solution solves the "problem" ::) ::)
4.) that the proposed solution won't just cement the thing that you think is a "problem"
5.) that the proposed solution isn't just a vehicle for actual government censorship
So, unless you have some answers, you might want to do more research (hint: democratunderground.com is NOT a non-partisan research site)
-
You have yet to prove:
1.) there is a problem
2.) there is a problem that the government can salve via regulation ::)
3.) that the proposed solution solves the "problem" ::) ::)
4.) that the proposed solution won't just cement the thing that you think is a "problem"
5.) that the proposed solution isn't just a vehicle for actual government censorship
So, unless you have some answers, you might want to do more research (hint: democratunderground.com is NOT a non-partisan research site)
Idiot. It's like going into a casino and betting on the house. ::)
-
Idiot. It's like going into a casino and betting on the house. ::)
Are you going to add to the debate or continue your silly simian commentary? At least TA provides content and some opinionated analysis.
-
Are you going to add to the debate or continue your silly simian commentary? At least TA provides content and some opinionated analysis.
1/10 Try harder
-
What fucking planet are you living on? The Republicans voted in 2011 to END Net Neutrality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/business/media/09broadband.html
House Votes Against ‘Net Neutrality’
You're ignorant. The NY Times has always been a backer of the Democratic party leading the sheep. If you would read the article you put up you would see the Republicans are against the FCC head who was a lobbyist for the industry regulating net neutrality. Like I said in my original statement. Everyone claims to be for net neutrality but it has to be their version which is a contradiction of net neutrality.
Letting the FCC head regulate net neutrality puts the Democratic run government in the position of overseeing what content a consumer could see and which companies would benefit from Internet access. It would give them the ability to regulate political content. There is nothing more than the Democrats would love.
That's what planet I'm from you Obama loving sheep.
The Republican led house didn't vote against net neutrality as the title of that propaganda NY Times article suggests. They voted against the head of the FCC who is a lobbyist again for the industry using his version for the betterment of those connected to the Democratic party.
-
need to listen to an expert here:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
-
another set of experts weigh in on Net Neutrality
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/9873757f97/porn-star-net-neutrality
-
1/10 Try harder
I give it a 10 for accuracy
-
The government getting involved what could possibly go wrong...
-
Uh, Netflix.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
I also lived in the test area where they tried to implement tiered internet-luckily Chuck Schumer and some other Democrats halted it IMMEDIATELY. They were in place to do it, so yes, it can and will happen if left up to moron Republicans.
Dude, you have more in common with Rs than you think.
What does Obama think about Muslims? About blacks, and Affirmative Action? 2nd Amendment? Israel? Welfare handouts?
And you, where do you stand?
-
Dude, you have more in common with Rs than you think.
What does Obama think about Muslims? About blacks, and Affirmative Action? 2nd Amendment? Israel? Welfare handouts?
And you, where do you stand?
My judgements are all based on fact and evidence. I care not for politics or any political ideology.
-
My judgements are all based on fact and evidence. I care not for politics or any political ideology.
You had Obama saddles on your greyhounds - cut the shit, guy.
-
You had Obama saddles on your greyhounds - cut the shit, guy.
So? I was originally for and working for Mike Gravel before he quit the Libertarian nomination. Candidate Obama was totally different than Actual Obama. I knew that this would be the case and some is not of his own fault (bad congress), I didn`t support him because he was a Democrat, I supported him because I agreed with several of his positions and the alternative was a disaster because of Palin.
-
So? I was originally for and working for Mike Gravel before he quit the Libertarian nomination. Candidate Obama was totally different than Actual Obama. I knew that this would be the case and some is not of his own fault (bad congress), I didn`t support him because he was a Democrat, I supported him because I agreed with several of his positions and the alternative was a disaster because of Palin.
With you on Palin, but you didn't vote for Biden, so be fair.
So, if you're a candidate guy, how do you register? D, Libertarian, or I?
-
With you on Palin, but you didn't vote for Biden, so be fair.
So, if you're a candidate guy, how do you register? D, Libertarian, or I?
I liked Biden actually and still do.
-
I liked Biden actually and still do.
Transplants aside, you didn't answer the question. I know you hate Republicans, yet you share so many of their values. Btw, you know Obama is a proclaimed believer, right? So, why don't you dismiss (and/or despise) him like all the other non-activist atheists?
-
Transplants aside, you didn't answer the question. I know you hate Republicans, yet you share so many of their values. Btw, you know Obama is a proclaimed believer, right? So, why don't you dismiss (and/or despise) him like all the other non-activist atheists?
Obama`s mother, father and grand parents were atheists. He was known as an atheist in college and onwards. Nobody believes he is religious at all except the morons. He clearly lies as most have. Even Dawkins is suspect.
-
Transplants aside, you didn't answer the question. I know you hate Republicans, yet you share so many of their values. Btw, you know Obama is a proclaimed believer, right? So, why don't you dismiss (and/or despise) him like all the other non-activist atheists?
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+atheist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
-
Transplants aside, you didn't answer the question. I know you hate Republicans, yet you share so many of their values. Btw, you know Obama is a proclaimed believer, right? So, why don't you dismiss (and/or despise) him like all the other non-activist atheists?
Realizing Muslims are worthless and batshit crazy moreso than any other religion is not Republican or Democrat or anything. Its called living in reality.
-
Realizing Muslims are worthless and batshit crazy moreso than any other religion is not Republican or Democrat or anything. Its called living in reality.
It shouldn't be D or R, but it is, and Obama's “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” or “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” clearly indicates he resides elsewhere.
You're just being dishonest by suggesting both ideologies view Muslims equally. Shit, that's exactly why Maher and Harris, who ARE realistic on the issue, got so much backlash. Affleck represents the majority of Democrats, and you know it.
-
It shouldn't be D or R, but it is, and Obama's “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” or “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” clearly indicates he resides elsewhere.
You're just being dishonest by suggesting both ideologies view Muslims equally. Shit, that's exactly why Maher and Harris, who ARE realistic on the issue, got so much backlash. Affleck represents the majority of Democrats, and you know it.
???
I have always said that a lot of liberals are morons on this issue. I said there should not be anything political about it. Facts are facts.
-
If we had a truly free markets net neutrality would be bad, because it would kill competition and innovation in people trying to provide a better product. But since we have a government controlled infrastructural already net neutrality probably keeps things a little more free. I am betting most of us have 1 maybe 2 choices for internet in our areas and close to zero competition because the government (local or federal) put barriers in the way of competition. A free market without net neutrality would mean that while COX cable my limit my access to netflix and youtube and lower bandwidth. Stan's internet service could show up and provide a service free of that and thus everyone would go with Stan's versus COX of course we do not have this today so it is a moot point but free markets always beat government controlled markets.
As for Dems or Republicans it doesn't really matter the freedom loving Democrats brought us the V Chip and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center and have kept the Patriot act and increased NSA funding. The Republicans started the Patriot act and support the NSA neither is the friend of free people.
-
???
I have always said that a lot of liberals are morons on this issue. I said there should not be anything political about it. Facts are facts.
I wasn't aware you had posted such criticism before. Certainly respect that, just missed the threads, I guess.