President Trump

I ask because I don't think I've known anyone who refers to Obama as "Obamer".

As to your question:
http://fortune.com/2017/12/14/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-donald-trump/

 

It's a new York accent thing. Like, when you hear a New Yorker say "I saw", sounds like "I sawer". Same concept. Plus it sounds funny.

 

This is my favorite paragraph in that article:

"That’s not to say Obama shared Pai’s views—rather, the president was abiding by the convention that the minority party gets to nominate two appointees to the five-seat commission. The other three seats were taken by Democrats."

Oh, how nice of Obama to abide. Hahhahahaha. I love how s*** gets reworded to fit someones narrative.

That's like saying, oh, well, Disney is just trying to buy Fox out to give an audience better content for its viewing pleasure.

Politics man. All the same no matter what direction.

 

So are you just not going to acknowledge the phrase saying that McConnell recommended Pai be on the committee? In fact, all those who voted for gutting the regs were republican choices. This is on the GOP. None of this false equivalence BS.

 

I know the game. Demos blame Reps, Reps blame Demos for everything that goes wrong. It's a disgusting cycle I no longer will put up with. Both sides are clowns, and 90% of politicians need to be put to pasture along with all the scumbags who support them.

 

Ugh, fine. You're beyond the system. Good for you. I'm gonna keep trying to stop the GOP from selling our internet to the highest bidder, though.

 

Simple fact is, Dems placed the protections in place, and repubs took them. All in the name of putting corporate interests before the citizenry.

 

I agree on the internet thing with you. Anything that gives more power to the Comcast and Att's of the world is bad news.

 

Steve Bannon Blasts ‘Javanka’ As Everything Wrong With The White House

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bannon-blasts-javankaat-white-house_us_5a3efe16e4b0b0e5a7a29a12

 

I'm against net neutrality, because most of the issues that net neutrality intends to solve can be rectified by using existing anti-trust laws.

The main problem is that a cartel of phone and cable companies, condoned and supported by local, state, and federal government, have access to the telephone poles that connect our broadband networks.

When Google tried to start up Google Fiber, these cartel members used their power to keep Google from building their network.

The two following articles are long reads, but well worth it.

LINK

LINK

Net neutrality is simply a case of "wagging the dog". It treats the symptoms, but doesn't cure the underlying disease.

As long as these crony monopolies exist, with support of local, state, and federal government, this crap will continue.

 

Oh god, you're not one of those that fell for the free market fallacy, are you? There's no such thing, there never has, and never will be. Isn't anti trust more big bad scary govint getting all up in benevolent ISP biz?

 

Beside that point, why would you EVER stop treating the symptom without treating the underlying cause? The GOP just got rid of consumer protections in favor of big conglomerates, admit it. I'm now constantly having to monitor my already inflated internet for hints of slowing from many sources, all because Trump and the GOP are draining the swamp and letting all that sweet sweet trickling come down upon us.

 

I don't understand your snarky response at all. You support pole monopolies that exist due to crony relationships cultivated among local, state, and federal governments?

You didn't read the articles at all. Admit it.

I understand. It's the holiday season.

 

That first sentence...what in any of my posts gave you even the slightest hint that that was my cause? Are you trying to misrepresent my argument, or do you honestly believe that's what I was saying?
2)I know how ISPs control lines, already, I've read similar articles, and completely agree that it's a bs agreement. That's not being argued. What is being argued is why you'd get rid of these protections without treating what you said was the underlying cause?

 

I assume you mean "while treating the underlying cause".

Nobody will treat the underlying cause as long as it's being covered by excessive FCC interference. It's similar to obese patients who take pain pills to cover up pain due to excessive weight instead of losing the pounds.

 

6.0 in technical and presentation.
5.8 from the Russian judge.

 

I mean, had Kim Jung Un tweeted what the Donald tweeted to him (in regards to having a bigger Nuclear button), it would be considered a threat and would not have been taken lightly.

But this senile piece of garbage types away on his Tweeter and we just pretend like it's a joke? GTFO of here.