-————I originally brought up heritage and other conservative groups in a different context. Soros doesn’t fund them. There’s obvious reasons why he doesn’t fund them.
So since none of them are fighting for our rights, representing the people against the corrupt powers, then nobody’s supposed to do it?-—————
I reject your question because it assumes that marxists actually fight for freedom. Or progressives.
They characterize healthcare as a freedom issue.
—————Unfortunately, conservatism to many means simple blind obedience to corporate interest, as if that always aligned with our interests and our rights.—————
There’s a difference between corporate interest and corporate property.
————I’m talking in general, not just the bought-off congresscritters-—————
This is why I asked you for dates and times. And there’s one other element besides those who have been bought off, there’s also big government establishment republicans - progressive republicans.
———The likes of the EFF fought hard against it.-——————
But you aren’t asking why. Why did the EFF fight against it? All of us freepers should be well versed in how progressives cloak everything they do in the disguise of ‘rights’. If every bit of evidence points to EFF as a progressive organization, then it’s a fair question to ask “did they fight it because they viewed it as a corporatist bill”.
—————FP covers many issues besides net neutrality——————
The important thing to note is that on every issue(Net Neutrality included) they cover it from a marxist point of view. They can claim freedom all they want. As marxists, they are clueless about freedom.
So because Heritage doesn't cover it, we're supposed to roll over when the corporations buy more unconstitutional powers for themselves from Congress?
There’s a difference between corporate interest and corporate property.
Not for this type. Their interest is their property. Their copyright is their interest, and it is their "intellectual property." What ever the corporations want, we must give it to them in the name of conservatism, because apparently the only battle you see is the one against an over-expanding government.
And there’s one other element besides those who have been bought off, there’s also big government establishment republicans - progressive republicans.
And the "conservatives" who give anything corporations ask for.
Why did the EFF fight against it?
Because that's in their charter, from when it was formed in the beginning in response to an over-reaching government, one of the founders being a former Cheney campaign manager.
If every bit of evidence points to EFF as a progressive organization, then it’s a fair question to ask “did they fight it because they viewed it as a corporatist bill”.
But the evidence doesn't, so that's not a fair question. I've shown you the evidence of them taking sides in corporate vs. corporate and government vs. corporate on a corporation's side. They operate on principle -- freedom. That is the only way to explain how they'd be fighting for a telco in one suit, and opposing telcos in other matters. Yes, the group that fought crypto export laws against the government in favor of corporations, specifically citing that it hinders their international competitiveness, is purely anti-corporate. The facts do not justify your conclusions. You only know of the EFF after their involvement in this one issue, so you really don't know what you're talking about.