Posted on 12/15/2010 6:22:31 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Palin or Christie
‘Nice’ roundup. This stuff is dangerous.
All of this garbage is ultimately going to be fixed on the state level.
I mean, yes, I have a lot of faith in SOME of the new members of congress, but that’s not enough.
The states are our salvation. The solution will not come from DC. At best, some of the new members can hold the line.
There you go, content. Note that was not "net" but "content."
What would be the point of controlling radio and TV without net neutrality?
Let's see, net neutrality is a prohibition on restrictions, a prohibition on unnecessary controls. How does a prohibition on network control fit into the mandate for control of content? You have a serious logical disconnect here. These people were talking about fairness
Very few people even remember the old version of net neutrality. ... There are two versions of net neutrality, and the one you support died a very quiet death.
If nobody remembers net neutrality, if it is dead, then show me the recent FCC net neutrality proposals or the net neutrality bills from Congress that include fairness doctrine provisions.
It's put up or shut up time.
————There you go, content. Note that was not “net” but “content.”-—————
It’s content that scares these revolutionaries. Not the net itself. But they can’t come out on national television and say that. They have to make it about something mundane......... bits and bytes and so forth........ or make it about class warfare and corporations.
The congress rejected net neutrality. Then a judge told them no. But they still insist. Why? It isn’t about bits and bytes, that’s for sure. Net Neutrality is about control. Revolutionaries will crawl over glass to get control.
————Let’s see, net neutrality is a prohibition on restrictions, a prohibition on unnecessary controls.—————
That’s what it used to be. Now it’s an orwellianism.
-———How does a prohibition on network control fit into the mandate for control of content?—————
Read “The Road to Serfdom”. Words like “Liberty” and “freedom” are used just as much in totalitarian societies as they are in societies such as america used to be.
But when the dictators and/or the revolutionaries talk about freedom, it’s usually couched in terms of ‘new freedoms’, and what they really mean is freedom for the dictator.
Net neutrality is new regulations for the dictators. Copps, Obama, Sunstein, and more. They aren’t crawling over glass for bits and bytes.
-—————You have a serious logical disconnect here.—————
No I don’t. I have Copps in his own words. If you didn’t watch the videos, that’s not my problem. I’ve given you two of those videos just today.
Sunstein talks about forcing websites to put “the other side” on it’s pages. I have him in his own words. You’ve seen them repeatedly and even quoted them dismissively.
Elena Kagan is clearly on record in favor of censorship in reference to the citizens united case. Here are her words:
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/65600
There are so many of these revolutionaries out there talking about different flavors in one form or another of censorship that it’s hard to list them all in one shot.
Listening to revolutionaries and taking them at their word is very logically connected.
————These people were talking about fairness —————
So is 80-95% of net neutrality supporters.
Listen to the marxists at free press. Listen to Copps. Listen to Sunstein. They’re all saying it. Listen to Mark Lloyd who (praised Chavez) wrote some garbage about ‘the structural imbalance of talk radio’.
These people are talking about fairness at the same time they support net neutrality.
Antirepublicrat is the odd one out. These people are all on the same page.
—————If nobody remembers net neutrality, if it is dead, then show me the recent FCC net neutrality proposals or the net neutrality bills from Congress that include fairness doctrine provisions.——————
Our current revolutionary congress have passed bills before they are even written.
Any current proposal in writing is a ruse.
This is the nature of revolutionaries. They don’t care about anything.
Except power. And I repeatedly put up. I put up Sunstein’s words. I put up two videos of Copps clammoring for content controls. I just linked you to Kagan who is on record talking about the redistribution of speech.
None of these things is disconnected.
Would you like me to give you a link to Sharpton’s recent words regarding Limbaugh, the FCC, and a revoked licence?
Don’t think that’s not connected.
Do you know what a “surrogate” is?
I see a lot of talk about fairness doctrine and censorship, none about actual net neturality. As I said, get back to me when a net neutrality bill or policy includes the fairness doctrine.
Put up or shut up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.