Posted on 02/08/2016 11:10:49 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Exactly!
Then why was he the biggest supporter of the Free Trade with Asia nonsense. That alone should shuttle his campaign. Does he not see what a disaster NAFTA was to this country? That tis why I want Trump because he understand World affairs and Cruz wants a global economy. Trump wants a U.S. economy. Huge differences between the two. But since you have read his thesis maybe his take on the Constitution and founding documents may make it reasonable for Cruz to be a globalist......his wife is too which actually is more frightening because she wants us to be equal to Mexico and Canada. Yikes. Two really educated people but not intelligent or common sense.
Hope he doesn’t repeat it - folks will go all “Rubio” on him....
: )
Ted’s on right point again. This is a troubling problem and I’m glad he’s talking about it.
----------
If Cruz thinks that then he is a moron. Net neutrality is about Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
Cruz is using lawyer scum terms to try and trick people into thinking its a bad thing because he is getting donations from groups that would benefit from the lifting of net neutrality is my guess.
Net Neutrality is something *good*. It means FR can keep on keeping on without the media throttling it.
--------
Exactly. I am kind of shocked people on here are against it - no net neutrality would be the death knell for these kinds of forums.
Seriously
%$#^%&**(%#$ losers are going there?
The Magic Negro wants to institute a universal poll tax?
Valerie has jumped the tracks completely this time
What a wonderful Legacy for the FIRST American-AFRICAN president!
How does the Congressional Black Caucus feel about that!??
Tax the internet?
Seriously??
Morons.
The right to free speech is USELESS without the right to LISTEN.
That might have worked with the Second Amendment, taxing ammunition to accomplish the same thing, BUT NOT THIS TIME!!
I call BS on Rush Limbough’s explanation for Net Neutrality. Who is he carrying water for this time around?
Welcome to the online home of one of the largest conservative grassroots political organizations in America.
Christian Coalition offers people of faith the vehicle to be actively involved in impacting the issues they care about - from the county courthouse to the halls of Congress.
Fast Facts for Conservatives on Net Neutrality
Since its birth, the Internet has existed on phone lines which were covered under what are known as "common carrier" regulations, (or "Net Neutrality"), which prevented discrimination by network providers based on content or where a call originated. This principle carried over to the Internet and helped make it a dynamic engine for free expression and economic growth.
In recent months, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lifted "net neutrality" regulations off of the Internet, leaving the issue up to Congress to decide. It is currently being debated as part of pending telecommunications legislation.
"Net neutrality" policies helped create the most free and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace. This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to top.
Unless Congress acts, it will change drastically - for the worse. The new regulations will leave consumers with less choice and our economy with less innovation and competition. Without equality of access, such innovation would be diminished at best, or perhaps even begin to move to competing countries in the world economy.
The new FCC regulations set the cable and phone companies up to become the equivalent of the mafia to the Internet. Today, consumers dictate the evolution of the Internet. Under the new regulations, cable and phone companies will be making the decisions. And their decisions will not be made based on quality, but rather on who pays the most "protection money" to be protected from the competition of a truly free marketplace.
Ted Cruz on Net Neutrality: ‘Obama Is Salivating to Regulate the Internet’
Seriously
%$#^%&**(%#$ losers are going there?
The Magic Negro wants to institute a universal poll tax?
Valerie has jumped the tracks completely this time
What a wonderful Legacy for the FIRST American-AFRICAN president!
How does the Congressional Black Caucus feel about that!??
Tax the internet?
Seriously??
Morons.
The right to free speech is USELESS without the right to LISTEN.
That might have worked with the Second Amendment, taxing ammunition to accomplish the same thing, BUT NOT THIS TIME!!
[SNIP OF MATERIAL - WORTH CLICKING ON THE LINK AND STARTING AT THE BEGINNING]
“..............................................................................
RUSH: Net neutrality is gonna give you exactly what you just described. The government is going to assume the position of determining which sites are being accessed more than others. If, say, Fox News or RushLimbaugh.com is being read by many more people than, say, MSNBC’s site, the government will say, “It’s not fair! Not enough people are accessing MSNBC.” So under the terms of neutrality, they will order Fox News or RushLimbaugh.com throttled and access steered to MSNBC. That’s what they want. What you just described is exactly what they’re gonna do with this.
CALLER: But isn’t it the interesting thing, though, that that idea has been kicked around by Internet service providers for years now, of providing a service to customers that will be a tiered service? So it wouldn’t be the government doing it. It would be the ISPs themselves.
RUSH: It means you’re gonna have the choice to opt in. Look, it’s like anything else. If some ISPs want to offered tiered service, it’s all up to whether or not they can sell it, make a profit offering it, have other people sign up to it and use it as the way it’s intended, however that would be. What I’m telling you, Johnny, is... All right, let me throw one more thing in the mix here. I’m just speaking off the cuff here and off the top of my head.
Two or three years ago I had an occasion to speak with, shall we say, somebody intimately involved with what all of this is about. What you just described is exactly what this person was trying to get me to pay attention to. This person was trying to warn me that net neutrality is actually going to mean the policing of content. While you think it’s about cost and access to your entertainment, what it really is going to be is that.
Remember, we haven’t seen the regulations ‘cause they’re keeping them under lock and key, 330 pages. What it’s really going to be is people in positions of political power making choices. For example, MSNBC has no audience. Nobody wants to watch ‘em. It’s so bad they’re starting to fire everybody now. It’s so bad, MSNBC is almost on the verge of announcing that they are going to abandon liberal ideology as their format.
I have the story in the Stack today. It’s that bad. Now, if we’re regulated the way they want to regulate the Internet, and if the signal to your TV set arrived the same way it does to your computer, Obama, or whatever, could look at the fact that MSNBC has got no viewers and see that Fox’s got all of them and CNN’s got some, and that’s not fair. “This isn’t neutral; this isn’t equal,” and they would take action to make sure that probably Fox would lose some viewers by having access denied.
So that MSNBC, under the guise of that point of view: Having an equal right to exposure. But here’s the thing. Folks, I’m not making this up. When net neutrality first came along, when I was first warned about it by a government official during the Bush administration about this, I was told that the people dreaming of this are actually dreaming of controlling content, political content, and making sure that one political point of view does not have more exposure than another.
Meaning if there’s 50 conservative sites and 10 liberal sites, the 50 conservative sites are gonna be punished. Access to them will be limited. ‘Cause it’s not fair. That’s what the original warning I received about net neutrality was. All this stuff you’re hearing about limiting your content provider and prices and Netflix, all that’s just hullabaloo to get you interested in it to get you supporting it, because they think they’ve made you believe they’re gonna fix your grievance.
But it really is about the Democrat Party making sure that there isn’t another Rush Limbaugh, making sure that there isn’t another Fox News on the Internet. It’s about making sure they don’t lose the battle for content control on the Internet. That’s what it really is all about. You can’t argue with me because you haven’t seen the regs. They’re not releasing them. You can argue with me all you want, but you have no ground to stand on.
You’re in quicksand, you’re in a sinkhole because you don’t know. And you can tell me I’m full of it and all wet all you want, but I’m not. And you don’t know. How do I know? ‘Cause I know liberals. I know exactly who they are. I’ve been victimized by ‘em I can’t tell you how many times over 25 years. I know exactly who they are. I know what their objectives are. I know what their wish list is. And I’m not on it, and neither is Fox News. They want control of the Internet for political, ideological content.
RUSH: Here is Byron in Baltimore. You’re next. It’s great to have you with us, Byron. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you so much, Rush. I appreciate the call. My wife and I really enjoy your show so much. I am a senior advisor engineer for a military defense contractor. We’ve been talking a lot about Netflix and so forth and I appreciate the various viewpoints, and I also appreciate the idea that we really don’t know what’s in this regulation yet. Given the Regime’s track record with laws and so forth, my hopes are not good right now that this is good for anybody.
RUSH: Yeah, this is what I don’t understand. With all of the evidence in front of everybody, I mean, did anybody think when Obama was elected he was gonna have his wife take over the food industry? The school lunch program? Did anybody think that? No. But he did. Did anybody think that health care was gonna become the abomination that it was? Everybody had good intentions associated with this. It’s right in front of everybody’s face what’s gonna happen here, and yet they don’t see the same danger that already we face in other areas. It boggles my mind.
CALLER: I’d like to suggest something, if I may.
RUSH: Sure.
CALLER: And that is that one of the big areas that are gonna be impacted by this is the military defense business. Now, why would that be true? I can contrast, being an engineer today and being an engineer back in the late seventies. In the late seventies when I needed information on a transistor, on a spectrum analyzer, whatever it was, I had to get the name of the manufacturer, find out where they’re located, call them up, talk to a sales guy, have them send me a brochure that could take anywhere from one to two weeks for me to get before I could even start doing anything with that component or device.
Today, if I need information on a spectrum analyzer, or if I need software for a spectrum analyzer, information on a transistor, I go online and in 10 minutes I can download whatever I need. Now, I’m one engineer working for one military defense contractor. All the people that do the same kinds of things that I do and the same manner that I do it in, and that’s a good percentage of that engineering community, are gonna be impacted by anything that impedes the flow of information, better and different, on the Internet.
RUSH: Think of your toilet getting stopped up with too much toilet paper. Well, you may not like that analogy. But then you might say, well, it’s the military, they’re gonna have an exemption. See, why should — that’s another ball of wax.”
What Omugabe is doing is salivating to be IMPEACHED before his regime is over.
I suppose he will also make exceptions for the Criminal Congress, the "new" privileged subculture and illegal aliens?
Seriously? What Omugabe is doing is salivating to be IMPEACHED before his regime is over.
I suppose he will also make exceptions for the Criminal Congress, the "new" privileged subculture and illegal aliens?
By Executive Order, I suppose...
Seriously?
Make sure that the entire electorate is deaf and dumb?
IF THIS ISN'T CAUSE FOR IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!
----
If Rush said that he is either a moron or a liar or high on hillbilly heroin again.
Fast Facts for Conservatives on Net Neutrality
Since its birth, the Internet has existed on phone lines which were covered under what are known as "common carrier" regulations, (or "Net Neutrality"), which prevented discrimination by network providers based on content or where a call originated. This principle carried over to the Internet and helped make it a dynamic engine for free expression and economic growth.
In recent months, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lifted "net neutrality" regulations off of the Internet, leaving the issue up to Congress to decide. It is currently being debated as part of pending telecommunications legislation.
"Net neutrality" policies helped create the most free and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace. This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to top.
Unless Congress acts, it will change drastically - for the worse. The new regulations will leave consumers with less choice and our economy with less innovation and competition. Without equality of access, such innovation would be diminished at best, or perhaps even begin to move to competing countries in the world economy.
The new FCC regulations set the cable and phone companies up to become the equivalent of the mafia to the Internet. Today, consumers dictate the evolution of the Internet. Under the new regulations, cable and phone companies will be making the decisions. And their decisions will not be made based on quality, but rather on who pays the most "protection money" to be protected from the competition of a truly free marketplace.
The Internet currently provides a megaphone for political expression by virtue of the fact that every site, no matter how obscure, is just as accessible to every individual as any site with a multi-million dollar budget. Every American has the opportunity to create their own site and say what they want to the entire world.
Conservatives had made many gains in recent years thanks to the power of the Internet. In terms of organization, it has become an indispensable tool. In political communications, it allows us to finally bypass the liberal media and to get our message out more effectively. These gains must be preserved!
Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from now allowing consumers to have access to speech that they don't support. What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, this could happen - and it would be legal!
Allowing Internet service providers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. But such things have already begun to happen. For Example: In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival web-based phone service (like Vonage, Skype, etc.). In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com [1] - and advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send email plan.
In a time when there is an increasing need to connect citizens with their political system, the Internet has begun to play this role in a big way. Now Congress is on the verge of allowing that newfound energy to be diminished.
Given that most Americans have just one (or at most, two) companies through which they can get broadband access, the free market principle of competition for consumer dollars doesn't enter the picture, just like the old "Ma-Bell" monopoly. Much like the trade-off involved in allowing a telephone monopoly was that the company had to provide equality of service, so too should it be with the Internet duopoly.
Consumers that are already paying monthly fees for broadband access will soon find out they don't actually have what they thought they were paying for. Americans won't have broadband access to the entire Internet, just the part that the cable and phone companies allow them to see.
Politicians that are sitting idle and empowering cable and phone monopolies to have power over what consumers can see on the Internet are some of the same politicians that would criticize countries such as China for not allowing its citizens to be exposed to the free market of ideas represented on the web.
Congress has wisely decided many times in the past to avoid stunting the growth of the Internet via new taxation. They should follow the same logic in this case and not allow the cable and phone companies to stunt its growth with new fees and content based discrimination. In the end, the losers will be consumers, businesses and those who use the Internet for political expression.
© 2015 - Christian Coalition of America - Roberta Combs, President - PO Box 37030 Washington, DC 20013 - 202-479-6900
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.