Very interested to see what people’s thoughts are. As a college student who watches a lot of Netflix, YouTube and Twitch. As well as playing PlayStation and PC games online this scares me to death.
There have been several instances over the last decade where corporations have attempted to limit access to other sites or apps that are in direct competition with one of their own product.
I expect things like that to become far more common.
⬆️
This, too, brought to you from the one âbillionaireâ to another administration.
Incredible ^^. The only thing that made the internet the envy of the world in the first place was the decision NOT to tax it. That and the fact that the FCC was kept out of it and not allowed to suppress internet function with an impenetrable layer of 1930's style regulatory bureaucracy.
Hey all is not lost, you guys still got ObamaCare for a little while longer. :Thumbs:
Spud6 Wrote:Very interested to see what people’s thoughts are. As a college student who watches a lot of Netflix, YouTube and Twitch. As well as playing PlayStation and PC games online this scares me to death.
In that case allow me to put your fears to rest if I can. It was
the coming of Net Neutrality as enacted in 2015, that was the threat you needed to fear. Under the terms of NN, "management" had broad and undefined "gatekeeper" powers. In other words they could have charged anything for anything in order to regulate the content on the internet.
Conservative websites were already beginning to feel the regulatory squeeze, so the death of NN came nary a bit too soon. This was in part a move to regulate political opinion and free access to conservative views. Obama complained openly about FOX News for example, nearly every darn day. In one word we were staring down the gun barrel of certain
censorship. The left already has main stream media in their hip pocket, the only outliers being FOX News and the conservative sites on the internet. NN guaranteed eventual control of the websites, leaving only a few voices on FOX and FOX Business for the left to worry about.
No the fall of NN protects the internet as you know it.
Unsure if troll or just really stupid.....
Who knows? But most are smart enough to know IP addresses are individually unique. As are web addresses.
Anybody lost their internet yet?:thatsfunn
my rate is going up... of course you probably saw that in the news... Jim Grey has blasted the decision. This is the second time in a year.
mr.fundamental Wrote:my rate is going up... of course you probably saw that in the news... Jim Grey has blasted the decision. This is the second time in a year.
Did you mean the mayor of Lexington Jim Gray? You and he spell his name differently, but I'm certain by your batting average on here that you're the one who has it right. Hey, maybe you can find yourself a position on his congressional campaign team. I mean, he proved his political prowess beyond doubt when he lost to Rand Paul by a landslide 15 point margin. I can see why you'd take your cues on Net Neutrality from him.
nicker:
The only company I heard anything about having raised their prices was COX Cable. And even then their raise came BEFORE Net Neutrality was even nixed.
"Make no mistake about it: Cox has gone sideways to end up at a point where, to get the same plan that you enjoyed a year ago, you have to pay $50 more.
That’s the opposite of what’s supposed to happen."http://bgr.com/2017/08/15/cox-data-caps-...net-works/
In other words the writer of the August 15 article cited above, is complaining that NN was supposed to lower rates, not raise them. Of course that was what Obama told him. And Barack told everybody ObamaCare wouldn't cost the taxpayer "One Dime," would lower insurance costs and consequently medical costs, and that was to be
AFTER every family of four got their $2,500 dollars in premium costs back every year too, just like clockwork. And if you ask your average Democrat supporter they'll tell you that these new tax cuts will cost them more money, not save them money. San Fran Nan fuzzy math I guess. But none of this business has a thing to do with facts or reality. It has to do with the left's contempt being so incredibly intense, that they are willfully blinded to the truth.
Thought a little visit back to the days when Obama was King and the liberal mindset was in free wheeling mode was in order. Reading the posts on here about Net Neutrality, reveals that the will of most people to question the motives of Obama was so pliant and docile it was nonexistent. Not to mention that mindless acceptance was especially prevalent on the part of the press. But at some point if you will recall, he (Obama) had put forth the absurd decision to surrender American control of the internet, among other things, to the global community. And it didn't take all that long for some of the more threatening aspects of giving China control of the internet to materialize.
With the build out of 5G technology has come the realization, according to folks like those at the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSA, that China could completely neutralize US' ability to command and control her military forces. Air Craft Carriers, nuclear subs, our land based ICBM capability, the whole schmear. In Obama's world I guess, the Chinese, the Mullahs and good ol Vlad can be trusted in that role. Ah La-La Land, we miss you not.
So thank you once again Mr Obama sir. You brought us redistribution of wealth through welfare/ObamaCare, you've reawakened unreasonable racial hatred, you decimated our military over which you ALMOST, managed to give China control. And had Hillary been elected instead of MR Trump, (Trump whom BTW reversed the net neutrality idiocy as soon as he got in office) China's lead in the 5G build out would have her already in the driver's seat. Yes, that would be the very driver's seat that you Mr Obama loved so well.
TheRealThing Wrote:Thought a little visit back to the days when Obama was King and the liberal mindset was in free wheeling mode was in order. Reading the posts on here about Net Neutrality, reveals that the will of most people to question the motives of Obama was so pliant and docile it was nonexistent. Not to mention that mindless acceptance was especially prevalent on the part of the press. But at some point if you will recall, he (Obama) had put forth the absurd decision to surrender American control of the internet, among other things, to the global community. And it didn't take all that long for some of the more threatening aspects of giving China control of the internet to materialize.
With the build out of 5G technology has come the realization, according to folks like those at the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSA, that China could completely neutralize US' ability to command and control her military forces. Air Craft Carriers, nuclear subs, our land based ICBM capability, the whole schmear. In Obama's world I guess, the Chinese, the Mullahs and good ol Vlad can be trusted in that role. Ah La-La Land, we miss you not.
So thank you once again Mr Obama sir. You brought us redistribution of wealth through welfare/ObamaCare, you've reawakened unreasonable racial hatred, you decimated our military over which you ALMOST, managed to give China control. And had Hillary been elected instead of MR Trump, (Trump whom BTW reversed the net neutrality idiocy as soon as he got in office) China's lead in the 5G build out would have her already in the driver's seat. Yes, that would be the very driver's seat that you Mr Obama loved so well.
Obama did more for this country in a few days than Trump has in a few years. I mean, Trump spends most of his time these days golfing anyways.
Sci-Fi Wrote:Obama did more for this country in a few days than Trump has in a few years. I mean, Trump spends most of his time these days golfing anyways.
Thanks for that. Would you mind very much giving us just the 'short list' of Obama's accomplishments?
TheRealThing Wrote:Thanks for that. Would you mind very much giving us just the 'short list' of Obama's accomplishments?
He didnt say they were accomplishments, he just said more things.
1. Lower gas prices
2. Improved economy by the time he got out of office
3. Improved spending (at least compared to the prior era)
4. Advanced equality
5. Caught bin laden
6. Less illegal immigration (Something Fox News won't report)
7. Stock market made massive improvement
8. Better racial unity
9. Improved foreign relations
10. Brought back trust to the presidency position
Short list? I can go all day.
Sci-Fi Wrote:1. Lower gas prices
2. Improved economy by the time he got out of office
3. Improved spending (at least compared to the prior era)
4. Advanced equality
5. Caught bin laden
6. Less illegal immigration (Something Fox News won't report)
7. Stock market made massive improvement
8. Better racial unity
9. Improved foreign relations
10. Brought back trust to the presidency position
Short list? I can go all day.
As to the bolded--- Obama and you seem to have the same talent. Accuracy may be somewhat lacking though.
1. Obama initiated and enforced a moratorium on oil drilling on government controlled lands. Meanwhile the frackers went nuts on privately owned land.
FORBES--- President Obama's "crude oil production surge is readily apparent that it happened
despite his administration,
and not because of it. President Obama coincidentally happened to enter office just as the
shale oil boom in the U.S. was getting started."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/201...3bbadbc10f
2 - 4. :please:
5. US Military forces "caught" Bin laden. Bin laden would have blown Obama's Mom jeans right off him if he'd dared to venture into his lair.
6. Granted. But at that point the whole of the Democrat Party hadn't shed themselves of the last shreds of honor quite yet.
7. Oh yeah, massive.
nicker: Investors of the Obama era knew for sure the Fed had their back. Quantitative Easing took every bit of the guess work out of it, making investing (for the 1 percenters Obama supposedly had it in for), a walk in the park. If you already had money, it was like taking candy from a baby.
8 - 10 :please:
Care to explain yourself a bit? Because all I'm seeing is the please signs.
plantmanky Wrote:He didnt say they were accomplishments, he just said more things.
LOL, exactly. And it should have been phrased 'did more things TO this country'
Sci-Fi Wrote:Care to explain yourself a bit? Because all I'm seeing is the please signs.
You first. You repeated the same old thread bare unsubstantiated talking points which were debunked years ago. But I'm sure you didn't miss the comments I did make. Nonetheless regarding you laughable unity point I would ask, did you miss Ferguson and Boston being looted and burned, and did you miss the physical assault and all the nasty and threatening actions of the left against Trump rally goers, or are you still just in denial?
BTW, haven't seen a lot of that sort of thing (riots) since the Oval Office became occupied by the law and order President, now have we? Haven't heard about Black Panther thugs dressed paramilitary and lurking about polling places in threatening manner either. Because if they break the law these days, they know they'll all be carted off and charged. Outside Congress, one could actually make the unity point as being applicable to President Trump.
I will however, give you credit for completely derailing the discussion away from China's near perfect coup on 5G tech. And the existential certainty that that coup would have posed for the continued sovereignty of this land. I would offer the suggestion that if the prospect means so little to you, you might consider immigrating to China yourself. That is if China would accept immigrants from America, which they don't.
I'll tell you one thing Obama did for unity for starters. He exposed a lot of the racial tensions that were out there and he lack of representation for minorities.
The number of people threatening were exceedlingly low. Most of them were protesting out of concern. Do you think they would have that right or should they be stripped of it?
Sci-Fi Wrote:I'll tell you one thing Obama did for unity for starters. He exposed a lot of the racial tensions that were out there and he lack of representation for minorities.
The number of people threatening were exceedlingly low. Most of them were protesting out of concern. Do you think they would have that right or should they be stripped of it?
Obama did not expose racial tensions, he created them. The increased incidents of racial violence during Obama's reign were not coincidental, they were part of his cynical agenda. A great example was his so-called beer summit, where he falsely accused police offers of racism and then brought the police officers together with the actual racists over mugs of beer. There have been bigger racists in the WHite House than the Obamas, but not since LBJ's presidency.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Obama did not expose racial tensions, he created them. The increased incidents of racial violence during Obama's reign were not coincidental, they were part of his cynical agenda. A great example was his so-called beer summit, where he falsely accused police offers of racism and then brought the police officers together with the actual racists over mugs of beer. There have been bigger racists in the WHite House than the Obamas, but not since LBJ's presidency.
Sci-Fi's source is pure spin. That was for Sci-Fi Hoot, I know you were clear on the matter. And I agree wholeheartedly that Obama created racial tensions. Matter of fact, he resuscitated racism's rotting corpse. And then proceeded to start enough wild fires so as to guarantee their continued burning, far after he mercifully left office.
TheRealThing Wrote:Sci-Fi's source is pure spin. That was for Sci-Fi Hoot, I know you were clear on the matter. And I agree wholeheartedly that Obama created racial tensions. Matter of fact, he resuscitated racism's rotting corpse. And then proceeded to start enough wild fires so as to guarantee their continued burning, far after he mercifully left office.
I never bother following links with no comment or excerpt. In this case, I would not have followed a link to a Slate opinion anyway. When I see a link with no comment, I assume that the poster never bothered reading the linked material himself, so why should I waste any time reading it?
What's so bad about Slate? I read opinions from Fox News when you guys post them.
Sci-Fi Wrote:What's so bad about Slate? I read opinions from Fox News when you guys post them.
I already explained why I did not click your link. As for Slate, I don't need some socialist columnist telling me what my opinion should be. If I was the only person left in this country who believed that it is wrong for American citizens to accept the presence of illegal aliens in this country, it would not cause me to change my own opinion.
If liberals want open borders, then they need to amend our Constitution because our federal government is currently obliged to provide border security to its citizens.
Quote:Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Slate is not a socialist website. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make them a socialist. Even Nancy Pelosi did an interview rejecting socialism recently.
As to that amendment, maybe we should amend that. And before you guys jump down on me, it's talking about protecting against invasion. That people on our own soil be protected against invasion. So we don't have Britain invading us like they did under George Washington and John Adams. It's not talking about letting people in for open borders.
Take a look at this - since Republicans are so big on the economy - and tell me that undocumented workers aren't important.
https://theconversation.com/why-care-abo...nomy-98790
It is an invasion as I said, the lefties under the watchful eye of Barack wrote 8 years worth of regs meant to stop any meaningful form of border enforcement. And if 2,000 insurgents a day is any indicator, they were pretty darn successful to that end. Hopefully the government will first take all that you have in order to give it to these deserving folks, and leave the rest of us to eke by on what we've worked for.
So you're saying the government has never done anything to help you?
There is nothing wrong with our tax dollars being used to give to those who are in need.