George Soros Paid $196 Million to Lobby For Net Neutrality.

Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly

I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.

So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.

Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
Click to expand...

Since you're taking this Soros thing for granted, I decided to do some second grade level googling to try to figure out from where it came.

If you google "Soros" and "net neutrality," you'll get this article from the National Review.
nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund

Which cites a guy named Phil Kerpen from a group called American Commitment as saying, “Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content.”

Now if you google American Commitment and Phil Kerpen, you would find that Kerpen was previously involved with Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, and Club for Growth, each of which advocates for the advancement of the interests of big business in the public space. I would say it's fair to say that those interests do not align with those of the average consumer--i.e. lower prices.

As for making this a partisan issue, I would say that Kerpen and AC have done that on their own. American Commitment spent $196,000 on Republican candidates or conservative causes in the 2014 cycle, $1.1 million against Democrats in 2012, and $700,000 for Republicans in 2012.
opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90013640&cycle=2012

So are you really saying that Kerpen and AC are unbiased voices on net neutrality?

As for Soros, the article that d2d seems to be citing (newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/?ns_mail_uid=4855943&ns_mail_job=1610301_02262015&s=al&dkt_nbr=uzndcd79) states that, "From 2000 to 2013, the Ford Foundation has donated $113.6 million and the Open Society Foundations, founded by Soros, has donated $82.7 to pro-net neutrality groups, the Media Research Center is reporting." Not that you would know that the money has been doled out over the last decade and a half, to listen to d2d.

It's probably safe to say that most of those donations were not for net neutrality, unless you were confused.

This is exactly the sort of crony capitalism that several people on here rail about, or at least until it runs up against their hatred for anything Obammer.
Click to expand...

Thank you for enlightening me. I think I've got it now. Republicans are evil and are constantly taking bribes, and you can't bribe a democrat. Thanks.
 
Ed Murray was mayor in the 1980's and 90's? I guess I do need to educate myself. Allegedly

I'm not making it a red v blue issue I am clearly stating it is an open versus secret issue. And you would see that if it was a red president. Don't even try to deny that.

So we can trust the government except we can't because their corporate donors buy them off which is what D2D is saying about Soros but the 332 page secret executive order is better than the free market.

Maybe you and Paradise need a brief recess to get your shit together on how you're going to sell this since neither one of you even knows what you're selling since it's a secret.
Click to expand...

Since you're taking this Soros thing for granted, I decided to do some second grade level googling to try to figure out from where it came.

If you google "Soros" and "net neutrality," you'll get this article from the National Review.
nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund

Which cites a guy named Phil Kerpen from a group called American Commitment as saying, “Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content.”

Now if you google American Commitment and Phil Kerpen, you would find that Kerpen was previously involved with Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, and Club for Growth, each of which advocates for the advancement of the interests of big business in the public space. I would say it's fair to say that those interests do not align with those of the average consumer--i.e. lower prices.

As for making this a partisan issue, I would say that Kerpen and AC have done that on their own. American Commitment spent $196,000 on Republican candidates or conservative causes in the 2014 cycle, $1.1 million against Democrats in 2012, and $700,000 for Republicans in 2012.
opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90013640&cycle=2012

So are you really saying that Kerpen and AC are unbiased voices on net neutrality?

As for Soros, the article that d2d seems to be citing (newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/?ns_mail_uid=4855943&ns_mail_job=1610301_02262015&s=al&dkt_nbr=uzndcd79) states that, "From 2000 to 2013, the Ford Foundation has donated $113.6 million and the Open Society Foundations, founded by Soros, has donated $82.7 to pro-net neutrality groups, the Media Research Center is reporting." Not that you would know that the money has been doled out over the last decade and a half, to listen to d2d.

It's probably safe to say that most of those donations were not for net neutrality, unless you were confused.

This is exactly the sort of crony capitalism that several people on here rail about, or at least until it runs up against their hatred for anything Obammer.
Click to expand...

Thank you for enlightening me. I think I've got it now. Republicans are evil and are constantly taking bribes, and you can't bribe a democrat. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Completely missed the point, but how am I not surprised.

Come back when you have something better.
 
Last edited:
"You're wrong because you don't know what's in the bill. But I'm right because I know what is, even though I actually don't know any more than you. But that doesn't matter because I distrust Obama, and you should too."

Am I dialed in?
Click to expand...

No

I'm not arguing against the executive order not a bill. I'm arguing against the secrecy. If you blindly trust the government that's cool for you. I don't
 
"You're wrong because you don't know what's in the bill. But I'm right because I know what is, even though I actually don't know any more than you. But that doesn't matter because I distrust Obama, and you should too."

Am I dialed in?
Click to expand...

No

I'm not arguing against the executive order not a bill. I'm arguing against the secrecy. If you blindly trust the government that's cool for you. I don't
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it is beyond Nancy Pelosi FS to support it without knowing what's in it. Slapping a positive name on it and then explaining what the name means does not equate to revealing what the order and regulations actually do. By the way, where is all of that transparency we were all promised?
 
"You're wrong because you don't know what's in the bill. But I'm right because I know what is, even though I actually don't know any more than you. But that doesn't matter because I distrust Obama, and you should too."

Am I dialed in?
Click to expand...

No

I'm not arguing against the executive order not a bill. I'm arguing against the secrecy. If you blindly trust the government that's cool for you. I don't
Click to expand...

There's a difference between not trusting the government and thinking the government is always wrong. In addition, corporations are not to be trusted any more than the government.

I'm still reserving judgment until they publish the text.
 
I trust the profit motive over the control motive. I never said the government is always wrong. Stop making shit up. If it's such a great order show us.

Why is it secret?
 
I trust the profit motive over the control motive. I never said the government is always wrong. Stop making shit up. If it's such a great order show us.

Why is it secret?
Click to expand...

Both are not to be trusted. Are you fucking serious?
 
You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
 
You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between not trusting the government, and always thinking there some conspiracy theory to kill us all.

HTH
 
You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between not trusting the government, and always thinking there some conspiracy theory to kill us all.

HTH
Click to expand...

Once again you're arguing against something I never said. How about trying to stay on point. Why is this secret?

I said the profit motive over the control motive. You obviously trust the control over the profit. You think corporations are evil. They aren't. They exist to make money and they need us to do so. They don't have the power to jail or kill to enforce their desires. The government does.

That doesn't mean I think they always will
 
You trust the government so stop acting like you don't. Now, why is this secret?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between not trusting the government, and always thinking there some conspiracy theory to kill us all.

HTH
Click to expand...

Once again you're arguing against something I never said. How about trying to stay on point. Why is this secret?

I said the profit motive over the control motive. You obviously trust the control over the profit. You think corporations are evil. They aren't. They exist to make money and they need us to do so. They don't have the power to jail or kill to enforce their desires. The government does.

That doesn't mean I think they always will
Click to expand...

When did I say corporations are evil? One entity has a sole purpose is profit. The other entity has the sole purpose to work for the people. And both are fucked up.

Why is it secret? Who the hell knows, but it won't be secret long. To enforce regulations, there is kind of a requirement to publish the regulations.
 
Work for the people. Yeah right. Profit requires the consent of the people. There is nothing wrong with profit. It built this country.

You obviously have an issue with profits and corporations. You don't have an issue with your government operating in secret about something as vital to the free exercise of speech as the internet

You don't even wonder why or care.
 
Work for the people. Yeah right. Profit requires the consent of the people. There is nothing wrong with profit. It built this country.

You obviously have an issue with profits and corporations. You don't have an issue with your government operating in secret about something as vital to the free exercise of speech as the internet

You don't even wonder why or care.
Click to expand...

You don't read well. Both are fucked up. Yes, our country had been successful partly because we were self sustaining on farm land and other resources. Built on that foundation, we have been successful because we encourage growth and free market, with minimal regulations. It's a fine line, but business can't be successful without proper oversight by the government. (Look at counties with zero regulations)

Net neutrality has nothing to do with free speech. I do wonder about why it's secret. Doesn't mean I'm going to scream crazy shit about tyranny and such. Wait until you actually see it before you scream. Patience.
 
I'm not screaming. Both aren't fucked up. Why would I wait to see it before questioning the reasons for the secrecy in the first place? You keep claiming its about net neutrality when you have no idea what its about. You're running cover for Obama as usual. He is a proven liar who has lost the trust of the people.

Again more straw man arguing. No one has called for zero regulation. You're all over the map to avoid the only issue at hand.
 
I'm not screaming. Both aren't fucked up. Why would I wait to see it before questioning the reasons for the secrecy in the first place? You keep claiming its about net neutrality when you have no idea what its about. You're running cover for Obama as usual. He is a proven liar who has lost the trust of the people.

Again more straw man arguing. No one has called for zero regulation. You're all over the map to avoid the only issue at hand.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you guys translate what I say. I dont ever cover for Obama. Just because I don't think we are in a depression and I don't think he should be impeached for Benghazi or the other 15 fake scandals, didn't mean I fully support him either. Saying he lied about the $2,500 deal is FS, that was during his campaign and a much different plan than was implemented. The "you can keep your doctor" is valid. In that some people have to change their plan and doctor.

The reality is, I just question the truth and I don't but into conspiracy theories. 20 years ago, actions like this happened all the time and no one knew. 10 years ago even. Now days with government officials twitting, it's different. Does it make it right? No. Does it mean that there us some secret thing the government is trying to mind fuck us? No. None of us know that until it's published.
 
Congress is supposed to pass the laws in open debate.

Article. I, Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.

What part of this sentence don't you understand?
 
Congress is supposed to pass the laws in open debate.

Article. I, Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.

What part of this sentence don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Obama's pen and phone are mightier than that pesky constitution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top