If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patexia)   The Republican platform has gained the support of the MPAA because of its tough stance on net neutrality   (patexia.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, MPAA, Republican, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, internet freedom, big data, private data, Republican platform, Chris Dodd  
•       •       •

1449 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Sep 2012 at 11:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-01 06:36:46 PM
Well of course!
 
2012-09-01 06:42:33 PM
You mean "hatred of freedom".
 
2012-09-01 06:58:27 PM
Just one more reason (among many) for me not to vote R.
 
2012-09-01 11:43:38 PM
At least someone is willing to stand against the Orwellian nightmare that is leaving the internet as it is.
 
2012-09-01 11:56:00 PM
I'll wait to hear from Danville N.C. on this issue.
 
2012-09-01 11:56:04 PM
Now all the Republicans need to do is use BitTorrent to replicate a couple million of those votes and win the whole thing.
 
2012-09-01 11:56:47 PM
A vote for Republicans is a vote against free porn.

Now everyone go out and vote for your personal interests, not for slogans, buzzwords, or forwarded emails. Remember, the booth is private. You can even lie to your friends and family about who you voted for.

/if everyone did that, the current Republicans would lose 75% of their votes and either be laughed or pitied into the history books
 
2012-09-01 11:57:29 PM
Yeah, more money, because Rmoney's war chest is running dreadfully low.

/That'll definitely cure all of Mitt's woes..
 
2012-09-01 11:59:43 PM
In other news, Chris Dodd is a whore who will say anything that the people who sign his paychecks tell him to say.

/Sen, I am disappoint.
 
2012-09-02 12:01:45 AM
This issue may send tingles either "up" or "down" the legs of the neutral media outlets.
 
2012-09-02 12:03:43 AM
And the buttsex. They hate the buttsex.
 
2012-09-02 12:04:24 AM
Okay, Farkers:

I had a Blue Dog Dem in the pocket of telecom industries, vehemently against net neutrality.

Now I have a Republican who has taken up the mantle of the Tea Party, but has consistently voted against SOPA, CISPA, etc. because that actually vibes with his stated philosophy and folks publicly called him out on it. He rose to the occasion there as much as I hate his other stances.

So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?
 
2012-09-02 12:05:27 AM

Jensaarai: Okay, Farkers:

I had a Blue Dog Dem in the pocket of telecom industries, vehemently against net neutrality.

Now I have a Republican who has taken up the mantle of the Tea Party, but has consistently voted against SOPA, CISPA, etc. because that actually vibes with his stated philosophy and folks publicly called him out on it. He rose to the occasion there as much as I hate his other stances.

So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?


The choice is clear. Vote Republican.
 
2012-09-02 12:11:30 AM
Myopic Penguin Ambulation Association? What?
 
2012-09-02 12:14:46 AM

Jensaarai: So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?


Congress has evolved into a de facto parliamentary body thanks to ideological sorting of the parties. Voting a for a Republican means you vote for their platform much more than the individual politician himself.
 
2012-09-02 12:15:54 AM

Jensaarai: Okay, Farkers:

I had a Blue Dog Dem in the pocket of telecom industries, vehemently against net neutrality.

Now I have a Republican who has taken up the mantle of the Tea Party, but has consistently voted against SOPA, CISPA, etc. because that actually vibes with his stated philosophy and folks publicly called him out on it. He rose to the occasion there as much as I hate his other stances.

So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?


In all seriousness, I would take the chance and vote against the incumbent. When I am presented with a dilemma like yours (assuming that it is a competitive race), I default to going against incumbency.

/Republicans are so bad now that I haven't had to do that for the last three elections.
//straight ticket Dem except for voting Green for Congress in 2008
///I was pissed at the party for allowing some jackass who had only ever pulled Republican primary ballots (and was only slightly less conservative than the Republican incumbent) to run in that race
////that race was embarrassing for the local Democrats
 
2012-09-02 12:24:54 AM

Notabunny: Myopic Penguin Ambulation Association? What?


Money Penny's Awesome Ass.
 
2012-09-02 12:35:03 AM
Don't you people get it, Romney is building it.

People now pay a flat fee for the delivery of 0's and 1's at an approximate quantity and speed. That is it.

If the internet could be divided into different functions and sold for multiple price points, think of the utility that would add to the internet.

President Romney will build it.
 
2012-09-02 12:39:45 AM

Mentat: At least someone is willing to stand against the Orwellian nightmare that is leaving the internet as it is.


img.youtube.com29.media.tumblr.comwww.rubywildflower.com

truth
 
2012-09-02 12:42:22 AM

Solid Muldoon: Notabunny: Myopic Penguin Ambulation Association? What?

Money Penny's Awesome Ass.


Masculine Personal Assistant, Antoine
 
2012-09-02 12:48:06 AM

Notabunny: Solid Muldoon: Notabunny: Myopic Penguin Ambulation Association? What?

Money Penny's Awesome Ass.

Masculine Personal Assistant, Antoine


Money, Please, And ALL!
 
2012-09-02 12:56:43 AM
Money, Power And Autocracy!
 
2012-09-02 01:35:23 AM
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Old angry white man is pleased, and needs prune juice for further pleasure. 

Onion flavored prune juice, please.
 
2012-09-02 01:45:20 AM

Jensaarai: Okay, Farkers:

I had a Blue Dog Dem in the pocket of telecom industries, vehemently against net neutrality.

Now I have a Republican who has taken up the mantle of the Tea Party, but has consistently voted against SOPA, CISPA, etc. because that actually vibes with his stated philosophy and folks publicly called him out on it. He rose to the occasion there as much as I hate his other stances.

So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?


Vote for whom you please and realize that regardless of whatever the next SOPA is; if it passes and isn't vetoed, it's going to hit a Supreme Court challenge like the Titanic hit that iceberg almost before the ink on the President's signature dries.

And the Supreme Court has never passed legislation that suppresses free speech in any way.
 
2012-09-02 01:54:27 AM

Jensaarai: Okay, Farkers:

I had a Blue Dog Dem in the pocket of telecom industries, vehemently against net neutrality.

Now I have a Republican who has taken up the mantle of the Tea Party, but has consistently voted against SOPA, CISPA, etc. because that actually vibes with his stated philosophy and folks publicly called him out on it. He rose to the occasion there as much as I hate his other stances.

So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?


Vote for the Dem. If the Republicans push for anti-net neutrality legislation it'll stall in the Senate and if the Dem proposes it themselves they'll filibuster it on partisan reflex alone.
 
2012-09-02 01:57:21 AM
Thanks for the interesting answers, guys.

When the politics tab isn't preoccupied with the Trolling Games, it can actually be a pretty insightful place.

/once a month or so
 
2012-09-02 02:02:23 AM
Face it. Like everything else in this country, the internet can be bought. Net neutrality has at least one foot in the grave.
 
2012-09-02 02:02:35 AM

clkeagle: A vote for Republicans is a vote against free porn.

Now everyone go out and vote for your personal interests, not for slogans, buzzwords, or forwarded emails. Remember, the booth is private. You can even lie to your friends and family about who you voted for.

/if everyone did that, the current Republicans would lose 75% of their votes and either be laughed or pitied into the history books


Actually, since fighting all pornography is an official plank of the GOP, a vote for Republicans is a vote against ALL porn.
 
2012-09-02 02:14:16 AM

missiv: [www.hollywoodreporter.com image 648x365]
Old angry white man is pleased, and needs prune juice for further pleasure. 

Onion flavored prune juice, please.


Nobody, I mean NOBODY puts ketchup on a hot dog.
 
2012-09-02 02:19:33 AM

Gyrfalcon: And the Supreme Court has never passed legislation that suppresses free speech in any way.


Wait, what? (Citzens United)
 
2012-09-02 02:33:09 AM

Alphax: Gyrfalcon: And the Supreme Court has never passed legislation that suppresses free speech in any way.

Wait, what? (Citzens United)


The whole point of Citizens United was to expand free speech. The more money you have, the more speech you have. If you liberals would just be rich like normal people, you'd understand this.
 
2012-09-02 03:40:20 AM
This just in from the department of we saw this one coming.
 
2012-09-02 03:52:21 AM

Gyrfalcon: And the Supreme Court has never passed legislation that suppresses free speech in any way.


Haha, what?

Sarcasm or ignorance?
 
2012-09-02 05:00:29 AM

Notabunny: Alphax: Gyrfalcon: And the Supreme Court has never passed legislation that suppresses free speech in any way.

Wait, what? (Citzens United)

The whole point of Citizens United was to expand free speech. The more money you have, the more speech you have. If you liberals would just be rich like normal people, you'd understand this.


Seriously. If you would just sell one of your houses, you could buy all the speech you need.
 
2012-09-02 08:34:42 AM
Surely the thing with net neutrality is if one particular country, even the US, abandons it the rest of the internet will route around that country - servers meant for global traffic will move away from the US to avoid having to pay extra tolls, extra cables will be laid to bypass the US via Canada, Mexico, etc. So by the time the law was enforced, everyone outside the US would be largely fine - even US web services that cater to a global audience would move at least some of their capacity offshore to avoid the extra costs where there is no need to pay them. So it may enrich ISPs in the country but only at the expense of users in the country (depending on whether there is enough competition among ISPs to ensure prices drop), and it will reduce competition from new services (which will perform badly compared to the existing services that can afford to pay tolls on a large audience) and shift innovation away from that country (why start up in a location that hampers you and eats up all the investment funds you have secured), but every other country that retains net neutrality doesn't really get affected, and might even benefit in some ways.
 
2012-09-02 08:38:23 AM
So the GOP is supporting more govt regulation???
 
2012-09-02 08:49:49 AM

monoski: So the GOP is supporting more govt regulation???


What's happening here is that the Republicans are against government regulation. They want to do away with any restrictions on ISPs, carriers, and large media services that prevent them from, say, hijacking your web experience and taking you to their content services, instead of whereever you actually wanted to go, for whatever reason.
 
2012-09-02 09:08:20 AM
Well, let's be fair. Never once in the history of the world has a common carrier ever succeeded as a business. That's why landline telephone service is barely usable and connects only a tiny fraction of households, and that's why Fedex and UPS constantly teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. It's why the truck transportation industry has basically collapsed and we can't get goods from city to city. To try and apply failed common carrier rules to the Internet is certain to destroy it.

</sarcasm>
 
2012-09-02 09:26:55 AM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: monoski: So the GOP is supporting more govt regulation???

What's happening here is that the Republicans are against government regulation. They want to do away with any restrictions on ISPs, carriers, and large media services that prevent them from, say, hijacking your web experience and taking you to their content services, instead of whereever you actually wanted to go, for whatever reason.


Now that sounds more like it. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-09-02 09:36:33 AM

clkeagle: A vote for Republicans is a vote against free porn.

Now everyone go out and vote for your personal interests, not for slogans, buzzwords, or forwarded emails. Remember, the booth is private. You can even lie to your friends and family about who you voted for.

/if everyone did that, the current Republicans incumbents of both parties would lose 75% 95% of their votes and either be laughed or pitied into the history books


FTFY
 
2012-09-02 09:49:48 AM
The repubs are against regulation of business but for regulation of the individual. Sort of sickening really.
 
2012-09-02 10:08:58 AM
Big surprise. Hollywood liberals want people to pay for the product they produce.
 
2012-09-02 10:14:22 AM

gaspode: The repubs are against regulation of business but for regulation of the individual.


Businesses are individuals.
 
2012-09-02 12:26:16 PM

Jensaarai: Okay, Farkers:

I had a Blue Dog Dem in the pocket of telecom industries, vehemently against net neutrality.

Now I have a Republican who has taken up the mantle of the Tea Party, but has consistently voted against SOPA, CISPA, etc. because that actually vibes with his stated philosophy and folks publicly called him out on it. He rose to the occasion there as much as I hate his other stances.

So now it's time to vote. Do I go for replacing Tea Party guy who is likely to vote down net neutrality legislation, but has a proven voting record with also being against SOPA and its followups, or do I vote for his replacement who is likely to be anti net neutrality *and* pro whatever-the-next-SOPA is?


Which party would you prefer to control Congress?
 
2012-09-02 12:59:10 PM
The Republican platform has gained the support of the MPAA because of its tough stance on net neutrality easy stance of accepting money.

FTFY.
 
2012-09-02 01:51:37 PM
"GET OUT IN THE STREETS AND YOU TELL EVERY SINGLE MOTHERF*CKER YOU MEET WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR!"

*rinse* *repeat* *disappear up your own ass for four years until next election*
 
2012-09-02 04:21:05 PM

badhatharry: Big surprise. Hollywood liberals want people to pay for the product they produce.



I think it's cute you believe Hollywood the big business is at all "liberal"
 
2012-09-02 04:35:37 PM

Alphax: Gyrfalcon: And the Supreme Court has never passed legislation that suppresses free speech in any way.

Wait, what? (Citzens United)


Citizens United was approved by the Court on the argument that striking down the law could be used to suppress voting endorsement from ANY business--not just big corporations but mom&pop companies or even incorporated individuals (like doctors & lawyers). It was framed as a Free Speech issue not a campaign contribution issue; and the idea that restricting the endorsement from an individual who happened to be incorporated would have a chilling effect on free speech.

The Court upheld Citizens United on that basis, and possibly rightly so.
 
2012-09-02 07:39:55 PM

intelligent comment below: badhatharry: Big surprise. Hollywood liberals want people to pay for the product they produce.


I think it's cute you believe Hollywood the big business is at all "liberal"


And what's wrong with wanting people to pay for your product?
 
2012-09-02 07:56:25 PM

propasaurus: intelligent comment below: badhatharry: Big surprise. Hollywood liberals want people to pay for the product they produce.


I think it's cute you believe Hollywood the big business is at all "liberal"

And what's wrong with wanting people to pay for your product?



Nothing, but acting like the gestapo for anyone who dares make a copy and shares your property is not liberal and certainly authoritarian.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report