Posted on 06/08/2011 9:50:49 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
——————Good, then we need to keep net neutrality so that can’t be interfered with.-—————
The government wants net neutrality so they can start interfering. All facts point in that direction.
—————You don’t want only sites with rich backing (*cough* Soros *cough*)-——————
This is beyond orwellian. Because net neutrality will do such a good job making sure that Soros websites can’t gain a monopoly, soros has become such a big funder of net neutrality astroturf groups.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Only a fool would think that Soros is putting this much money into net neutrality to limit his own influence.
That puts the lie to the obvious. Net neutrality is not what you think it is.
———————You also need to add who is owned by whom. Why would Genachowski be for net neutrality? FREE PRESS!!! LEFTIST!!! MARXIST!!!————————
Make fun of it all you like, the Free Press infiltration of FCC is something even you won’t deny.
—————You also need to add who is owned by whom.—————
Speaking of over simplification. At what time will you start calling progressive corporations for what they are?
-—————He has a huge interest in companies that operate on the Internet.-——————
He does. He has an interest in controlling them.
Humans are driven by power as much as money. Some see it, some don’t.
As opposed to the absolutely proven corporate infiltration? Which FCC commissioner got a cushy high-paid VP job at Free Press after voting in their interests? Oh, sorry, that was Comcast.
At what time will you start calling progressive corporations for what they are?
We are calling them what they are -- for-profit corporations. Even ones with a liberal bent will still do what is for profit regardless, or they wouldn't be successful.
He does. He has an interest in controlling them. Humans are driven by power as much as money.
Of course he is. And these are companies that operate ON the Internet. Lack of net neutrality would diminish both his power and his money.
No opposed, *including* those proven corporate infiltration. Proven CORPORATE infiltration.
------------We are calling them what they are -- for-profit corporations.------------
Progressives are always progressive first. So no, you are not calling them what they are.
They are for-power corporations.
-----------Even ones with a liberal bent will still do what is for profit regardless, or they wouldn't be successful.-----------
General electric, along with many liberal media companies prove the lie of this statement.
----------Lack of net neutrality would diminish both his power and his money.------------
Good. I want the marxist's power diminished. I want the marxist's money diminished. That makes my freedom safer. Makes yours safer too.
We know progressivism is not economically viable. This is one of our main arguing points against progressives. Thus, by definition, a corporation that put its progressivism above profits would go bankrupt.
I want the marxist's power diminished. I want the marxist's money diminished.
Okay, you don't want net neutrality because it would advance progressive companies, but it is progressive companies like Comcast that are leading the fight against net neutrality. Does. Not. Compute.
When your basic premise applied to the reality of the situation becomes absolutely illogical and contradictory, you should realize that this is not a purely left/right issue.
-——————We know progressivism is not economically viable.————
Ironically, so do they. Enough of them, anyways. Which is why they seek to codify their belief into law.
That way, you can do whatever you want and you’re stuck.
————This is one of our main arguing points against progressives. Thus, by definition, a corporation that put its progressivism above profits would go bankrupt.————
Such as General Electric. And nearly all media companies. I know if I asked the general freeper audience, I could get more corporations.
Yet they don’t change. Progressivism over profits.
————Okay, you don’t want net neutrality because it would advance progressive companies-—————
I don’t want net neutrality because it would advance progressivism. Period. Progressivism at the FCC. Progressivism at corporations. Progressivism at foundations. Progressivism at the media.
All of it. Stop simplifying.
-————but it is progressive companies like Comcast that are leading the fight against net neutrality. Does. Not. Compute.-———————
I can only judge them based on their actions that we can see.
There are several ways we know Comcast is a progressive company. For example, let’s say Fox was going to buy up NBC/MSNBC instead of Comcast.
The left wouldn’t just have made a corporatist argument. It would’ve been primarily driven by fears of conservatism in the news. Comcast would’ve gotten the Sarah Palin treatment by the entirety of the media.
But that never happened.
And Comcast isn’t making changes to NBC so that people actually want to watch it. Does. Not. Compute.
—————you should realize that this is not a purely left/right issue.—————
I agree. It’s not a left/right issue. Net Chinality is a totalitarian issue.
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.