Israel Arrgh

This is nonsense on stilts. West Bank Arabs can vote all they want but the West Bank Arabs refuse to schedule a vote. Abbas doesn’t want to take that risk. West Bank Arabs will always have the right to vote in Palestinian elections and never in Israeli elections.

But Joe has come far. I can’t imagine in 2004 he would ever have referred any party founded by the hated Sharon as moderate. Pity Tzipi was so stubborn. BiBi has been running a clinic on her and Obama and both are irrelevant. I’m not quite sure how Jeff and Joe think the terrorists bombings will resume. There is that fence after all and the last time the Gazan’s tried it 3 years ago the kill ratio was 150-1. Fatah will run out of people 1st. Abbas also certainly has memories of life inside Arafats compound the last year Arafat was alive. I don’t think the urbane and comfortable will return to life with 200 men in a compound with no working toilets.

Israel is now much stronger both economically and technologically since Arafat died and the infatada was ended. We might be on our 3rd generation drone since then with every camera and sensor and weapon significantly more advanced. Were Abbas to ask himself if he wanted to spend the last years of his life as Arafat did I suspect the answer will be no.

Israel’s recent economic prosperity is an achievement that the vast majority of citizens want to preserve and build upon.

**************************************

This is more critical that people realize. It’s a great source of strength and ultimate security. Many Americans are under the illusion Israel is dependent on US financial support. That’s nonsense. Their per capita incomes are nearing the average of the EU-3 and by 2020 will exceed them by a healthy margin. Our approximately $3B in aid represents a little less than 1.5% of their GDP. Our aid is critical for the technology, not the financial value. At the same time Israel is itself technologically proficient. It is also this prosperity that drove the popularity of Sharon and now BiBi. It is also the angle BiBi is pursuing with the West Bank. He wishes them to develop economically as well so they might value peace over terror.

Although I agree that Goldlberg’s article is depressing, the editorial from JPost disproves Goldberg’s assertion that Israel’s democratic existence is at stake. Israel, like the US, will survive and become stronger because journalists will continue to criticize the country and their citizens will continue to challenge the status quo.

This same article could have been written during the time of our civil rights riots. What if President George Wallace (don’t laugh it’s not funny) would have tried to pass a bill outlawing mixed race schools? Far fetched? I suspect as much as Prime Minister Lieberman.

The beauty of democracies is that they are self-correcting. We just over turned Don’t Ask Don’t Tell long after we should have. Late, but we get around to doing the right thing and so does Israel.

But I have to question why you don’t get as irate when Abbas states that “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”. Is that any different than a group of Rabbis (wrongly to be sure) telling jews not to sell to Arabs? Both are heinous, but only one gets your attention. Odd.

“I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”. Is that any different than a group of Rabbis (wrongly to be sure) telling jews not to sell to Arabs? Both are heinous, but only one gets your attention. Odd.

*******************************

It is not odd. It is Joe Klein’s life. The MSM monopoly that existed so long allowed their exalted role of gatekeeper of the news and it’s a habit hard to break. We are not supposed to know of these things else we might think impure thoughts. Goldberg is not stupid. But this is the triumph of ideology over commonsense and one example of why the current debate over the support, or lack of, from American Jews for Israel is largely irrelevant. The fact is Israel’s support now comes from Christians and Conservatives and the fact Israel is jewish is almost besides the point. We are all at war against radical islam and Americans will will not retreat anywhere our allies are fighing the good fight.

RE the post title:
.
Someone spotted Pirate Wench?

Someone spotted Pirate Wench?

***************

Nah, just a garden variety liberal.

“We are all at war against radical islam and Americans will will not retreat anywhere our allies are fighing the good fight.”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/as-the-crow-flies/

I have to agree with you Joe. I had just finished an article in which the wives of 30 rabbis had written a letter, initiated by the far right, calling on Jewish girls not to date Arab men.
.
The letter was full of invective and racial hatred (as excerpts were published).
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.letter.arabs/index.html
.
Astonishingly, 48% believe in not selling land to Arabs. Also Israelis themselves have voided concerns about their own conduct.
.
I think that any claim that democracy exists in Israel is congruent to the claim that democracy in the US prior to Civil Rights.
.
I’m sorry, but the recent moves by Israel, both domestically and internationally gall me.
.
I hope the current wave of recognition sweeping South America for the PA continues, and, eventually,the heat will become so great that the “settlements”* and their inhabitants, are constrained, restrained, and brought home.

“the last time the Gazan’s tried it 3 years ago the kill ratio was 150-1″

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/dropping-a-dime/

But I have to question why you don’t get as irate when Abbas states that “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”. Is that any different than a group of Rabbis (wrongly to be sure) telling jews not to sell to Arabs?

*******************

Umm, actually, those statements are different. The rabbis are telling Israeli Jews not to sell homes to Israeli Arabs (that is Israeli citizens who happen to be Arab, not WB/Gazan Palestinians).

The Israeli equivalent to the Abbas statement would seem to be an Israeli official denying Palestinians refugees the right to claim ownership of homes in Israel — this is pretty much the Israeli governmental position since 1948.

I wish, foghorn.
.
What can we offer to entice her back?

I am so perplexed about your anger over a letter written by a groups of Rabbi’s wives telling jewish women not to date arabs when the arab clergy has for years spewed the vilest anti-semitic hatred, saudi textbooks are filled with the worst form of vitriol and England has complained about what is being taught in saudi sponsored schools.
There is a fallacy that if Israel was to return to pre- 1967 borders including returning East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Gaza etal that peace would break out. History reminds us that from 1948-1967 Jordan, Eygpt and Syria controlled this land and Israel was still attacked repeatedly, condemned in the UN, boycotted by Europe and the US corporations (except for Germany which is why the only cars on the road where VWs and Mercedes Benz) and isolated politically.
What do you think would happen if Israel returned the land?

I’m sorry, but the recent moves by Israel, both domestically and internationally gall

********************************

That opinion is irrational when put in context with recent Palestinian moves and this is your media / political problem. Joe will never report on the egregious behavior of the Palestinians but Fox does and they have by far the larger audience. Of course there’s drudge and the rest of the internet as well as talk radio. There’s just no way of keeping the secret.

I’m somewhat confused as to the practical effect of these moves to recognize Palestine but it’s not going to change the security situation and if anything might exacerbate the civil war between Fatah and Hamas. Do they open two embassies? One in the WB and another in Gaza? Another interesting facet of life in Palestine Joe doesn’t want us to know about.

Interesting how CNN covers the news. There is a reason their ratings have collapsed. This crap just doesn’t sell.

Umm, actually, those statements are different.

*************************************

Yes and the Palestinian statement far worse. The fact is more jews were evicts from Palestinian and oher arab lands forceably while the Arabs who left Israel did so of their own accord. There is a real basic fact Time won’t report but we all know. Arabs can live safely and prosperously and OWN LAND in Israel why the Palestnian govt would never allow Jews to do so in Palestine.

You simply cannot win an argument on morality or rights. Americans don’t get their news from Time. They know what Abbas says and does.

Agreed. She brought some wench sensibility to this site.

Let me guess, war is hell? That it.

It was initiated by far right elements in Israel, and it clearly demonizes an ethnic group, it it was done to further far-right national/racial political purposes.
.
I don’t appreciate racism here, and I don’t appreciate it there. You, of all people, who have been here on Swampland know I can smell it’s presence.
.
As for CNN’s fate, that reflects more on you (collective) than I. It means, candidly, that you do not wish to see any news you perceive as detrimental to your “cause”.
.
This is a free country. Live with it.
.
Your perplexity can now end…

You can discount it as irrational, and you’ve touched on a lot of irrelevant arguments, so what is your point, rdw?
.
I favor what the Palestinians are doing.
.
Here in the US, a “settler” would be recognized for what he is, a brazen thief, and would get himself shot trying to do here what they do in the West Bank.
.
I know I would shoot one of ‘em in a heartbeat if they came for my land…

“What do you think would happen if Israel returned the land?”
.
You would have peace, be able to disenfranchise the cause of terrorist organizations, good relations with Arab neighbors, and an end to an intractable conflict that is becoming increasingly dangerous for Israel to maintain.
.
There would be some terror, but it would decrease as these groups, no longer having a popular cause, would be forced into the fringes of society.

Think rickterp has a point.
.
You completely ignore the “settlers” (thieves) in this equation. The declaration of a Jewish state is the flipside of the coin, and I fail to see why the Palestinian negotiating position is worse.
.
As for your constant tirade against news that you don’t like, put it to sleep, why don’t you. This is the United States of American, and whether you like it or not, the First Amendment rules.

As for CNN’s fate, that reflects more on you (collective) than I. It means, candidly, that you do not wish to see any news you perceive as detrimental to your “cause”

****************************************************

You miss the point. I wish to see all of the news not the sanitized versions provided by Time and CNN. It’s long past preposterous to put this on the news as if it represents an official or encouraged position when at the same time Hamas, Fatah and a dozen other Palestinian outfits still promise to push the Jews into the sea. It isn’t that CNN is biased but that they’re so bad at it. We are all now well versed in terrorism here and during the Infatada when Arabs were aggressively seeking out school buses and pizza shops to blow up jews. It’s why the fence had broad support. For CNN to make an issue of something that by comparison is trivial is dump. It’s not good advocacy. It’s insulting. That’s why I haven’t watched CNN ins years. MsNBC is a different story. They advocate even more aggressively but with passion and humor. Olbermann is a hoot. The bottom line is always going to be that Palestinians are terrorists and thus are our enemy. We are not actively engaged but if they ever try to force their radicalism down our throats they’ll regret it. I believe the last Gallup polling showed Americans support Israel by a 4 to 1 margin over Palestine. We’re supposed to be evenly divided. Not here. CNN and Time can’t get out of their own way.

I wish that the Pro-Israeli group would get their heads on straight and avoid arguing about how easily they could kill Palestinians, and how Israelis know what is good for them.
.
It has all the passion and attractiveness that pre-Civil Rights rhetoric against Black Americans had, and worse, it’s happening in 2010.
.
I have no doubt that Israel’s image suffers grievously for this reason. I will say, that with your collective attitudes, when rdw said “You cannot win an argument simply on morality or rights”, he spoke truthfully.
.
And therein lies the foul core of the pro-Israeli movement…

I get my news from a wide variety of sources, rdw.
.
I was on British bb’s facing rabidly racist Israelis (and there are many!) years ago. I don’t just get my news from CNN or whatever, I get it from everywhere.
.
You don’t like CNN. You like FOX.
.
And I know why…

My point is that you are in an extreme minority which includes a lot of media elites and other left wingers. But that’s all it includes. These silly efforts to tarnish Israel by the unsanctioned actions of some rabbi’s is goofy. CNN and Time want to make something of a group of rabbi’s not wanting to sell land while every Palestinian organization wishes to drown the jews. They don’t want to add this context because it destroys their own ideology. MY point is that being so shallow and so obvious you defeat your own efforts. Moral equivalence is an old game but never a successful game. Joe thinks that 4 to 1 disparity in support for Israel is because he hasn’t said enough or been loud enough. It’s the opposite. If they are going to try to damn these actions the only way to make it stick is to put it in context of arab actions and just which is more egregious. It’s catch-22 for them. They’re in a lose/lose position. Write these goofy stories and get the choir aroused but only the already converted or expand them into balanced coverage and lose even some of the converted. There’s no upside for CNN or Time.

It has all the passion and attractiveness that pre-Civil Rights rhetoric against Black Americans had, and worse, it’s happening in 2010

***************************************

Your attempt to frame this as a civil rights issue is silly. If Palestinians are enslaved it’s by their own government. African slaves were not seeking to push their enslavers into the sea nor blowing up their kids. Israel’s image is just fine. You might want to search for a Time cover piece a few months back when to their shock an intrepid Time reporter traveled to Israel and was outraged to find how prosperous, safe, secure and disinterested in the Obama peace process. Israel has never been so prosperous nor it’s future so bright. Trade is zooming. The usual left wing whackjobs will rant endlessly but they have more trading partners than ever and are doing more trade with all of them. You know the old saying, “Money talks, BS walks”. Good fences make good neighbors. Jews are back at the mall and living large. It’s also good news, Abbas is chasing the same goal. The Palestinian economy is booming with assistance from BiBi. They like wealth. Who knew?

You cannot win an argument simply on morality or rights”, he spoke truthfully.
.
And therein lies the foul core of the pro-Israeli movement…

*********************************************

Because you don’t have morality on your side. As long as Hamas and the others keep promising to kill jews and embrace terror they will be the scum of the earth to Americans. This was true even before 9/11. But 9/11 really ended all chances of terror being successful against Israel. As the technology has advanced the cost of terror has become much higher. Abbas watched Arafats pathetic end and Hamas suffer that devastating beating in Gaza. Israel gets richer and stronger each day. They’re moral and smart.

rdw:
.
I’m not as much a minority as you think. I’m not counting who is on my side or not.
.
I know the difference between right and wrong.
.
And, as for your description of Palestinians, you generalize far too much…

So the Israelis are strong?
.
Ok. I’ll mark you down for the might makes right camp.
.
Still, far to boastful about how destructive Israel can be and far too much reliance on generalizing/demonizing the Palestinians.
.
Your failing is to not make a distinction between Palestinians and terrorists.
.
Neither moral, nor right…

Actually I get almost all of my news online. I do enjoy the Fox roundtable which comes on at the end of the news hour because it is balanced and serious. Juan and Mara are terrific but not as sharp as Charles. I find the evening news shows on the networks contemptible but harmless. Thank you Dan Rather. You have to love the fact that when Katie Couric signs her next contract she won’t make much more than Olbermann and nothing near Hannity, Beck or Limbuagh. That’s not a bad gauge of influence.

Actually consider Dan Rather as the marker point for the end of MSM dominance. What a great story of the little guy bringing down Goliath. I love the fact he won’t give up either. The simple ass was caught while the show was airing. His ‘proof’ might as well have been written in crayon is was so pitiful. What makes Israel so much safer is pricks like Rather can’t get away with it anymore.

Your arguments have all the earmarks of the rationalizations that went into pre-Civil Rights southern mentality.
.
To wit:
.
“If Palestinians are enslaved it’s by their own government.”
.
I present to you an example of “I know what’s good for them” mentality. They aren’t enslaved by their own government.
.
“African slaves were not seeking to push their enslavers into the sea nor blowing up their kids.”
.
African slaves revolted numerous times in the 1830s giving birth to the KKK’s precursors in 1837. There were not only many grievous casualties in the slave revolts on both sides, there were, parallel to this situation, births of extremist movements on both sides.
.
There are many apt paralells to be drawn.
.
You belong on the far right fringe of extremists.

The fact that you don’t like Dan Rather tells me most of what I need to know.
.
I’m not going to get into the FOX thing, but I will say this:
.
I know why you don’t like the purveyors of news not in agreement with your views.
.
And the First Amendment still rules the roost. Live with it…

I miss pirate wench too. And sgwiteinfla and pourmecoffee and too many others to mention.

Your failing is to not make a distinction between Palestinians and terrorists.

*************************************************

There’s no failing on my part. On the MSM again. You see Americans want the Palestinians to totally repudiate terrorism. IN fact we want all of Islam to do so. If they support it they are our enemy for we are in a war on terror. There’s also that pesky little infatada Arafat ordered and we all got to watch as Palestinians would walk onto school buses filled with little jewish girls and butcher them. ABC didn’t run the tape but Fox did and what 10,000x more people see clips on youtube than ABC?

The interent isn’t just the MSMs disaster it’s radical islams as well. These stupid little games of Palestinian leaders saying one thing in English and the opposite in arabic might work domestically but in an age of youtube they’re not working here. We know the Hamas charter promises to eliminate Israel. Joe doesn’t want to talk about that but alas, we all know.

The image of the twin towers falling and the people jumping to their deaths will be with us for decades. Joe wants to forget and move past it. I can guarrantee you that’s never going to happen. That was our infatada. The connection is direct and strong.

Ok. I’ll mark you down for the might makes right camp.

***********************************************

It’s not might makes right. You leave the jews alone you’ll live in peace. You kill jews they have the capability to kill 150 of yours for one of theirs. I’d recommend you not kill jews. You will run out of people 1st.

African slaves were not terrorists. They didn’t target little girls. They targeted their tormentors.

Actually the polls are unusually decisive at 4 to 1 support for Israel and it’s always been over 3 to 1. This is just one reason why Obama’s efforts were such a total failure. He had no domestic support and his polling in Israel was under 10%. .

Who is planning on killing Jews, rdw?

I was around then rdw,..
.
It struck me that I should hate terrorists. It did not strike me as a moment to hate entire elasticities or religions.
.
That is your failing…

Actually, the truth is far sadder, and the KKK did target little girls, the KKK also tageted wives, mothers, fathers, entire families, and entire cities. So did the Black separatists in those days. Like you say, war is hell, and indeed it is.
.
And Israeli terrorists have done the same thing. No high ground in the killing fields, rdw. Sorry. I fail to see the difference between “targeted assassinations” and the “collateral damage” and a car bomb. Mossad is even dirtier…
.
The parallel was the demonization of an entire ethnicity, you simply try to divert attention from that fact.
.
You practice the same in regards to ethnicities.

Nice diversion, but it’s not relevant…

Oh, as far as popularity contests go, racism in those days was the norm, and not the exception.
.
The freeing of slaves went against opinion so strongly that a Civil War was fought partly for that reason.
.
I guess that hells bells, rdw, nevermind. After all, even though economics kept the US in the slave business long after most of the rest of the world, it was not a moral or ethical decision, huh? No place in the scheme of things, right?
.
Okaaaay…

not a diversion and very relevant. It’s rare for public opinion to be this unbalanced. It’s also rare for a new President to be so thoroughly rebuked on foreign policy. The bottom line is on President can go so strongly against the wishes of the American people.

What does the KKK have to do with anything. You were comparing the Palestinians to african slaves. That’s an outrageous and noxious comparison. The slaves did not target little girls. Palestinian terrorists did all of the time. You want to compare the KKK to Palestinian terrorists? Ok, I’ll take your word for it. What’s the point?

I don’t hate entire religions. I despise terrorists and their supporters. That would include all of the Palestinians who supported Fatah and Hamas and the rest.

Hamas, hezbollah, the whackjobs running Iran, the estimated 5% of Islam estimated to be radical and I guess dozens of other islamic organizations.

Quite a statement, hussein11. Please. Show me where.

– and I’m sure that you believe that the 95% who aren’t don’t live anywhere on the West Bank, or in Gaza?
.
You need to be distinct between Palestinians and terrorists….

So then you do hate all Palestinians, but you are just saying it in a different, more sanitized way?

You ignored the second part of my statement….

Sorry. I fail to see the difference between “targeted assassinations” and the “collateral damage” and a car bomb

***********************************

It’s not even remotely complicated. A Palestinian terrorist during the infatada would try to find a bus with school kids get on and kill them. He goal was to kill girls. That’s what he wanted to do. The targeted assassinations are of terrorists who have killed and that’s who they aim at. They will try to make sure collateral damage is limited not maximized. Since these people often use kids as shields that’s not always easy. I would submit that if tomorrow Osama and Mullah Omar were at a meeting of some of their aids and their families were nearby Obama would Green light any missile attack. Goodbye Osama.

No, you are wrong. See my comments on the civil war and racism as a norm prior to Civil Rights.

How much of that $3 B comes back to Congress from their PAC? What would happen if Iran established a PAC and started dumping dollars into US elections?

No foreign country or affiliated organization should be able to give one dollar to any elected US official.

Killing is killing, rdw.
.
There is nothing more sanitizing than a Nintendo mentality…

That’s not the distinction. There are terrorists and Palestinians who support them. They are the same. Both are the enemies of civilization. Palestinians who publically rebuke terrorism are our allies. Sitting silent is support.

Wrong, absolutely wrong. Terrorists are cockroaches. They and their supporters are the enemy of civilization. They have to be eliminated A man like Osama dedicated toward killing thousands has to be eliminated. If he chooses to use his children as shields their lives are on him.

Palestinians who publically rebuke terrorism are our allies. Sitting silent is support.

This is honestly one of the most ludicrous things you have ever said, including trying to claim fascism is a left-wing ideology.
.
Following the same line of thought, if I have never spoken out publicly against car bombings in Northern Ireland or against priests molesting children, does that mean I support it? If I have never spoken out publicly against groups such as Westboro Baptist Church (the God Hates group) does that mean I support them?
.
Why do you automatically assume the worst in the Palestininans and that they are all terrorists unless they’ve met your specific guidelines?

“Show me where”

“I know I would shoot one of ‘em in a heartbeat if they came for my land.”

You are one of the most despicable antisemites and I hope the FBI is monitoring this site so they find you before your next attack against Jews.

All aboard for the crazy train.

“All aboard for the crazy train.”

And you are the conductor

Thank you.
.
Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Ticket please.

Joe

You always get worked up about Israel; take my advice to keep your blood pressure down.

Just forget about Israel; it’s not like they will all come knocking on your door to ask for your advice. They are big boys now, Joe and will get along just fine.

Relax old mate.

Did you and your family have a good Christmas Ike? My better half and I are just going to stay home New Year’s Eve and split a bottle of wine. I bought her the entire “Outer Limits” series from the 60′s for Christmas and we’re thinking on starting them the 31st. We don’t like to be out on the roads with so many people out drinking.

how could anyone like Dan Rather? He used an obviously fake letter to try to trash a candidate for the presidency a few weeks in front of the election. It would be one thing if it was some elaborate sophisticated fake but it was a step above a crayon copy. There are people who think because it was exposed immediately Rather had been set up. As if that removed Rather from blame. If I was a democrat I think I’d dislike him more. Rather made the Bush opposition look like lying looney tunes.

What on earth does the civil war have to do with you holding a long time minority position on Israel?

It’s all well and good to rant about Dan Rather using an “obviously fake letter to try to trash a candidate for the presidency,” but where is this faux-outrage when Fox News fabricates and misleads on a daily basis?

Perhaps the majority using its majority status to dehumanize the minority, such as by suggesting that they are all terrorists, “enemies of civilization,” and “scum of the earth” unless they publicly prove themselves otherwise (ie, guilty until proven innocent). Please see 12.7.

I have never spoken out publicly against car bombings in Northern Ireland or against priests molesting children, does that mean I support it

**************************************************************

No. Islamic radicalism is a key characteristic of Islam. It is extraordinarily violent and anti-modernity. They are against all things not islamic such as judaism and christianity. Islam had never had a reformation to rebuke the violent elements of radical islam and have a responsibilty to distance themselves from it. IN Palestine for example they revere their terrorists honoring their families and in many cases treating them as national heroes. I believe Abbas recently names a square after a terrorist famous fir an expecially egregious massacre including children Obviously they are directly supporting terrorism and cannot be considered moderates. Abbas is knowingly, willfully supporting terrorism. There won’t be peace in Israel until this behavior stops. This is why there is a fence and why we can be reasonably certain it will be there for another generation. This is what Time won’t report but conservatives are well educated. We didn’t support Obama’s efforts because they were absurd. As some point they will rebuke terrorism to signal they’re ready to join civilized society. Until then they’ll be fenced out of Israel and if they do damage to jews the response will be devastating. It’s pretty simple. If they use terrorism to kill jews and then gain political advantage they use terrorism. If like Arafat they find out using terrorism results in severe retribution They’ll stop using it. I personally am convinced Abbas will not use terrorism because he understands BiBi will do to him what Sharon did to Arafat. This is just a start. Islam has to rebuke islamic terrorism to end it. No other group can.

I didn’t think all of them supported terrorism. My understanding is more of them are victims of the thugs in Fatah and Hamas than the number of Jews. One of the things Bush did that was shrewd was to for Abbas to accept outside assistance in developing the facilties of a state such as a police force at the local and national level. It was impossible to many people in Ramallah to go out at night because as crime. These are little more than criminal gangs. They are essentionally no different than other lefty governments like Venezuela, Iran, russia, China. Terrorists are by definition thugs.

The point isn’t that silent muslims are terrorists themselves but by sitting quiet the signal is of support and as long as the radicals perceive themselves to be supported by wide swaths of Islam we will be dealing with radical Islam forever. I am shocked you are resistant to this. You have to know Islam is in need of a reformation to end this fatwa crap and you have to know the people who suffer the most are muslims. Isn’t the count in Iraq over 150,000 dead Iranians? And in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They killed 3,000 in NY, some muslim, and they end up with 300,000 dead. Further the West has invested billions in toys allowing them to kill many more terrorists at a faster rate while making American and Israeli soldiers safer. There’s also the cost factor. Drones are 1/10 the cost of jets, in many ways more useful and certainly much safer. They can get away of pushing spain around and a few other Europeans but that’s about it.

Name something Fox did near as stupid or egregious as this.

and an end to an intractable conflict that is becoming increasingly dangerous for Israel to maintain

****************************************

How is it more dangerous for Israel? The fence ended suicide attacks. They don’t happen anymore. Abbas has to decide if he wants to live out his days in a cesspool ala Arafat before he supports terrorism. Hamas killed something like 6 jews and lost near 900 of their own and they were not just low level flunkys. The Israeli economy had doubled since the infatada and will double again by 2020. They will pass France in per capita income before 2015. They recently discovered massive gas fields off their coast. The cost of defense was near 10% of GDP in 2000 and is down to about 7% and headed to 6% by 2015. Time visited Israel a couple of months ago and were outraged the average Jew was ignoring the Obama peacetalks as pointless and not as all concerned about their security.

I see RDW and his minions are back at it in full force.
~
Just to recap:
1) Israel is militarily stronger than its neighbors, so by labyrinthine reasoning this translates to Israeli probity.
.
2) American public opinion, heavily in favor of Israel, is proof that Israel is the righteous one in the region, because God knows the American public has never come down on the wrong side of history.
.
3) Examples of tactical superiority over the Palestinians and political savvy against American administrations are reasonable rebuttals to criticisms of Israeli policy.
.
4) When all else fails, fall back on the tired, abused, near-meaningless accusation of Anti-Semitism, because, we all know the only people who really have a problem with Israeli policies simply hate the Jews, and we all know that Palestinians and other Arabs are not Semites. That term is reserved exclusively for Jews.
~
And there you have it, the Idiots’ Guide to Rebuffing Criticisms of Israel.

Why FOX Is Crowing
Peter Wehner – 12.29.2010 – 8:42 AM

The 2010 cable news ratings are in — and it was an unprecedented rout.

FOX News has the top dozen rated shows on cable news. Thirteen FOX News programs draw more than 1 million viewers; three draw more than 2 million; and one program, The O’Reilly Factor, draws more than 3 million. In fact, the 11:00 p.m. repeat of The O’Reilly Factor, which ranks eighth (1.41 million viewers), easily outdistanced the top-rated program on MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which ranked 13th (1.035 million viewers).

CNN’s top-rated show, Larry King Live, finished at number 18 (672,000 viewers). Things were so bad for CNN in 2010 that Nancy Grace of Headline News ranked ahead of King, who has now retired from his nightly hosting duties.

The genius of Roger Ailes is that he not only brought the network to the top but, once there, continued to build on its dominance. We’ve never seen anything quite like this. It’s no wonder that FOX News provokes such envy and animus from its competitors. They not only can’t beat FOX News; they can hardly compete with it anymore.

RDW- I don’t watch Oreilly or any of the evening shows but this is incredible. Couric in the summer gets as low as 4.9M for 22 minutes. Oreilly gets 4.5M for 44 minutes. Thank you Dan Rather.

There are many authentic criticisms of Israel just as there are of the USA but the Palestinians have been let down by their own politics and military tactics in large part because they were misled by the media. This entire thread has been as much about Times destructive advocacy as Palestine. When Joe cites silly magazine articles and adds his own goofy commentary he sets the cause back. If Joe is still writing columns 10 years from now he will still be trashing Israels faults while ignoring far worse actions by the Palestinians exposing himself as nothing more than a shrill.

Feh. FOX and Bill-O can suck on this…
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-cable-ratings,0,2899849.htmlstory
.
…but at least they’re beating Kate Plus Eight…
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/entertainment/111010-kate-gosselin-hits-bottom-in-ratings
.
…and before you whine that ratings are for different audiences, that’s bullsht. Everyone at home has a remote.

Rdw~
You are the very last person to be accusing anyone else of being a shrill. You’ve never once ceded any ground when confronted with logical, legal, and moral explanations for why Israel has, on various occasions, been the aggressor, the instigator, and and the obstacle to peace. You’re an apologist for Israeli occupation without exception.

read it again hussein11:
I was referring to settlers taking land!.
.
Unless you think, of course, that when someone comes to steal my land I have to ask them what ethnicity they are first.
.
And you woulda thought “Southern Strategy” was bad enough…

This really pisses you off doesn’t it? It should. It’s not BS. How many voters actually watch square pants sponge bob anyway? Think back to the SBVs episode because it really does represent an inflection point in US History.

If you remember the MSM advised Kerry to ignore them because if they didn’t give them any coverage they couldn’t get the national exposure needed to create real damage. They made their biggest splash after the Democrat convention. Kerry never got a bounce largely because of them. Fox and Talk radio hammered Kerry and the charges had credibility for his insanely stupid Xmas in Cambodia lie. Kerry several times during his Senate career told the story of getting serious in politics when he was serving in Vietnam but in Cambodia on a mission and he heard a report Nixon denied we had troops in Cambodia. John was outrages and he never forgot the moment because it was xmas eve he has his epiphany. He told the story to dozens of MSM reporters over the years. Of course they’re never question a liberal. Pity. If they did they could have told him to change his story. Kerry was in Vietnam Xmas of 68. But Nixon wasn’t President. The story he told so often with such conviction could not possibly have been true.

Had it been 92 or 96 John has nothing to worry about. The MSM squashes it. Not in 2004. And now with Fox within 10% of Edwin R Murrow it’ll never happen again.

If you read enough of Joe you know he is deeply frustrated over this. He despises Charles Krauthammer aware of the vast influence he has that would have been impossible pre-Fox.

Thought you’d never get here. Softened him up for you.
.
Anyway, my shift is over. G’night Fred. I have to punch out.

I’ll pull the night shift, Fitty.

Here is an additional recap for everyone:
.
rdw’s “audience” is swelling in conjunction with FOX’s ratings. Never fails. When all else isn’t working, boast about that.
.
rdw, while I was manning the ramparts, thankfully avoided trying to trot out religious reasons why what Israel is doing is ok. I guess that means that when I see a thief trying to steal my land, not only do I have to ask him/her what ethnicity they are, I also have to hand it over without question if he believes, for some odd reason, that God promised it to him.
.
Of course, he doesn’t think all Palestinians are terrorists, rdw believes that they should be punished for supporting (voting!) for Fatah, or, in the case of Hamas, never mind the Gazans had no choice*!
.
*Of course they had a choice! Israel gave ‘em one. Since they didn’t take it, hell with it, mow ‘em down, rdw says.

That’s simply not true. I don’t get into the the causes of the conflict and try to stay away from who started what. My focus has almost always been on the current political situation which changed dramatically and permanently after 9/11 in a very conservative way. The current dominating basis for American support for Israel is the global war on terror which is in large part a war between Islam and the west. My point has always been that Palestine is going to have to rebuke terrorism before peace is possible. Americans will see Palestinian as supportive of terrorism and thus a danger to the west until they do so. Unlike Europe we have every intention of fighting and winning. I’ve made no points about Israeli occupation nor do I think Israel is perfect. I admire Israel’s will and ability to fight and I think just about anything they do in reaction to terrorism is justified. I thought the fence was very smart and have been proven correct. Joe is a shrill because he’s so obvious. I make my bias clear up front. Joe pretends to be unbiased. He’s far left wing.

My, how your “audience” has swollen, rdw. Is it dripping yet?

Decon:
.
rdw doesn’t have a women. His “audience” has to get hard over something.
.
I’m sure that when FOX ratings go up, he flogs the “dog”.
.
When FOX ratings go down. He beats the dog.
.
And, wouldn’tcha know it, Tucker Carlson, after all these years, now favors executing Micheal Vick!
.
Goes to show in what esteem a Black man is held there, uh, unless you are one of those lucky enough to be paid to salve the consciences of the ignorant* white guys there, and in the audience…
.
*Bill O et al are not ignorant. They…are…worse…

The FBI knows what you were referring to. It is the belief of you and of all other antisemites that Jews stole the land of Palestine and should be shot and killed both here and there. You have continually expressed your virulent hatred of Jews and should you should be banned from this website. It’s one thing to argue about politics and it is completely different to express one’s vile antisemitism.

Thanks, Exiled. Over to you.
.
ka-chunk

The FBI? Antisemite?
.
Okaaaaay…

So you agree Fatah and Hamas are thugs? And in office illegally? Hmmmm, been tryng to get the UN to get the Palestinian people proper representation? Is there a place in the Arab world where the the people get to cast a real vote? I mean besides iraq. and of course Israel.

I do feel sorry for them for their inept leadership and the ineptitude of their supporters, like you. Gaza is essentially a welfare state managed by the UN and administered by Hamas. Which group do you think are the biggest thieves? You have to know they have no shot at forming a modern economy or government. they’ll be worse than Cuba. One of the oddities and the big todo over getting shipments into Gaza is the Israeli’s have always let all the food in the world in. You’ve got liberal groups spreading stories about starvation. They’re so dumb. Try obese nation. They have all of the food they can eat for free. You might remember that Aussie terrorist at gitmo they let out after several years. Of course the global left was outraged and made the same claims of torture and starvation. When he was released he was 20 pounds overweight. He was a fat pig. You can bet the #1 problem in Gaza in a short time will be obesity.

Abbas has been smarter. His deal with Bush was the PLO gets to distribute UN largess while the US invests in building a police force and other services independent of Fatah so the WB can actually function as a state and provide very superior quality of life to Gaza. Crime is down dramatically and many consider Ramallah and Bethleham the two best working cities in the arab world. It’s going to take a while longer but the WB is on the way to becoming a modern state. Not so much Gaza.

There is nothing at all far-left or even left-leaning about siding with the Palestinians in this conflict, and by siding with the Palestinians I don’t mean the antiquated suicide-bombers of the past, but rather the everyday, common Palestinian civilian who has had his home, land, and life destroyed or taken away because of some pseudo-religious schizophrenia of the Israeli government. I’m very conservative, yet there is nothing in my political philosophy that suggests I should support Israeli occupation, annexation, racism, and apartheid. I’ve asked you and many others what specifically conservatism says about this. There has been no answer. What conservative tenet suggests I should support Israel over the Palestinians? And, please don’t say that conservatives don’t tolerate terrorism because that, first, implies that Palestinians are as a general rule terrorists or terrorist sympathizers (a meme that is entirely unfounded), second, suggests that liberals are somehow less opposed to terrorism, and, third, fails to cite any specific tenets or mores of conservatism other than the perceptions in your own mind. So, please respond to this very simple question.

Re: This and “conservatives are well educated” and about Fox News lyinging/misinforming on a regular basis:
.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/breaking-study-finds-fox-news-viewers-are-the-most-misinformed.php
.
I’m not denying there aren’t smart conservatives, but I wouldn’t go trumpeting your ratings numbers all over the place. Highest ratings does not necessarily mean best.

You are a vile and loathsome person and you are no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards. I have no doubt that you have shrines for them over your bed.

Ze crickets are coming.

It means the most influencial and most profitable. That’s the point after all. Go ahead and tell yourself you are well informed. Congrats. How many votes do you have? In another post Joe said not much happened in 2010. Just the biggest elections swing in 70 years. There is no doubt Fox helped the tea party.

there is nothing in my political philosophy that suggests I should support Israeli occupation, annexation, racism, and apartheid. I’ve asked you and many others what specifically conservatism says about this. There has been no answer. What conservative tenet suggests I should support Israel over the Palestinians?

******************************************

Israel is a free market democracy with a rule of law and extensive individual rights suchas freedom of religion. Palestine is not free. It is run by thugs and you have the only freedoms they allow. They do not have freedom of religion or of the press. They support terrorism. So if you are conservative it’s a no brainer. There is every reason to support Israel and no reason to support Israel.

It’s not an apartied state. Arabs have more freedom and oppotunity in Israel than any other arab country. The occupation was required to control terrorism and the border disputes relate to needed security after a series of wars.

implies that Palestinians are as a general rule terrorists or terrorist sympathizers (a meme that is entirely unfounded),

****************************************

Palestinians absolutely positively support terrorism. There were 3 infatadas. Abbas recently named a square after a terrorists and during the last infatada the families of the terrorists would be celebrated and their portraits displayed as a special honor. This is your problem friend. Joe Klein wound never ever report such things but Fox does.

Do you really think no one knew about the infatada? You deny Palestinians embrace terrorism? You are nuts. Of course they do.

“Is there a place in the Arab world where the the people get to cast a real vote?”

Actually yeah, there really are. Lebanon, Algeria, and Turkey are all functioning and open multi-party democracies, and despite recent civil wars manage to form governments with a good deal more peace than in Iraq.

You may now return to your page-long ranting and sticking your fingers in your ears.

turks are turks, lebanonese are lebanonese and algerians are algerian.

Jordanians are Jordanians, Syrians are Syrian, welp looks like Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country in the world then. Lebanese and Algerian are nationalities, not ethnic groups. Both are Arab by large majorities, and are members of the Arab League.
.
With Turkey you’re actually accidentally right, although Middle Eastern and Muslim they aren’t Arabs. The rest is just mindless hand-waving.

Israel became a fact of state,
When powers that be said it be.
Nobody could predict its fate,
Surrounded by sworn enemy.
For decades Israel has survived
By doing what it had to do.
In many ways, Israel has thrived.
Its hopes and dreams are coming true.
But outsiders do criticize.
U.S.ers like to harp and fret
That Israel has faults, and chastise
That Israel isn’t perfect yet.

Those who can’t do only opine.
U.S pundits just like to whine.

A long time ago when talk radio was becoming big I heard a local host say when she couldn’t think of a way to kill the last hour of her shift she would say “Abortion, your thoughts? The lines are open”
.
I wonder why I thought of that.

http://www.holylandalternatives.net/palestinians.html
.
rdw, you do know that Palastinians are semites?

“It means the most influencial and most profitable. That’s the point after all. Go ahead and tell yourself you are well informed. Congrats. How many votes do you have? In another post Joe said not much happened in 2010. Just the biggest elections swing in 70 years. There is no doubt Fox helped the tea party.”
.
You ideologues never seize to amaze me. It’s true. I’m one of those people that are naïve enough to think the best about people, but I’m sarcastic enough to realize that we’re all going fall short somehow.
.
When you profess that ‘you liberals might me smarter’ ‘but we have Fox’ it’s like you gloat over the fact that you’re dumb but won instead. Won what? What is so good about being misinformed? Because the economic woes and the great awakening of the gastric tea party right before midterm naps gave you the house? Freeinpa and others have spent volumes defending deficit busting tax cuts by proxy of splitting hair.
.
That you have a media outlet that is not only right, but is actively falsifying information to misinform their listeners so they vote right?
.
I now understand why you believe fascists are on the left and you can ignore every single fact that proves you wrong. You think it, therefore it is. You don’t need no stinking smarts. As long as you have your opinion, facts are secondary because your very thought makes it true.
.
It’s illustrated by you and your fantasies about real history, earl the pretend doctor who need to print out a fake medical diploma in order for him to have a opinion about healthcare. Newfreedom saying he’s not a birther but Obama should still present his birth certificate and he might be the anti-christ. 3x the wise who demonstrate his self professed long life experience by saying ‘I’m wise, so get off my lawn’. Freeinpa who bemoan us evil liberals for calling him names right after he jams his finger in our eyes etc.
.
You ideologues don’t need no stinking facts to form your opinions. You live in a self reinforced echo chamber circle jerking about the new outrage and as long as that sounds good to you the rest of the things called, data, facts, stuff that sounds like common sense is irrelevant.
.
Me personally; I don’t give a sh!t if 99% of the population thought the same as you. Thinking doesn’t equal truth and you can keep your ‘majority’ circle jerk and prostate milking if I also have to surrender common sense to do it.

No, no. no. You have it all wrong. Both American liberalism and conservatism fall under the penumbra of classical liberalism, i.e. democratic, free market, civil liberties, equality, etc. So, the fact that Israel is a quote-unquote “free market democracy” by your standards should make all Americans, liberal and conservative, ardent supporters of Israel. And yet you and many other frequently suggest that conservatism leans towards Israel while liberalism leans away from Israel. In truth, though, this has nothing at all to do with political philosophy. No ideology puts a qualification on moral judgments, and support or opposition to Israel is a moral issue. I could side with the “democratic” hegemonic occupier, which would be to acquiesce to military brutality, resource monopolization, land annexation, and a lack of respect for human rights by Israeli forces outside of the sovereign borders of Israel, or, I could side with the “radical” oppressed population, which is to acknowledge that any people who live under military occupation will resort to violently extreme reprisals, yet are still, as a whole, worthy of my support and my sympathies, for they live in a society that has been imposed upon by foreign occupiers who have all but stripped them of their humanity. One only need to look to the Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland, or to the Indian Hindus under British Occupation, or even the Jewish minority of Palestine in the 1920s to see how people behave when occupied by foreign militaries. It’s not terrorism, it’s human nature.

Fox is higher standards than CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MsNBC. Of those other 4 MsNBC is the next most honest. The others are about as objective as Joe Klein. When you say you are moderate and objective and you are far left that makes you a liar and a fraud. IN same cases such as Chris Mathews when he said he was moderate it’s not so much a lie as a delusion. We all now where Olbermann, Oreilly, Hannity and Maddow stand. They tell us. We all know where Andrea Mitchell stands and we all know she pretends to be something else.

The reason the SBVs are such a cool event is they’re such clear proof of MSM bias. kerry tells a story about Xmas in Cambodia that everyone knows is a fairly tail. It can’t possibly be true. You don’t need an investigative team to do any research. You merely need to play the videotape of Kerry’s own words. The MSM refused to cover the story. Rather has this bizarre theory GWB may or may not have been at a weekend national guard meeting in Alabama 32 years ago and they make it into a scandal. That’s without a shred of evidence. Then he comes up with evidence and it’s so cartoonishly bad a dozen people get fired and CBS loses tens of millions in market value. That memo was Rathers holy grail. The entire MSM had been looking for it for 5 years. It was the grand prize. That’s how he was so easily scammed. He saw what he was desperate to see.

Conservatives love to tout Fox because for liberals it’s fingernails on a blackboard. Fox ended MSM domination and destroyed their credibility. Fox got Bush elected. Got him re-elected. And every time some clown like Klein or Goldberg try to make some kind of scandal with what 30 private citizens in Israel do Fox puts it in the context of the official, stated goals of the PLO. Fatah, Hamas andall of the other whacko groups in the Islamic world.

That’s why this ain’t Europe and never will be.

You ideologues don’t need no stinking facts to form your opinions

*****************************************

How this for a fact. 30 rabbis don’t want to sell arabs land. 30,000 members of Hamas want to kill every jew in Israel. How that for facts? Hows that for context? Joe Klein can cry a river over their little poison pen. Sane people will wonder why Joe thinks the rabbis area problem while Hamas, which still launches rockets into Israel, is fine.

The answer is Joe is a buffoon. The problem is he is so easily exposed as a buffoon sane people don’t pay him any attention. Thus he has no influence. Thus 4x’s as many Americans support Israel rather than Palestine. It’s so bad for you the number who support Palestine is about 15%. You can’t even get over 3/4′s of self identified liberals to support Palestine.

If the best Joe can do to trash Israel is to compare 30 rabbi’s who probably average age 75, with terrorists, you are worse than pathetic. It’s childishly stupid.

Rabbi’s – terrroists, hmmmm, now which group is more dangerous? If that’s a hard question for you then consider yourself authentically liberal.

“Fox is higher standards than CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MsNBC. Of those other 4 MsNBC is the next most honest”
.
Just wow.
.
“Conservatives love to tout Fox because for liberals it’s fingernails on a blackboard.”
.
Just wow.
.
Argument before fact.
.
Do you firmly believe this cr@p?

“How this for a fact”
.
We were talking about you and your Foxy statement. Why don’t you stay on target instead of drag me into your p!ssing match about Israel.
.
Your statement about liberals low support of Israel is the same fictional baloney you try to sell about pretty much anything you write. History or otherwise. You pull stuff out of your @ss and present your dingleberries as facts. You don’t know sh!t about liberals outside your mythical echo chamber reinforced bubble. You sound, act and write like a mindless zombie ideologue.

Sorry kiddo, you can pretend the SBVs and Xmas in Cambodia didn’t happen but they did and they were critical stories. They helped elect a US President and ensure a clown didn’t get ito office.

That’s the job of the press and we know for a fact the MSM didn’t do their job. One of the decisive turning points was very late in the game before the vote but after it was clear Kerry was a loser the NYT is an effort to maintain some credibility decided to look at the claims Kerry’s purple hearts may have been undeserved and admitted they were pretty silly. Pity, the simple bastard had the edge. He actually served in a combat unit in Vietnam. But the MSM being the MSM and Kerry wanting to be as big a gasbag as Gore decide to act like he was John Wayne. That was a bridge too far.

Here’s a fact: Kerry served 4 months of the 12 month tour earning a ticket home be getting 3 purple hearts.

Here’s two more: On two of those purple hearts he didn’t get so much as a band-aid nor was he tended to by a medic. On the 3rd he actually did bleed, didn’t need a band-aid, and almost certainly caused his own injury (accidently).

Here’s one more established fact: His CO at the time if the 1st ‘wound’ was pissed at Kerry for even asking to be submitted for a purple heart and refused to do so.

here’s speculation: Kerry submitted himself, allowable under the rules, AFTER the CO transferred out.

Here’s fact: The reason the previous item is speculation isn’t established as fact is John boy refuses to release his records. Bush did so immediately. kerry had at least two problems. His application for a purple heart would have been handwritten, in his hand. If published he looks like a major chump. But worse than that his records contain all of his test scores for various aptitude and performance exams. It would have been unbearable for him to admit that dope beating him was smarter than he was.

kerry has promised he will release his records, That was over 6 years ago. Funny how the MSM isn’t a little bit interested isn’t it? There are a number of conservative outlets keeping a counter of how many days have passed since he’s made his promise and it’s well over 2,000. This is what makes the internet so cool. This stuff is just great. It mocks the MSM in a way that could not be more perfect. It’s not just that they’re so biased but they are so bad at it.

To be a well read conservative in the summer of 2004 when all of this came out was a hoot. The facts were obvious and unassailable. The course of action was already set. kerry had already been nominated on a war hero platform and there was no going backwards. I have to think had liberals known the truth he would never have been nominated. But the MSM in protecting him was protecting you from unpleasant facts. You elected a deeply flawed candidate. That was just so cool. I knew that most Americans would be turned off of Kerry when they found out he got at least two of his purple hearts for boo-boo’s. He wanted out and he games the system. I further knew Joe Klein could not suppress the facts. Dolts getting their news from Time and ABC never knew but if you watched Fox, you knew.

Here’s another fact: John Kerry was a disaster as a candidate and he was a disaster because the MSM lied to you.

“Sorry kiddo, you can pretend the SBVs and Xmas in Cambodia didn’t happen but they did and they were critical stories. They helped elect a US President and ensure a clown didn’t get ito office”
.
So this is how it sounds when amateurs think part of martial arts is to break cement with forehead?
.
Cue change channel. Lets pretend for a moment that you rationalize being uninformed by the fact that Fox is bigger better and gives you a non viagra hard on. That is essentially your message. Then you erect a bunch of horsesh!t red herrings like. Kerry, Cambodia, Liberals don’t hunt, hate Israel, sides with terrorists and every single wet dream, masturbatory dumbsh1t stuff that flings around in your head.
.
I don’t care. You stated that it doesn’t matter if you’re uninformed because Fox is better. You don’t have to write a bunch of sh!t to prove it; stand with your innitial thought.
.
I don’t care about what you think about Kerry or Cambodia.
.
Here’s another fact. Fox is still feeding you garbage. 2004 is long gone but the bullsh!t remain.

Because Israel is just one prime example of just how ineffective the MSM has become as a result of Fox covering the real news.

You’ve heard virtually every member of the MSM and every other liberal lament the fact their role as gate-keeper of the news is over. Let’s put that another way. Their monopoly is over.

If all we knew about Israel was what the MSM reported support for Palestine would be 60% and for Israel 15%.

You fools attack Fox when your problem is Time and ABC. As I explained below Time and ABC protected kerry through the entire primary and general election with the result you nominated so deeply flawed a candidate you ensured an easy re-election for Bush. It would not occur to someone like Joe Klein that nominating yourself for a purple heart when you didn’t even need a band-aid borders on cowardice and is at best deeply dishonest and dishonorable. It mocks the purple heart.

Joe was one of those 1968 liberals who thought the people who served were either stupid or desperate. It made perfect sense for Kerry to do what he did to get a ticket home. He didn’t see anything wrong with it nor did anyone else in the MSM. When Joe heard about kerry’s epiphany in Cambodia on Xmas eve in 1968 when President Nixon lied to the American people in a national speech it didn’t occur to Joe to do any journalism. There wasn’t a shred of skepticism. Joe, a liberal male, was probably moved to tears listening to John. How is it possible Joe Klein did not know Nixon wasn’t President December of 1968? How is it possible he didn’t see the fraud immediately. We can at least agree that’s a pretty glaring fact. He told it for 25 years thru 4 Senate campaigns. Your MSM in action.

For all practical purposes the MSM elected GWB via their gross incompetence.

You just keep on ranting about Fox and I’ll keep on laughing at Joe Klein.

BTW: You do know with the internet and all of these watchdog groups as well as private citizens lies on both sides get exposed immediately. You also know when Jeffrey Goldberg cry’s a river over 30 rabbi’s blogs with 10M readers ask him how he feels about Hamas. The NYTs has at least 100 times has to issue corrections on it’s own editorials or those of it’s columnists when the column because a major story BEFORE the paper was actually delivered. That’s how quickly fact checking is done. The gent who busted Dan Rather lived in the midwest timezone (I think) and before the show was over on the left coast had gotten confirmation from a real documentation expert the document was almost certainly a fraud. His findings had been posted on the internet and CBS was getting calls before the show was over in LA. By 8:00 AM they were in full damage control. Drudge and every blogger had the story as well as Fox. It led their morning news. By the evening newscast Brit Hume had convincing evidence it was written on a PC and could not possibly have been written at the time. Brit wasn’t questioning it’s authenticity but trying to figure out how CBS cold fall for such a childish prank.

You stated that it doesn’t matter if you’re uninformed because Fox is better.

************************************

No, I didn’t not. I haven’t talked about Fox at all except for their commercial success. I’m not going to defend their accuracy. That’s not where I get my news. Plus they don’t need me to defend them.

You can attack them and their audience 24/7. Fine with me. Actually I’m all for it. Joe Klein will be writing for Time for 10 or 20 more years because they don’t have standards. Newsweek just sold for $1 for that reason. It’s all elitist gibberish. I’m OK with that.

Look at the heading for this post. Joe hates Israel. He’s livid BiBi is in power and might have hated Sharon more. He’s been attacking Israel for 10 years from what is still a valuable perch at Time and has become a wealthy man. But what he’ll never have is influence. He and you are so bad at this you hurt your own cause. 30 rabbis writing a letter is very small potatoes. It’s silly to suggest it is. Joe has been pissing into the wind for a long time. He’s in the 15%. I’m in the 60%.

Here’s something else you should know. The MSM is having this debate over American jewery and their support for Israel. As if they have some special role or should have more to say because they’re jews. In fact they’re all but irrelevant. Israel has staunch Conservative and Christian support. That’s why they’re at 60%. I don’t much care what Joe or jeff think nor does it matter if they are jewish or not. The concern is many jews are concerned Israel has lost it’s way. The obvious fact is these American jews are liberals 1st and the divide is political. Sharon built the fence, followed an aggressive military policy and deregulated the economy including lowering taxes. Klein, Golbberg and Beinart are liberals. Israel is not liberal. The USA is not liberal.

I now understand why you believe fascists are on the left and you can ignore every single fact that proves you wrong.

****************************************************

In the post-Reagan era fascism is on the left and probably always was. But todays spectrum of small-govt conservatives on the right and big government liberals on the left all totalitarian religions belong on the left. That’s not just socialism and communism but also fascism. The FCC just voted to regulate the internet despite strong conservative opposition. That’s a pure fascist act. It’s one liberals support and conservatives despise. I happen to think this effort will not only fail but this House will defund the FCC in a serious way limiting their ability to regulate much of anything.

The great thing about Goldbergs book is how tepid the arguments against were. There was more in their about progressivism but this was one of the central arguments and more than a few on the left conceded in the modern spectrum progressives are closer to fascists than to socialists.

It’s a pretty straight forward construct and the FCC one of dozens of great examples. Obama nationalized GM. That’s not socialism but fascism. He ran the company. He eliminated the shareholders, fired thwir mgt and appointed his own. If that’s not fascism what is it? I know he intends to sell it off but it’s still fascism.

“Because Israel is just one prime example of just how ineffective the MSM has become as a result of Fox covering the real news”
.
But they haven’t. Look – save your longwinded stilted talkingpoints. I didn’t read it. I skimmed, figured it had the same elements of regurgitated anti-liberal, media BS and it did.
.
Your statement of Fox covering the news should come with the healthy backing of facts. If you prove this by showing that other media have failed you’re not proving that Fox is full of sh@t, you’re proving that all of media is full of sh@t.
.
You’re problem is that you take singular events (such as Dan Rather) and build a decade long case out of it. That’s not how logic works. That would like saying I’ve seen one dog and it was black so therefore all dogs are black.
.
The problem you have is what all ideologues have. You make a statement and runs away from it. You have to mix it all up in a bunch of chestbeating emotional drama. Like throwing in someone like Kerry, Dan Rather, Israel etc to some how cover for the fact that you have no facts. It’s meant to paint me as not one of you chestbeating guys. Regardless of what I’ve written about any of it. Regardless if I never wrote about it.
.
You like Fox. You don’t care if Fox misinform you because they’re bigger. That’s the core of your statement. No amount of ‘the others are worsers’ changes that. Unless you can show that Fox is not misinforming you my statement remain. No matter how emotional you try to make it.
.
So unwrap the flag from your crotch and stop the mental masturbation about what you think about me, liberals or otherwise and make your case why Fox isn’t feeding you or anyone else cr@p.

I did and to be honest, Iooked that up a while ago, but forget what it means. It’s useless trivia. I think there are very long standing disputed between the two peoples that could have been resolved long ago if they didn’t become part of a broader global battle. I think the Palestinians have many valid complaints but as far as victims I think they’ve been abused far more by their arab cousins than by the jews. I think they’ve been pawns for decades. What I find relevant is the current situation which is also global and that’s terrorism and radical islam. 2nd to that is we have a modern, western democracy fighing what are for all practical purposed totalitarian governments. I think the entire world s/b democratic. Anything else is a weak form of slavery.

So my support for Israel is deep and unshakable and my contempt for Palestine is not the people, they’re mostly victims, but for Arafat, Fatah, the PLO, Hamas, etc. I don’t much care for the monarchys in the region and I think we’ve done the people of Egypt wrong. Mubarak is a thug. My favorite description of liberals comes from lenin, useful idiots. I don’t think Obama is evil. I think he is stupid.

“In the post-Reagan era fascism is on the left and probably always was.”
.
“It’s a pretty straight forward construct and the FCC one of dozens of great examples. Obama nationalized GM. That’s not socialism but fascism. He ran the company. He eliminated the shareholders, fired thwir mgt and appointed his own. If that’s not fascism what is it? I know he intends to sell it off but it’s still fascism.”
.
Goes to show you how little you know about socialism and fascism.
.
And USA nor Obama is running GM. Goes to show you have bad of an itch and fantasy you really have.
.
Here’s a tip. Read up about fascism. Read up about Socialism. Then compare it to reality. And maybe you’ll see what an extraordinary nonsensical statement you just made.

There’s a reason.

Yes, tepid:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/historians-stand-liberal-fascism-and

Jonah Jacob Goldberg (born March 21, 1969) is an American conservative syndicated columnist and author. Goldberg is known for his contributions on politics and culture to National Review Online, where he is editor-at-large[2]. He is the author of Liberal Fascism (2008), which reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list.[3]
.
So he’s a syndicated columnist that spent a summer writing a book. And historians that spent their career writing and analyze historical data think it’s bull.
.
What do you define as tepid?

Like throwing in someone like Kerry, Dan Rather, Israel etc to some how cover for the fact that you have no facts.

*******************************

They’re all facts.Major facts. Clear and proven facts. Dan Rather was one of the big three anchors putting him at the very top of the MSM food chain and he tried to destroy a Presidential candidate weeks before an election with ‘evidence’ that was so poorly sourced and so clearly manufactured he created his own scandal and a house cleaning at CBS. He probably destroyed 20% of their market value and revenue stream and besides his own job and those directly involved in the fraud he probably caused the layoffs of hundreds more. This is easily the biggest story on corrupt joutnalism of the last two decades.

Kerry was a seriously damaged candidate and when this generation of MSM journalists pass on the next generation will look back on them with scorn. The story of the 2004 election isn’t about politics but journalistic malfeasance. It wasn’t about CBS and the SBVs but how the MSM managed those stories.

You are trying to make the point Fox is corrupt but haven’t presented a single fact. I gave you an entire Presidential campaign dominated by MSM malfeasance as well as coverage of the relationship with Israel proving how this malfeasance comes with a price and that price is irrelevancy.

I watch about 20 minutes of Fox about two to three nights a week. It’s the only authentic roundtable and it’s on the newshour about 6:40 to 6:55. Krauthammer is conservative. Barns is conservative. Lianson and Williams are left of center. We know who they are and where they stand. It’s not at all confusing. They discuss the political consequences of the major events in the news. It’s fact based but it’s an opinion show. They are extremely influencial because they are respected. George S. on ABC pedaling himself as an objective journalist is pathetic. George is liberal. When George Will sits at their roundtable he almost always is the only conservative in the building. That’s not fair and balanced.

Your complaints about Fox are the equivalent of howling at the Moon. They’re thriving and doing a great job. They’re not your problem. The fact it’s impossible to take ABC seriously is your problem.

Wow. rdw’s “audience” has been swelling all night.
.
rdw:
.
Why don’t you stop touting FOX and stick to the subject.
.
And the subject is Israel….

So he’s a syndicated columnist that spent a summer writing a book. And historians that spent their career writing and analyze historical data think it’s bull.

*******************************************

Bad news for you, other historians think it’s great. They spent their lives analyzing historical data and think it’s dead on.

I told you there’s more. What Goldberd also did is demolish the progressivism of the era that Hillary and Obama looked back so fondly on and in the process put Wildrow Wilson in contest. That was one bad dude. The avowed racist who resegregated the post office and other federal instiutions part alone makes him persona non grata today. It was a very bitter pill for your historians to swallow. You see, we were not supposed to know Wilson was a racist. We might think poorly of him. IN fact he’s indefensible. No liberal male will speak highly of Wilson now without making clear they do not approve of his racism. Whereever he’s been ranked in Presidental Poll he’s going to tank.

ON top of that his 14 points peace plan set up for WWII and he was pretty much despised in Europe after 1919. There’s also the matter of tossing 10,000′s innocents in jail without a trial for a few years. It’s almost funny today to see how young liberals today raised to despise GWB react when they find out he was a bog scout and Wilson and FDR were major pricks.

The MSM and historians were doing us a favor by protecting us from ‘unimportant facts’. We might get the wrong impression.

What Jonah did was break this logjam. It is impossible today for an historian wishing a shred of credibility to write about Wilson without covering his racism and thus you know that means the liberal historian cannot write well of him. They also must cover his suspension of habeaus corpus and all of the political prisoners in US jails.

Answer me this: The scenario is a meeting of the Harvard History dept and they’re tasked with writing an essay on Wildrow Wilson covering the major events and changes enacted by his Presidency for publication in the NYT’s. They have an entire op-ed page. The NYTs asks them to focus 50% on wartime national security issues and do it in contrast to GWBs actions.

What do they do? They’ve spend 6 years trashing Bush as a fascist. Compared to Wilson he’s a boyscout. Actually, compared to Obama he’s a boyscout.

What can they do? There is no friggen way the NYTs wants it’s readers to find out Wilson wasn’t just a racist but very aggressive and hostile. There is no friggen way they want to contrast what Wilson did to his political opposition with what Bush didn’t do. Bush is Ghandi by comparison.

Again, your problem. While the NYTs refused to review the book that spent many weeks at the top of it’s bestseller lists it still spent many weeks at the top of it’s bestselling lists providing a delicous irony on the irrelevancy of the NYTs book review. Goldberg toured america for bok signings getting on every nationally and a ton of locally syndicated radio shows and all of the Fox shows, Stewart. etc. Beck was so enamored of it he devoted a week of his TV show and drove it back to the #1 position on the best seller lists for another month. It’s still a major theme of his.

Goldberg for all practical purposes destroyed Wilson. White liberal males will not have the balls to defend his racism. He’s also destroyed progressivism by putting in the contest of the Wilsonian age and it’s fascist roots.

“Again, your problem. While the NYTs refused to review the book that spent many weeks at the top of it’s bestseller lists it still spent many weeks at the top of it’s bestselling lists providing a delicous irony on the irrelevancy of the NYTs book review.”
.
Your paranoid conclusion aside – Harry Potter made more money so in essence following your logic it is a more accurate depiction of History.
.
I mean come on man. When will the drivel end? I checked and I didn’t find ‘many historian in defense of’ his book.
.
You’re the one who said it was a tepid response and I show you a response that isn’t.
.
You can defend his hack job of history all you want but it’s not how many weeks you spend on a best seller list that provides the accuracy of your scholastic work.
.
And being a columnist with a outspoken desire to exact revenge for what he think liberals have done isn’t exactly the beginning of a great historical work.
.
Sorry – but this is a dud and you have no fricken clue what fascism and liberalism is. Leaning on a writer that has no clue either isn’t exactly rock solid.

The FCC, fascism, socialism and conservatism:

This is going to provide a great teaching moment for a new generation and will be in the news over the coming year. Net Neutrality SUCKS.

The FCC attempt to regulate the internet will be a major political stick for conservatives. It is deeply unpopular because people instinctlvely know the govt can only screw something up that is working quite well.

Here’s the teaching moment:

Government control of the internet will be sold as fascism because it is. If the government were to take ownership that would be socialism. We’ve come too far. That’s not an option. If the government were to eliminate the FCC that would be conservatism.

Thus house has a great opportunity with the crises over spending to work over reliable targets such as NPR, PBS, the NEH and the FCC.

There’s a great irony that many people under 40 see the FCC as the group that pushed Howard Stern to Satelite radio because of a few cuss words. They see the FCC as a bunch of old farts with nothing useful to do. If you are under 60 you remember the transition from monopoly AT&T and $12 a minute LD charges to a home 1 mile away but in another state and shockingly slow rollout of technology. They saw the deregulation soon followed by the explosion of wireless and internet.

People get govt was the problem in telecommunications not the solution. My kids are astonished that from 72-75 when I did med cruises in the Navy I could not call home for 6 months because the govt kept LD so expensive and controlled technology development. Isn’t that amazing? If you got a message to call home while in Europe you knew it was really bad news.

You fools are walking into a trap of your own making. This generation is not going to want the govt regulating the internet and the GOP is going to make it a cause celeb. It’s going to be an issue of liberty and freedom.

Haven’t you ever wondered by no serious politican has ever attempted to reimpose the fairness doctrine? I mean besides the fact the Roberts court will smack it down immediately.

I’ll tell you. Because it’s an insult to the intelligence of sane people. You don’t like Limbaugh and you damn sure can’t beat him. You have but one option. Regulate him. The founding fathers knew your kind. Your great, great grandparents were unimaginative, fascist thugs too. You’re family is why we have a 1st amendment.

Don’t like Rush? Change the channel you twit.

You are shocked that I am resistant to proclaiming all Palestinians are terrorists until proven innocent? I’m not disagreeing that radical Islam is a problem, as is radical Christianity or radical Judaism or radical anything for that matter. I do have a problem with you making blanket statements and generalizations about people.

Fox is higher standards than CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MsNBC
You keep telling yourself that.
.
Tucker Carlson thinks Vick deserved the death penalty

It’s always amusing when a ideologue confuses the fairness doctrine and net neutrality and then spends a vapid tant telling everyone else to shuv it. And it’s a insult to intelligence?
.
Indeed.
.
And please – don’t make the point any louder by confusing socialism and fascism – you have already shown that you and the people you gave money to don’t know sh!t about it.

Your paranoid conclusion aside – Harry Potter made more money so in essence following your logic it is a more accurate depiction of History.

*********************************************

Come on, at least try. I read every book 2x’s. Your analogy is goofy. I hate to break the news but there really aren’t any wizzards in London. Or in that beautiful countryside of Hogwarts.

So comparing obviously fantasy with real history, i.e., Wilson really was a pretty nasty racist, doesn’t work on any level.

But I get your dilemma. You cannot defend Wilson and the obvious comparision with Harry Potter is that Wilson is your Lord Voldermort. He who must not be named!

Trust me on this. It’s so deliciously ironic. The most liberal people on the planet live on university campuses. The most liberal among them in history departments. I’d have said womens studies but they’re so crazy that’s not actually a relevant field of study. These are also by definition the most PC people on the planet. They were Wilson’s biggest boosters. Wilson was one of them. He was an academic. That’s why we had 70 years of nonsense from them about him. But the internet and search engines destroyed their control of the data. We now know Wilson was a nasty racist. They can’t touch him. Wilson is toxic. No self respecting PC professor of learning could possibly write well of a racist. And not just any racist. This one did real serious long term damage. The people who most adore Wilson are now unable to speak his name.

How cool is that?

I’ll tell you one person who is enjoying it. Jonah Goldberg. And his pals at the national review.

Think about this. If tomorrow some PC professor of history from Harvard comes out with a bio of Wilson an omits any or all of his scandals what will the publisher do? The National Review, Drudge, Fox, Beck, the cable shows, talk radio, the WSJ will be on top of it BEFORE the book hits the shelves.

Any reputable publisher would have to stop the printing and might even have to shred book already printed. If they did decide to go ahead it would be a gift to conservatives. They would be doing entire shows on the credibility of Ivy League faculties. There would be no hiding. If for example the historian decided not to mention Wilson resegregated the post office that would be an egregious omission the equivalent of academic fraud and those charges would be made to the historical society.

It’s really cool when you think about it. These ‘gate-keepers’ decided for 100 years what was fit for us to know. They’re done. Their day is over. I was in my fifties before I lealrned who Eugene Debs was and what happened at the Post office. I was taught in school the 14 points were one of histories greatest diplomatic achievements. Today I know they were an epic failure.

Wilson is he who must not be named.

don’t make the point any louder by confusing socialism and fascism – you have already shown that you and the people you gave money to don’t know sh!t about it.

****************************************

OK my wise friend. Using my example of the FCC regulating the internet. How am I wrong?

What do you want to know?

“But I get your dilemma. You cannot defend Wilson and the obvious comparision with Harry Potter is that Wilson is your Lord Voldermort. He who must not be named!”
.
I don’t know what confounds me more. Historians demolish Goldberg using facts and you defend it because facts don’t matter and my pointing out that your logic is flawed by offering a absurd example and you spending several paragraphs wondering about it.
.
“Think about this. If tomorrow some PC professor of history from Harvard comes out with a bio of Wilson an omits any or all of his scandals what will the publisher do? The National Review, Drudge, Fox, Beck, the cable shows, talk radio, the WSJ will be on top of it BEFORE the book hits the shelves.”
.
So why are you not upset about Goldberg. As the historian showed he actually omits data that shows that fascism is on the right. The provide context and a reason why his book is garbage. So what’s your beef? These are well known historians that have spent decades researching history and you claim that a partisan hack like Goldberg is the gold standard because YOU have this fantasy idea of what liberals are and Goldbergs book fits it.
.
That’s not how facts work.
.
I don’t think you reading Harry Potter is revealing about why you mix myth, fantasy and reality, but your inability to understand logic is.

You want to talk about Israel, here you go. an example of journalism by commenary magazine watching govt funded NPR. Not quite sure what their thinking. A lot of Americans are not interested in fnding NPR, PBS or the NEH and this is an example of why. Look for the house to quickly defund all three.

Another NPR Hit Piece on Israel
Ira Stoll – 12.30.2010 – 12:22 PM

Never mind Juan Williams: What really gets me about National Public Radio is the way it manages to cover Israel in a manner more reminiscent of Tishreen or Al Jazeera than an American news outlet. The latest egregious example is a piece from NPR’s Morning Edition that runs on the NPR website — and this morning was the lead story on the NPR home page — under the headline “In Israel, No Welcome Mat for African Migrants.” The article accuses Israel of being inhospitable to refugees. There’s no mention whatsoever of Israel’s welcoming 1 million Jews from the former Soviet Union or tens of thousands of Jews and others from Ethiopia, which, last I checked, was in Africa. Nor is there any mention of whether any other countries are laying out welcome mats for refugees. It’s hard to think of a country other than America that has been more welcoming to refugees than Israel has, so it seems likely that the NPR piece is afflicted by a certain confusion between a “refugee” and an “illegal immigrant.”

One could argue that holding Israel to a higher standard of behavior represents a certain sort of philo-Semitism, but from National Public Radio — or National Palestinian Radio, as I call it (”Please turn down the National Palestinian Radio, dear”) — I’d settle for mere accuracy.

The NPR quotes one illegal African immigrant it states has been in Israel for 16 years as saying that Israel “ends up not a place for people who are different. It’s a place where people should be, look, all the same.” Again, there’s no reminder or reality check from the NPR correspondent to the effect that Israelis, who may be Ethiopian immigrants, black-hat Orthodox, secular supermodels, Ashkenazi, Sephardi, you name it, hardly “look all the same.”

NPR has responded to complaints about its Israel coverage by commissioning an independent review every three months of its coverage of “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” But this isn’t even coverage of the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”; it’s just a hit piece on Israel.

You really have no idea what net neutrality is. Zip, nadda, zero, nothing. The whole point of net neutrality, true net neutrality, is to maintain a free internet.
.
Net neutrality is about ensuring that all bits being transfered are treated equally, regardless of source or destination. As it stands right now, any ISP could severely throttle connections to their rivals; cable companies could slow access the the satellite companies websites to a crawl. If the Comcast-NBC merger were to go through, what would be there to protect people if Comcast decided to throttle all information going to and from Fox’s site? Or to Youtube? In the case of ISPs, there is no free market. I can get Comcast or nothing. Most people might have two or three choices, at most, but more than likely the other two are far inferior to what they have now or are more expensive.
.
You keep telling yourself net neutrality is government regulation and conrtol. As said before, just because you think it doesn’t make it true. But as we all, know, truthiness is the most important thing to consider.
.
And personally, I would much prefer to have the government in charge of regulation that a corporation who’s only concern is its bottom line. At least the government has to feign acting in my best interest.

Because the FCC is not “regulating” the internet?

“OK my wise friend. Using my example of the FCC regulating the internet. How am I wrong?”
.
Let me put it like this – what do you get right?
.
In only the very broadest of ways
.
Socialism and fascism are ideologies and their power comes from government and people. So FCC being a government agency it falls under government. So if there is a fascist government with a agency that regulates communication it would be a fascist regulated agency.
.
THAT is the extent of what you get right. FCC is a government agency, there are fascist (were) governments so in extension FCC could if USA had a fascist government be fascist.
.
And that is why historicans slaughtered Goldbergs nonsese; he assumed that a means b without providing the meat.
.
You’re doing the same slobby thing.

I don’t.

Historians demolish Goldberg using facts

*****************************************

You didn’t present a single example. You cited a historian who very likely didn’t read the book. That’s gossip. don’t give me historians think it’s a fraud give the documentation, the specific fraud.

BTW: His book wasn’t a history book. It’s more of a political science book which is by definition a mixture of facts and theory and opinion.

I know you didn’t. That’s from a prior thread someone telling me to get back on Israel and quit changing the subject.

Socialism and fascism are ideologies and their power comes from government and people.

**************************************

Not so in a democracy the power comes from the people via the vote and through the previously approved constitution. Under socialism and Fascism the government takes the power from the people and uses their control of power to rule the people without their consent.

Not so in a democracy the power comes from the people via the vote”
.
BINGO
.
I removed constitution since different democracies have either codified (like we do) or uncodified (like UK which is kind of like – we said so it is).
.
Net neutrality is not FCC regulating to take away your internet, net neutrality is a movement that WE the people keep our rights to a free and equal internet. That a company cannot change bandwith for what we pay for dependent on where we decide to go.
.
You have is so @ss backwards that I think you need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
.
Ironically you correctly say that that’s not the case in a democracy but then goes on trying to make a case that a democratic agency is fascist. Unreal.

THAT is the extent of what you get right. FCC is a government agency, there are fascist (were) governments so in extension FCC could if USA had a fascist government be fascist.

*****************************************************

This isn’t coherent at all. We don’t have a fascist government. We have a democracy. The FCC attempting too regulate the internet is an example of fascism because that’s what fascism does, govt control of the economy and institutions, not thru direct ownership as with socialism but via regulaton by a ruling elite.

The fairness doctrine was a bonehead attempt to control political speech. Citizens united was the rejection of campaign finance reform for the same reason.

“You didn’t present a single example. You cited a historian who very likely didn’t read the book. That’s gossip. don’t give me historians think it’s a fraud give the documentation, the specific fraud.
.
BTW: His book wasn’t a history book. It’s more of a political science book which is by definition a mixture of facts and theory and opinion”
.
Click the link. Go to each historian, click their review and you’ll see that they have very likely read his book as they go through many examples of what’s in the book, what the book omits and the assanine conclusion Goldberg comes too. What you’re doing is sloppy; you refuse to read dissenting opinions because it doesn’t fit your assertion.
.
You’re probably right that this is a opinion. And opinions are not facts. YOU are using it as a fact of what you think about fascism and socialism. So you’re inderectly admitting that it’s your opinion in the matter. Mine is not.
.
It’s a documented fact that fascism is a rightwing ideology and socialism a leftwing. I’m not the slightest ashamed to admit that communism is a blight on anyone who think they’re a leftist, but I’m not afraid of it because I am not a communist. I don’t defend what is bad about a ideology, I live by and defend what’s good. The bad should be dragged out, examined and made an example of. But liberalism isn’t socialism and communism.
.
So go try to hide your trolls in the closet, but by any historical and factual sources fascism is a rightwing blight. And Goldbergs book is a hackjob attempt to exact revenge on liberals for making the correct assertion that fascism belongs on the right.
.
Note – I don’t defend anyone in the slightest who gets sloppy and say that Bush or Mr Joe conservative are by affiliation to the right fascists. I think that’s moronic. Conservatism has enough history and b@lls to stand apart from one of it’s more radical cousins, just as liberals don’t sweat a drop over socialism.
.
Only ideologues such as yourself that are to intellectually lazy to figure out the difference do that kind of hack jobs. Goldberg thanks you for his defense and the money you donated. I’ll whipe my @ss with his book when I run out of toilet paper.

Net neutrality is not FCC regulating to take away your internet,

************************

What are you babbling about? Who said they were going to take it away?

It’s an attempt by them to control the internet. That’s what regulators do. It’s doing quite well without them. This is a deeply unpopular bill and will not be implemented. IN fact I predict the House will smack the FCC via the funding process and there will be a legal battle that will start with an injunction by the FCC and goes to the Supreme Court.

I read one very good article on this it’s actually very dangerous for liberals because depending on the legal strategy the lawsuit will drag in the fairness doctrine to get the Roberts Court to more broadly enforce the 1st amendment.

The fact is all of these agencies came about in a time of shortages and as Regan explained govt agencies are impossible to kill. IN this age of plenty when do we need the FCC telling Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann what they can or cannot say? That’s an absurd abrigement of freedom of speech. We only have 4,000 radio channels. A big part of this process will involve NPR and PBS. Why on earth is the govt funding programming and supporting these people.

Again, think of Howard Stern getting chased off the ‘public’ airwaves. A lot of young people were outraged by that. When you tell them liberals want to take Rush off the air because they don’t like his opinions they know immediately you are the same pricks who took Stern off the air. It has zero to with with fairness or neutrality. It’s about control. That what fascists seek to do. It the totalitarian instinct that is part of the liberal experience as eloquently described by Krauthammer and others.

“This isn’t coherent at all”
.
Correct
.
“We don’t have a fascist government. We have a democracy”
.
Correct
.
“The FCC attempting too regulate the internet is an example of fascism because that’s what fascism does”
.
And loop back to this isn’t coherent.
.
Move to Somalia; its a perfect example of a unregulated society and tell me something else about ‘fascism’.
.
You have no clue do you?

“What are you babbling about? Who said they were going to take it away?”
.
Wallace didn’t scream, ‘you can’t impose your regulation’ now did he?
.
When you control something you take something away. If if is not gone, it’s not taken away. You still don’t know what net neutrality is and it’s cute that you defend the corporations rights to throttle your bandwith when you surf. Hopefully they won’t throttle the rightie websites you go to, because that would be to constrict ‘your freedom’.
.
You have NO idea what net neutrality means, as delivered to you by the intellectual giants like Rush Limbaugh.
.
Comcast and AT&T gives you thank.

It’s a documented fact that fascism is a rightwing ideology and socialism a leftwing.

****************************************************

I don’t agree with this but I am not arguing the spectrum pre-Reagan. I am defining the spectrum as to degrees of govt control and you have free market democracy on the right and the totalitarian on the left. The liberal instinct it anti-freedom. The liberal instinct is govt control. You want the FCC regulating the internet and you wish talk radio. You seek more control by the govt over everything. Wilson progressivism was a cousin of Italy’s fascism. Wilson was about control. Todays liberals would most like to become socialist but that’s impossible. The fallback is fascism. You can’t own the internet or talk radio so the next best thing is to control it. That what fascists do. It is clearly in the modern context a totalitarian religion of the left.

BTW: The way you want to look at this is longer term. Because the stern example will be far more educational than you want. Stern had to leave his regulated environment to go to a non-regulated environment because of the decision by 5 bureaucrats, 5 elites. As we move into an era when socialism has been totally repudiated, yet still exists, the discussion will focus more clearly on the level of govt control as being less = conservatism and more = fascism, or liberalism. The liberal instinct is by definition totalitarian and if the choice is socialism or fascism we know it can’t be socialism.

something else on the not too distant horizon. We now know so much more about the massive butchery of the socialists in Russia and China and their utter failure in providing a just society and soon Fidel will pass on. His brother may or may not keep the veil of secrecy on their depravations but we know his model has been an egregious failure that will be the model for a new generation. We will find out sooner rather than later. There will always be liberals and a left but they will be increasingly seen as extremist and the movement by the USA will be to the right. When I was in my 30′s in the 80′s liberals were still defending socialism as a viable system and touting the fairness of the USSR. In 1978 the govt controlled the prices of all transportation. Anything that moved from our airline tickets and shipping a toy. When you look over the last 3 decades we’ve become far more capitalistic and conservative. The fairness doctrine will never by more thana liberal wet dream and limbaugh could just go to Satellite anyway. But he would not. He’s go to the Supreme Court and defang the FCC.

You are absolutely incoherent.

Controlling the internet isn’t taking the internet away. But it’s a moot point. They got no shot. The fairness doctrine and net neutrality are deeply unpopular. Congress will not support this and the GOP can’t wait to engage. Behind the Congress is the Court. The Roberts court was very explicit in tossing out the campaign finance laws on 1st amendment grounds. It was a very broad expansion of the 1st amendment. There absolutely will be court filings and as part of the filings will be past attempts by the FCC to regulate radio. They’re not going to just kill net neutrality they’re going to kill the fairness doctrine. Thanks to technology the airwaves are not scarce and thanks to Howard Stern not one wants elitist pricks deciding what they can listen to.

The politics here are horrendous for liberals.

“I don’t agree with this but I am not arguing the spectrum pre-Reagan. I am defining the spectrum as to degrees of govt control and you have free market democracy on the right and the totalitarian on the left”.
.
To put it blunt, I don’t give a sh!t how YOU define anything. If it’s not based on facts then the rest that follows is garbage. Why not just redefine everything? Why even have a english language? We could just call this or that something it’s not and then whatever.
.
But I digress. What totalitarian whatever on the left?
.
Do you have free speech? Do you have the rights to a gun? Can Limbaugh lie on radio and can Fox make sh!t up. Can our Media ignore everything important and focus on the cute ducks walking across the road?
.
Any day now, any time…you will show me an example of a totalitarian left anything that have given you more than a rash.
.
It’s in your head. There’s a spectre of a maybe gnawing on your mind but no reality to attach it to.

“You are absolutely incoherent.
.
Controlling the internet isn’t taking the internet away. But it’s a moot point. ”
.
You’re funny. It’s like you’re having a internal argument with yourself.

you will show me an example of a totalitarian left anything that have given you more than a rash.

***********************

Errr, didn’t YOU say socialism was a disease of the left?

Are you saying socialism isn’t totalitarian?

I gave you a logical description of the modern spectrum and we agree Castro, Hugo and the Chinese are on the left. We agree liberals are on the left. That’s not saying liberals are socialist. We agree conservatives are on the right. Modern conservatism is derivative of classical liberalism as espoused by people like David Hume. This is an anti-big govt bias. They favor the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. They see the state as the prime threat to individual rights.

That is the opposite of socialism and fascism which are by definition big government. They are without question totalitarian

The instinct of the FCC to control the internet is obviously an example of big govt control. It’s not itself totalitarian but it’s a step in that direction. Conservatives will do everything in their power to block them.

How would you define the spectrum in 2010?

WD40:

It’s horrendously clear you have absolutely no idea what net neutrality is or is about. You’ve made it abundantly clear, both here and in the past, that you completely lack the ability to think for yourself and to think critically about anything. (See you blind support for Israel)

But go on clucking away about government “regulation” of the internet. As said before, your corporate masters thank you. I’m sure you’d be the first to line up and defend Comcast if it decides to throttle bandwidth to Fox because it is a competitor.

The instinct of the FCC to control the internet is obviously an example of big govt control. It’s not itself totalitarian but it’s a step in that direction. Uninformed Conservatives will do everything in their power to block them.

You appear to have missed something there. And of course now this comes back full-circle to the fact that Fox News viewers and the most uninformed.
.
And please, don’t lop all conservatives together. My wife is staunchly conservative and in full support of true net neutrality moves.
.
Just because you don’t understand it and someone told you it was government “regulation” and “control” doesn’t make it so.
.
The truthiness will set you free.

“Errr, didn’t YOU say socialism was a disease of the left?
.
Are you saying socialism isn’t totalitarian? ”
.
Huh? Are we talking about US or any country out there because in one moment we’re domestic and in another we’re international. And we’re not ‘them’. Just like liberals are not them or conservative are not them there either.
.
You still don’t know sh!t about fascism and socialism and entertaining any spectrum is entirely irrelevant since you and I operate in different realities. You have your alternate history lesson and I anchor mine in facts.

It’s amusing but true. RDW56 is even more cluess than most ideologues. They at least try to avoid getting trapped in stuff that is easily verified (try is a relative world), bur rdw just keep on trucking. It’s like truth smacked him in the face and he pretends that the missing front teeth is a opportunity to wistle a tune of freedom.
.
I bet Rush, Comcast, Fox and Goldberg wish there was more of this guy.

I do know what net neutrality is. It’s an attempt by the FCC to remain relevant. They’re not going to regulate the internet. They will be rejected. The politics are awful. If there were some problems they might have a shot. It’s working quite well. We are at an ideological crossroads. The FCC is not only going to lise here but it will have much of it’s regulatory authority and budget reversed.

Rush hardly needs my help. The ruling in citizens united was a clear signal to the FCC to cease and desist. IN fact aside from a few liberal politicians pandering to their base there was never political support to bring back the fairness doctrine in the 1st place. What’s happening here is the FCC gets the internet will do much to replace the airwaves in importance. If you asked anyone under 40 what the FCC actually does the best they could do is “break hoard sterns balls”

You guys are old time libs. Technology has passed you by. Joe wants to be a gatekeeper. There’s no need.

You still don’t know sh!t about fascism and socialism and entertaining any spectrum is entirely irrelevant since you and I operate in different realities

***************************************************

Actually it’s not all that complex and I don’t blame you for surrendering. If big govt is on one end a 3rd grader could surmise small govt is on the other. Only conservative fits the other.

My wife is staunchly conservative and in full support of true net neutrality moves.

******************************************

She can’t be staunchly Conservative AND support govt regulation of the internet.

“Rush hardly needs my help. The ruling in citizens united was a clear signal to the FCC to cease and desist. IN fact aside from a few liberal politicians pandering to their base there was never political support to bring back the fairness doctrine in the 1st place. What’s happening here is the FCC gets the internet will do much to replace the airwaves in importance. If you asked anyone under 40 what the FCC actually does the best they could do is “break hoard sterns balls”"
.
I think you should read citizens united. Read what it was initially and then what it was changed to be ruled about.
.
You’re a perfect corporate stooge. Not only that, you don’t mind that foreign corporations can now spend money to change the outcome of American elections.

“Actually it’s not all that complex and I don’t blame you for surrendering. If big govt is on one end a 3rd grader could surmise small govt is on the other. Only conservative fits the other.”
.
That’s right. Make some sh!t up – show that you have absolutely no idea what should be apparent for a 5th grader at least and then declare victory since you confuse that I cannot engage you in your fantasy world since I stand here on realities shores seeing you drift from one immolating factoid to another.
.
And you’re wrong. Fascism and Socialism isn’t about the size of the government. It’s what they do. I’m sure you would be able to explain to us then why Bush government was bigger than say Clintons. I mean one is a supposedly ‘leftist’ and therefore ‘totalitarian’ government and the other was the pinnacle of small government.
.
Anyways – let me know when you want a debate about reality – I will let you declare victory on planet Xoink.

Here’s a great example of why conservatives don’t wan the internet regulated, ever. We don’t know where they’ll stop. This is a great chart from a great site for GW http://www.wattsupwiththat.cpm. The link is from National Review Anthony Watts is a guy who things we are warming but the science is garbage and the projections absurd. He has a great site which was in the middle of the climategate scandal loing before the emails were posted. He’s one of the guys demanding smuck like Hanson release the data to the public which the public owns. The good doctor doesn’t like being fact checked. Since climategate he’s attracted a lot of investment and has enhanced his site getting full time technical assistance so he can concentrate on getting these clown on the public dole to release their data. We paid for it. It’s ours. They’re outraged. They’re also losing. Here’s an example of something the MSM would never report.

Only 9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010
December 30, 2010 9:00 A.M.
By Brian Bolduc

On Watts Up With That?, Dr. Don J. Easterbrook notes the attention 2010 is getting as a contender for the warmest year of the century. And then he calms everyone down:

Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.

Figure 5. Temperatures over the past 10,000 years recorded in the GISP2 Greenland ice core

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.

The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u3177/easterbrook_fig5.png

And you’re wrong. Fascism and Socialism isn’t about the size of the government.

************************

Let’s keep it real. Big govt isn’t about size but control. Big is a reference to totalitarianism.

I’m sure you would be able to explain to us then why Bush government was bigger than say Clintons.

************************************

Easy, Bush isn’t conservative in that respect. He didn’t want to downsize govt as Reagan did not did he ever pretend to. He wanted to instill conservative values in govt to make it work better. No child left behind expanded the role of govt in education. Conservatives did not support it. He cut that deal with Teddy K. GWBs thinking was to add accountability to the system. This was never a secret. He campaigned on it.

“Let’s keep it real. Big govt isn’t about size but control. Big is a reference to totalitarianism.”
.
Lets – anytime now you’re going to start keeping it real. By your example below about climate something it’s amazing that you attack net neutrality by assuming that this website would get controlled. Let me put it like this; if there’s a corporation that owns a telecommunication company and they don’t like the information they could without net neutrality throttle the bandwith to that source.
.
Net neutrality means they can’t. That you get the idea @ssbackwards is the same reason why you take history lessons from Goldberg. You’re not interested in what it means, only what you want it to mean.

Not only that, you don’t mind that foreign corporations can now spend money to change the outcome of American elections.

********************************************

What do you think George Soros has been doing for 20 years? I am familiar with the ruling. It was a solid and decisive victory for free speech. Schumer hasn’t been able to figure out how to get around it and of course with the new house he can’t pass anything anyway.

“Easy, Bush isn’t conservative in that respect. He didn’t want to downsize govt as Reagan did not did he ever pretend to. He wanted to instill conservative values in govt to make it work better. No child left behind expanded the role of govt in education. Conservatives did not support it. He cut that deal with Teddy K. GWBs thinking was to add accountability to the system. This was never a secret. He campaigned on it.”
.
Then it should be equally easy for you to explain why Clintons government was smaller than Reagan.

“What do you think George Soros has been doing for 20 years? I am familiar with the ruling. It was a solid and decisive victory for free speech. Schumer hasn’t been able to figure out how to get around it and of course with the new house he can’t pass anything anyway.”
.
Wait a minute? You first find a moral equivalance in Soros and then you say it’s solid, not even looking twice to the fact that foreign companies can spend money in this country without you knowing who is spending what and to which candidate?
.
And that doesn’t bother you?
.
It bothers me very greatly if a foreign company spends one cent on any candidate I vote for. I don’t want any money in politics at all, least of all foreign companies money.
.
Beside, corporations do not have free speech, only real people/induviduals do. Corporations are legal entities for the purpose of maximize profits. Each person working for a corporation have their own induvidual constitutional rights, but they don’t get to count it twice.
.
Ideologues and their mumbo jumbo understanding of anything.

that you attack net neutrality by assuming that this website would get controlled.

****************************************

I assume no such thing. I am merely ensuring there’s no chance. govt regulation slows development. The internet is doing fine. What I do know is if you had a chance to pass the fairness doctrine for talk radio and the internet you would. I want to make sure you never have that option.

Climategate was about many egregious things done by the scientists one of which was refusing to share their data. We paid for it. It is ours. IN some cases it took 5 years for those pricks to give it up and in some cases we found out they lost it. What we need is less govt interference and more private control. The fraudalent peer review process has all but been replaced by a combination peer/public review. Now if these magazines print studies financed with public funds they’ve agreed all data has to be put on public servers for public review. This will cut down on much of the garbage.

“I assume no such thing. I am merely ensuring there’s no chance. govt regulation slows development. The internet is doing fine. What I do know is if you had a chance to pass the fairness doctrine for talk radio and the internet you would. I want to make sure you never have that option.”
.
Then you obviously don’t know sh!t about me, just like you don’t know sh!t about history.
.
Why would I want a fairness doctrine? And what you’re ensuring is something that’s already happening; companies are already throttling peoples ability to surf certain sources dependent on which carrier they have.
.
Them are the facts. Your fantasy about govt regulation slowing development is a convoluted way of saying that you have no idea what you’re talking about and everything is great because you have some sources telling you what net neutrality is vs what it really is.
.
So the only thing you demonstrate without doubt is that you don’t know your own conservative history, don’t know modern conservative reality, you don’t know what the scary words means that you’re afraid of and you don’t know history at all.
.
You have a feeling. That is about it. You feel, reinforced by someone else what stuff is about. When facts smacks you in the face you double up and say it aint so. Good luck with that.
.
So far Rush Limbaugh, the telecommunications industry and all foreign companies that want to mess with our political process thanks you. I hope you get paid doing it if not it’s pretty sad that you would do leg work for people who play you for a chump.

I just did.

You explained why you thought BUSH government was slammer than Clintons. Not Reagans. You made the claim that Bush wasn’t exactly the true small government champ Reagan. Clinton had a smaller government than Reagan,
.
It’s still not about size of government or your metaphysical big as in regulations.
.
Totalitarian regimes don’t need to regulate (look up the meaning of the word) they control, as in deny you stuff (remember how I said take away?)
.
How fundamental do you need me to get for you to understand those differences?

I doesn’t bother you. This is faux outrage. Your problem isn’t foreign money but in thinking it’s going to the GOP. You’ve been fine with Soros doing this for 20 years. He could not have been more visible. He was a chief backer of moveon.org for example. He’s a backer of J-Street. We have no idea of how much he supports but be both know it’s a lot and they’re all far left wing.

Again this is the liberal/MSM dilemma. You cheer on Soros and then after you think you lost the edge, and only because you think you lost the edge, are you against foreign cash. The MSM would never report such comical and shallow hypocrisy but we find out anyway.

BTW: being against corporate giving but for union giving is also hypocrisy.

BTW2: I swear this is true, after the initial examples conservatives were thrilled with Soros and Moveon.org. I’m almost sure in one of the 1st elections they were active they supported 13 candidates and all 13 lost. It was only recently after almost constant failure Soros realized he was getting played as a sap. He got nothing. His move visible and famous ‘event’ was the General Be tray us’ ad. Now, let me ask, who do you think is more revered, the good General or Georgie boy.

BTW3: Another delicious irony of liberals is you have wall street speculators. Except of course for that master currency speculator, George Soros. Of course Joe Klein would never be so rude as to point that out but we know all about Georgie. Another liberal billionaire who won’t pay a dime of estate tax.

Sorry, that’s way too stupid.

Why would I want a fairness doctrine? A

****************************************

Actually I don’t know your bio. We’ve never met and never will. What I know is as a rule liberals are huge fans of the fairness doctrine and many are quite outraged it was removed. So, since you are clearly liberal I am going to assume you are mainstream with the same core beliefs.

It is interesting that the further we get away from it the more bizarre and orwellian it appears. I am confident most americans upon hearing liberals say they want to limit what Rush can say would instead tell these people to change the channel instead. They only have 6,000 alternatives plus an off switch.

Totalitarian regimes don’t need to regulate (look up the meaning of the word) they control, as in deny you stuff (remember how I said take away?)

****************************

How old are you?

They control by regulation. Are you saying totalitarian regimes can only allow or deny? That they can’t allow according to their terms?

You must be 12.

I am not sure why you say Clintons govt is smaller than Reagans but if true it’s defense. Reagan defeated the USSR in the cold war. Clinton got the peace dividend.

Beside, corporations do not have free speech, only real people/induviduals do. Corporations are legal entities for the purpose of maximize profits. Each person working for a corporation have their own induvidual constitutional rights, but they don’t get to count it twice.

*********************************

What about Unions?

american voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.

By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.

**************************************

rdw

The liberal dilemma here obviously is politicians can read polls. This is an act of desperation by the FCC aware that with a very conservative house the curtain is falling. The longer they wait the less their chances.

again, < 40, FCC = Howard Stern ball breakers. Your time has passed. You need 45% support for a serious conversation and you can't get to 30%. All that means is you'll get the freaks from safe liberal districts acting like anything is possible to pander to their base, like they are doing something, But it's all show. The FCC is fighting for it's survival and losing.

Here:
.
As a point, I was the one who suggested rdw stop diverting when he’s losing an argument and stop touting FOX.
.
FOX is irrelevant in re Israel.
.
Ok, now, to summarize rdw’s feelings I would venture that rdw:
.

1, Prefers corporations to decide whether he lives or dies. At least government isn’t interfering in their right to do so.
2. Love Canal should be appreciated as an icon of unfettered, unregulated, free enterprise. So should Bhopal.
3. It’s better to have your hands tied by corporate bean counters. At least they make a profit doing it.
4. Whoever has the most money, or the biggest audience (or, “audience”, if you prefer) is always right.
5. Do unto others before they do unto you — even if they weren’t going to!
6. My killers and terrorists are better than your terrorists and killers.
7. My First Amendment rights are inviolable — unless a corporation violates them.

WD40:

Answer me this: what does your so called “regulation” of the internet by the FCC entail? You’ve been plainly told what net neutrality actually is, but continue to ignore that and spout off the big “R” word.

I’d also like to point out that net neutrality deals with internet providers, aka ISPs. There is no such thing as a free market when it comes to ISPs.

The internet works fine. They’re doing a great job. The problem you have, and this is deliciously ironic, but you pricks also want to regulate content. You chased Howard Stern away and have made it clear you want to shut down Limbaugh.

The fact is no one trusts you. The polls are clear. You are not trusted. You can ignore polls but Congress cannot.

This is worse than it looks. This is a major ideological victory. You can’t get above 30% support for govt involvement. More than 50% instinctively think you pricks are up to something.

1) Answer the question. You sure made alot of noise there but completely avoided saying what you think this “regulation” is.
.
2) Who is this “You?” Me? Why am I not trusted? I chased away Howard Stern? I’m fairly certain that was the religious-right and their continuous “Think of the Children.”
.
3) Answer the question.
.
4) I agree the internet works fine. If you’d paid attention, the whole point of net neutrality is to maintain that. But you are incapable of thinking for yourself, so that doesn’t me much. Truthiness and all that.

“47.3 – How old are you?
.
They control by regulation. Are you saying totalitarian regimes can only allow or deny? That they can’t allow according to their terms?
.
You must be 12.”
.
It’s a fair question. No, I’m not 12. Look up the word regulation. What is it that totalitarian regimes do other than allow or deny? What does totalitarian even mean? In old soviet, did they regulate business or only allow their own state owned? You’re confused about things like regulate and totalitarian. Maybe that’s why it is so easy for you to apply it to stuff that’s not.
.
“48.1 – I doesn’t bother you. This is faux outrage. Your problem isn’t foreign money but in thinking it’s going to the GOP. You’ve been fine with Soros doing this for 20 years.”
And
“50 – Actually I don’t know your bio. We’ve never met and never will. What I know is as a rule liberals are huge fans of the fairness doctrine and many are quite outraged it was removed.”
.
If you don’t know anything about me, why would you then assume anything? Shouldn’t what you argue about be based in what you know? I’ve yet to meet anyone ‘liberal’ that is for the fairness doctrine and anyone thinking that money no matter from whom is good in our politics. I get what you come from; I base my opinion about your argument on what you actually write as suppose to a hypothetical assumption about your politics. I guess that’s the difference between ideologues and someone like myself.
.
You can continue to assume anything you want about me and it’s true that the more we get away from it, it gets more and more bizarre, but that’s only because I’m still saying the same thing over and over based on facts while you waffle further and further into assumptions and hypothetical’s. And I’m quite confident that when Americans hear the truth, whether it comes from liberals or conservatives they’ll do the right thing. But I will assume based on the data you provide (about your own opinions) that you won’t change even if it proves you wrong.
.
I don’t want money in politics and you show faux outrage over Soros but can’t sweat a drop over foreign money, especially if it goes to GOP. I happen to think that regardless of who gets the money it corrupts the very fabric of our political system. I don’t trust a person just because they have a D in front of them. It’s absolute idiotic for you to assume that based on your mythical understanding of ‘liberals’. Wake up.
.
So what about unions? Individuals are the only ones that have free speech. It’s a very simple concept. Anything that is more than a individual has a duality that is not covered by individual rights. There might be a intellectual dimension to a group of people that are expressing a similar point of view by marching for that right or another grouping, say corporation that try to stay anonymous and spend money while pretending that the spending money is the same as expressing a individual right.
.
“51 – again, < 40, FCC = Howard Stern ball breakers. Your time has passed. You need 45% support for a serious conversation and you can't get to 30%. All that means is you'll get the freaks from safe liberal districts acting like anything is possible to pander to their base, like they are doing something, But it's all show. The FCC is fighting for it's survival and losing.”
.
I personally don’t know what you’re trying to say with this. You throw numbers around but it’s not anchored in reality what net neutrality is about (which you cannot demonstrate that you know other than it’s ‘evil’) and that Howard Stern broke balls.
.
“53.1 – The internet works fine. They're doing a great job. The problem you have, and this is deliciously ironic, but you pricks also want to regulate content. You chased Howard Stern away and have made it clear you want to shut down Limbaugh. “
.
And we’re back to square one. You again confuse net neutrality with fairness doctrine. It’s like the war on Christmas by the 300 Gorilla pretending that Hanukkah is a serious contender to the 3 months of Christmas before the actual event. Poor oppressed Christmas. I’ve spent the last 3 weeks telling people Merry Christmas to their Happy Holidays without a single worry if that diminishes what it represent.
.
So what does ‘the internet works fine’ mean in the sense of net neutrality? Does it stop ISPs from throttle bandwith to services supplied by competitors? Does it give them right to say they sell you unlimited internet with 1MB speed but then artificially cap it when you hit 30GB download and if you use some services they slow down the 1MB speed to a much slower one? That’s what net neutrality means you know. Not that you give us an example of a report about what you think it says about global warming. It’s not evil FCC telling redstate that they can’t write what they do.
.
And please don’t use the word ironic followed by the use of prick, especially since we’ve proven you wrong over and over and you’re the only delusional individual backing up your information based on Rush Limbaugh, some ahistorical guy with a axe to grind and a lot of personal assumptions.

I agree the internet works fine. If you’d paid attention, the whole point of net neutrality is to maintain that.

*****************************

If it’s already working fine what is the point of changing it?

What is it that totalitarian regimes do other than allow or deny

********************************************

Do it the way they tell you to do it. Do it first for the people they want 1st in line. The possibilities are endless.

you show faux outrage over Soros

*************************************************

Wrong, I did not show any outrage over Soros. I think George is an incompetent dickhead and a perfect symbol. 1st off he made billions currency speculating. That’s perfect. Liberals pretending to hate Wall Street while embracing George. I love it. 2nd, he’s a friggin idiot. Moveon.org are all whackjobs. Trashing Petraeus was perfect, for Petraeus. George has already destroyed his reputation siding with those nutjobs. He’s always going to be the rich, white, currency speculator who funded moveon.org and smeared the greatest general in American history. I love George.

You again confuse net neutrality with fairness doctrine

************************************

I am not confusing them. They are two very different things. I am saying as a political tactic the fairness doctrine is a great tool to defeat net neutrality. The fairness doctrine is what you would like to do to the internet.

The bottom line is Americans do not want liberal elites deciding content. You don’t want to watch something turn it off and then STFU. I’ll watch what I want to watch and if you don’t like it that’s your problem. If I want any crap out of you I’ll squeeze your pointy head.

Understand that what is happening here is tactical. You tried the orwellian, insulting fairness doctrine. Now you own it. It is who you are. While it failed for obvious reasons it remains valuable as the definition of you, for obvious reasons.

It’s not evil FCC telling redstate that they can’t write what they do

*************************************************

Unfortunately for you the FCC and liberals have a history. That history is quite instructive. Redstate watched you try to shut up Limbaugh after you failed repeatedly to compete with him. Redstate has no idea what is in the bill. All they need to know is liberals support it. The bill is dead. They’re not even debating the bill. They want to eliminate the FCC.

You really are quite dense on this. They don’t want to extend the FCC. They want to eliminate the FCC. The house controls funding. If Obama wants to keep the FCC he’s going to have to cut a deal. I cannot imagine any scenario under which their budget is reduced less than 20%.

I’m fairly certain that was the religious-right and their continuous “Think of the Children.”

*******************************************

isn’t the irony delicious? It wasn’t the religious right who harrassed Howard Stern, it was the FCC. The RR didn’t force Howard to relocate. The FCC did. Howards problem is why/how do these pricks get the power. The RR has free speech rights. They can’t take Howard off the air. That was the FCC and they should not have that power in America.

BTW: I read a VG analysis in the citizens united decision regarding free speech and one of the points was that if Stern choose to sue the FCC he’d have a much better than 50-50 chance of winning. It’s expensive to do so and howard made out but I suspect the next time the FCC tries this nonsense there will be conservative think tanks anxious to foot the legal bill.

The FCC is really in a bad spot. IN this world of 800 stations it’s hard to justify their existence. Americans damn sure do not want them regulating speech. Like it or not the fairness doctrine will forever be the example of liberals regulating speech. That’s just cool.

So what about unions? Individuals are the only ones that have free speech. It’s a very simple concept.

***********************************************

Pity then you sat silent when the campaign finance bill allowed unions to fund politicians. That was their critical error.

There is no logical reason why non-salaried members of a corporation can fund political candidates but the salaried members cannot. Thjat’s just stupid and a very serious blow for unions. Poitically Schumer was devastated. With this house there won’t be another attempt before 2020.

“The bottom line is Americans do not want liberal elites deciding content. You don’t want to watch something turn it off and then STFU. I’ll watch what I want to watch and if you don’t like it that’s your problem. If I want any crap out of you I’ll squeeze your pointy head.
Understand that what is happening here is tactical. You tried the orwellian, insulting fairness doctrine. Now you own it. It is who you are. While it failed for obvious reasons it remains valuable as the definition of you, for obvious reasons.”
.
“I love George.”
.
It’s interesting that I should STFU about something you constructed. You’re saying liberals want to decide things. I don’t. The net neutrality doesn’t. I haven’t heard anyone arguing for a fairness doctrine. I haven’t argued that you can’t watch anything. So you constructed it, made references to it and used both net neutrality and fairness doctrine interchangeably as if they were both the same.
.
And then you say I use a tactic of trying to insult fairness doctrine? And I own it? Are you doing drugs? Are you even real? The only one that has failed in practically every single post is you. You assume. You make generalizations and you don’t even have your facts straight. So I’m going to ask you what I asked newfreedom yesterday…what is wrong with your logic center?
.
Yours is not a opinion or a argument, yours is not founded in reality – it’s a long string of mash potato talkingpoints where you declare victory based on a assumed outcome that never happened. Wake up – the truck that just hit you is entirely self inflicted. You’re arguing against things that you can’t find a reference in anything I’ve written tonight.
“Do it the way they tell you to do it. Do it first for the people they want 1st in line. The possibilities are endless.”
.
Ironic isn’t it? And yes, this is the right use of the word ironic. First you argue that totalitarian regimes are not about allowing or denying something, but it’s about regulation and then you more or less say it the way it is; do it the way they tell you to do it. You’re right. If you have a totalitarian viewpoint it’s your way or the highway. It’s you either do it, or there are consequences. Black and white. Yes or no – allow or deny. Yours is a weasel word; practically all thriving democracies have regulations. They thrive because they have them. They are for most part based on the practical application of that countries rights and these countries like ours have a supreme court that have the final word if a regulation have a foundation in the intent of the codified or uncodified constitution.
.
Totalitarian regimes don’t. They make up laws; usually to deny people their rights. They’re changed and constructed to deny all forms of essential rights and no ‘regulations’ that make sure everyone operates under the same guide lines. They could have a law that said you lose your hand if you spit on the sidewalk. Bet your @ss that only people without authority will lose their hand as constructions like that are always applied unequally and in favor of authority.
.
This is like political science 101 – basic common sense stuff. We don’t use the word totalitarian because there’s an ambiguity about what it means. It’s not like a Swedish model (going back to the 50’s and forward and dying around the 90’s) of mixed market. Where you had private industry but the government owned some of the more pivotal (according to them).
.
Or the wild freemarket of Russia after perestroika that lead to the super boom, followed by pirate market collapse and influx of criminality in a political system ripe with corruption following their totalitarian regime.
.
Totalitarian regimes have a strict your way or the highway policy in favor of authority.
.
Here we can question that authority. Challenge it all the way up to the supreme court.

You need 45% support for a serious conversation and you can’t get to 30%. All that means is you’ll get the freaks from safe liberal districts acting like anything is possible to pander to their base, like they are doing something, But it’s all show. The FCC is fighting for it’s survival and losing.”
.
I personally don’t know what you’re trying to say with this. You throw numbers around but it’s not anchored in reality what net neutrality is about (which you cannot demonstrate that you know other than it’s ‘evil’) and that Howard Stern broke balls.

***********************************

What I am saying is the polls are horrendous. Congress needs some indication of public support. Net neutrality has none. Because it’s less than 30% you’ll see the usual fruitcakes like Pelosi and Kucnich make passionite speeches to an empty house only for the purpose of replay on to the home town audience proving they fought the good fight when they made no fight at all.

I’d tell you the senate GOP would filibuster but they won’t ave too This is just for show. It’s not a serious effort. The internet is not broken.

First you argue that totalitarian regimes are not about allowing or denying something,

*******************************************

You have serious reading issues. I said no such thing. You said that’s all they can do. I said they can do much more. They can allow. they can deny. They can allow some. They can deny some. The possibilities are endless. They are endless because they are in control and can to anything they want. Hence totalitarian.

“Pity then you sat silent when the campaign finance bill allowed unions to fund politicians. That was their critical error.
.
There is no logical reason why non-salaried members of a corporation can fund political candidates but the salaried members cannot. Thjat’s just stupid and a very serious blow for unions. Poitically Schumer was devastated. With this house there won’t be another attempt before 2020.”
.
It’s a good thing that I didn’t sit silent while you did. You didn’t take any action just as you now defend foreign corporations rights to spend as much money anonymously as they want on our politicians.
.
I didn’t and I don’t. I don’t want ANY money in our political system. That’s no less of a bribe than me giving money to a cop to not give me a ticket. If I have a fundamental understanding of what say 100 bucks can do to a person’s moral viewpoint I sure can see what millions does to a persons fluid moral understanding.
.
That applies in my personal view across the entire political spectrum. You assume too much.
.
Beside – free speech is still YOUR and MY individual fundamental right. Not corporations and any other organizations. Anyone claiming otherwise is bastardizing the understanding of free speech and engaging in mental masturbation.
.
And as with this house you probably mean there will be no bill dealing with campaign reform in anyway, because GOP leadership already met with K-street lobbyist before the election, just as some democrats have formed their own ties with lobbyists. When you say 2020 it’s in the correct understanding that with your willing participation there will be no end to the flow of bribes to our politicians. How you can construe that to be good is entirely beyond me but not entirely surprising.

“It’s not evil FCC telling redstate that they can’t write what they do”
.
Fortunately for me you’re only making up sh!t to suit your point of view. Lets deal with what net neutrality means and not what you assume it does. You’re assumptions haven’t panned out so well today so lets not continue flogging it.

“What I am saying is the polls are horrendous. Congress needs some indication of public support. Net neutrality has none. ”
,
And what I’m saying is that the polls don’t reflect what it is. If you can’t tell me what it means then how will Joe blow polled person do it? If they’re only half as ignorant about it then it’s fully reflected in whatever you say it means.
.
And as for GOP filibuster anything? What else is new. They have no ideas.

“You have serious reading issues. I said no such thing. You said that’s all they can do. I said they can do much more. They can allow. they can deny. They can allow some. They can deny some. The possibilities are endless. They are endless because they are in control and can to anything they want. Hence totalitarian.”
.
Come on man…is this a act where you make yourself sound purposely silly just to burst out lauging saying you were only screwing with me.
.
Read yourself again.
.
Definition of TOTALITARIANISM
1: centralized control by an autocratic authority
2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
.
Redefine that all you want.

This confirms my point. They have total control They are not limited. You said they can allow or deny. As if there is nothing else. There is a lot of in-between. thwy can allow some, deny some. They can do anything they want.

The polls reflect what the people think it is and based on what they think it is you lose. You don’t just lose you are smashed.

If there is a disconnect on what they think it is and what it is your side better get cracking and correct the record. Allow me to suggest once something has been out there as long as this thing it’s well defined. People don’t want to hear what something is when they already have an idea. This isn’t the most interesting thing around. If you haven’t sold it by now you lost.

And as with this house you probably mean there will be no bill dealing with campaign reform in anyway, because GOP leadership already met with K-street lobbyist before the election, just as some democrats have formed their own ties with lobbyists. When you say 2020 it’s in the correct understanding that with your willing participation there will be no end to the flow of bribes to our politicians.

*******************************************

Because there is no basis for agreement. One of the reasons McCain lost conservative support in 2008 was his campaign finance reform bill was going to allow liberals to ban corporations but not unions. That’s just stupid.

Some democrats have ties with lobbyist? Are you that dense? It’s not some.

53.4: That’s the whole point of net neutrality. To maintain a neutral internet. As it stands now, ISPs have near monopolies or duopolies. If Comcast-NBC decides it doesn’t want people watching clips of it’s shows on Youtube and would prefer you go to Hulu, well there goes all the bandwidth to Youtube. If it decides it doesn’t want you to get news from Fox, then there goes all all the bandwidth. You, however, continue to remain ignorant of what net neutrality is, ignore when it is presented in front of you, and continue to rant about the big bad “R” word.
.
53.5: No sh!t it was the FCC who pushed Howard off the air. It was also the FCC who fined people for the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident. It was the FCC who pushed Bubba the Love Sponge off the air. What do all these have in common? The violated decency standards. Who is the main proponent of the decency standards? The religious right.

.
Of course, truthiness is so much more important.

I’ll ask again, but I’m not holding my breath for an actual response.

WD40, what does the FCC “regulation” of the internet actually entail? What have the voices told you it means?

I’ll tell you again. I don’t know and I don’t care. The FCC is not going to regulate the internet. I don’t want the FCC near the internet. Nor does a majority of the American people. Politicians read polls and when > 50% of the public are against regulation so are they.

Are you really surprised people want govt regulators to stay away from the internet? When did people start clamoring for the government to regulate the internet?

So you readily admit you have no idea what you are talking about? Good to know. I’d take a guess that a significant portion of your >50% also don’t know what net neutrality is. You see “regulation” and begin ranting against it.

You are probably the most obtuse person I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with, and that is saying something.

So you readily admit you have no idea what you are talking about?

****************************************************

Not exactly. What I will say is I have zero interest in any bill or plan by the FCC to regulate the internet. I don’t care what is in it. I don’t want the FCC to have anything to do with the internet.

We are NOT discussing the role for the FCC. We aren’t even really discussing if they should have a role. Polls are 2 to 1 against any role for govt. There is nothing to discuss.

“Because there is no basis for agreement. One of the reasons McCain lost conservative support in 2008 was his campaign finance reform bill was going to allow liberals to ban corporations but not unions. That’s just stupid.
.
Some democrats have ties with lobbyist? Are you that dense? It’s not some.”
.
Some, all? Am i dense because I think it’s bad and know that some does (all) but you don’t seem to flinch that GOP have it? What a wonderful argument. Horrible liberals, meh GOP. Some, all – equally bad.

“This confirms my point. They have total control They are not limited. You said they can allow or deny. As if there is nothing else. There is a lot of in-between. thwy can allow some, deny some. They can do anything they want.”
.
I wonder who’s splitting hair. Get back to me when you manage to cornhole regulation into totalitarism. It’s the meaning of ‘is’ isn’t it?
.
Like across the board for everyone (regulation) – be able to do anything to anyone regardless of any law – totalitarism. It’s not rocket surgery.

“Not exactly. What I will say is I have zero interest in any bill or plan by the FCC to regulate the internet. I don’t care what is in it. I don’t want the FCC to have anything to do with the internet.

We are NOT discussing the role for the FCC. We aren’t even really discussing if they should have a role. Polls are 2 to 1 against any role for govt. There is nothing to discuss.”
.
I guess that’s it then. People including yourself have no fracking idea about it so there’s no point discussing it. Sums up the many posts between us today and tonight. You assume, make sh!t up and hold onto the turds dogmatically and then retreat into some kind of fudgy victory about whatever argumentative outlines you invent.
.
It’s alright. You could have said it even shorter. You don’t know and in extension the people who told you about it don’t know. So it’s not like you’re alone in not knowing.
.
Being ignorant isn’t against the law or something.

I have no clue to what you are talking about. Liberals want to control as much as possible via regulation.. Conservatives want to block them. Right now public support favors the GOP 2 to 1.

People including yourself have no fracking idea about it so there’s no point discussing it.

******************************

I can’t imagine what this is remotely hard to understand. I don’t know what the FCC seeks to do because I don’t care. That’s because I know what I want them to do. STAY the F AWAY. There is no need to discuss their plans or idea’s. I don’t want to know. I want the FCC to stay away from the internet and I will have my way on this. There is no support for the FCC.

“The polls reflect what the people think it is and based on what they think it is you lose. You don’t just lose you are smashed.
.
If there is a disconnect on what they think it is and what it is your side better get cracking and correct the record. Allow me to suggest once something has been out there as long as this thing it’s well defined. People don’t want to hear what something is when they already have an idea. This isn’t the most interesting thing around. If you haven’t sold it by now you lost.”
.
This is precious. You don’t know, we’ve been telling you, but you circle back to the fact that you don’t know but you assume you don’t know eventhough it’s wrong and it’s our job to tell you about it but people don’t want to listen since you assume it’s something else.
.
And you smashed me? Before or after the head on collission when your assumption hit the brickwall of a undeniable fact. Just because the facts went way over your head doesn’t mean that your head is still intact from the impact. The severity in the concussion can only be read through the jibberish of your defense of anything. Which is like no it aint, but even if it aint it aint, but maybe but it aint etc.
.
It’s an endless vomit of assumptions meet reality and crash and burn.
.
I’m not saying you lost your arguments as much as you shoot it in the foot, gut, arm, nose and eyeball. It’s like you thought you p!ssed on my shoes but doing so against the wind and pretending it ain’t raining.
.
This is comedy gold. I’ve NEVER had a easier argument to deconstruct and I’m no expert on anything liberal like others. At best I know stuff and most I can google. I love history so after a 2 years university contemporary history degree I know enough when someone tries to flog it with a bad argument.
.
Thanks rdw. It’s harder to argue against someone like Freeinpa – because it’s mostly ‘you’re an idiot’ and the only way to really argue against that is to take it one step further. Yours is like deconstructing login for dummies. I don’t even have to pull out any of my books on the subject to realize the ironic hilarity of your Don Quixote windmill battle.

“I have no clue to what you are talking about. Liberals want to control as much as possible via regulation.. Conservatives want to block them. Right now public support favors the GOP 2 to 1.”
.
Of course you don’t have a clue. That was obvious from your first post when I gave you the facts and you decided to take it to space instead. The rest of yours is simply a bunch of assumptions.

“I can’t imagine what this is remotely hard to understand. I don’t know what the FCC seeks to do because I don’t care.”
.
Suck on that statement a couple of times.
.
If you don’t know then what the hell is up your @ss about something you yourself confess that you don’t know sh!t about. You’re like the old person telling the government to stay away from her Medicare.
.
This is what is inherently the problem with you ideologues. You don’t know. You have no fracking idea about liberalism outside the small bubble telling you what it is. When confronted with what it is you shrink back to what you think it is. That’s why you, freeinpa and the rest of the ideologues are not conservatives, just as Rush and Sarah isn’t. You do not live the way you tell you are. You commit the same amoral acts that you accuse others of and you confess gladly that you don’t know sh!t about something but it’s bad anyways because it’s ‘liberal’. It’s all thought confetti where whatever you think something is, is the way you are and we are. Like Freeinpa constantly b!tching about just how flip floppy name calling we liberals are after he post one p!ssing match after another. He so bemoans the amoral thugs on the left side but couldn’t sweat one drop about the same sh!t on the right.
.
A real conservative stands by principle of what they believe in. If they think it’s amoral it IS amoral regardless of who does it. But you ideologues have this gray area where liberals were mean to you for so long so you have scores to settle. That entitles you the right to claim that we’re amoral and what you’re doing is simply righteous payback.
.
Here’s the ironic part;
I am committed to net neutrality so a person like you will never have to suffer a company reducing your internet speed or charging you more for doing something that could potentially reduce the freedom you have to non-think the way you do.
.
Ain’t it grand – your paymasters play you for a chump so you go on full rage against whatever you think something is and here I am committed to make sure you can continue enjoying your constitutional rights to be ignorant.
.
As a liberal I don’t try to advance the cause for one tribe over another; I fight the fights I do knowing full well that people such as yourself that couldn’t give a hoot what happens to me also benefits. And you can keep whatever little sh!t you own as long as you pay to keep this country strong; I have no interest in your guns or whatever else that bothers you so greatly. You don’t have to believe it, but that’s the truth.
.
Anyways – have a good evening, thanks for the many laughs and I’m sorry to anyone else who didn’t want to suffer this regressive endless circle of a argumentative jerk.

Thanks for the help Hippo.
.
WD40: When you educate yourself about what net neutrality is and not what you think/were told it is, you might have a leg to stand on. Until then you are just a shill arguing against something because it contains certain buzz words that you are trained to be against while having absolutely no idea how it would affect you either way.

This isn’t remotely hard. The internet has done just fine without the FCC.

For you apparently it is. You don’t even know what the FCC is trying to do, yet you are seemingly against it for the sake of being against it.

michaelfury ;Do you think that Israel has the right to restrain and to to fight back the 7 years of intensive Islamic terror Qassams over Israel? Israel has the right to protect herself from the deadly enemy sits half a mile from her towens much more than the US has the rihgt to launch attacks against Islamic terrors half way around the world!!!!

That’s exactly right. It’s called conservatism. If they decided to reregulate airlines I’d be against that too. I’d not need to see any plan. I don’t want the govt sticking it’s nose in it period. 52% agree with me. 27% are for the FCC getting involved. You got no shot.

. You’re like the old person telling the government to stay away from her Medicare.

*********************************

It’s so much worse than that. It’s an ideological battle liberals have lost. One of the main reasons so many liberals hate Reagan is he did suxh a good job eduating us on the evils of allowing govt to get too large. His great line for understanding govt was, “If it works tax it. If it still works regulate it. When it stops working subsidize it”

Govt has a role at times but not in regulating a fast growing business. They’ll only screw it up. With the polls 52% to 27% against you can see Reagan won essentially total victory. There will be dozens of opportunistic politicians trying to get in front of the parade to shut down the FCC and be the hero. There will be legislation banning the FCC from regulating the internet on Obama’s desk. He could make the risky decision to Veto but it’ll hurt his reelection chances and even if he does it the House will still withhold funding for the FCC. If they’re going to do this they’ll need to hire staff. Not if there’s no money. Obama could cut a deal but it would be expensive.

Your train isn’t leaving the station. Also note Boehner plans extensive cuts throughout the budget. Obama is going to have to make deals for NPR. PBS and the NEH. At the NEH the head is a radical lefty who just funded a meeting in Hawaii to revise the history of WWII in the pacific with the USA as aggressor. Are you thinking in these times of extreme deficits that’s what Americans want to fund? One might argue it’s gotten more attention than it deserves but it’s too perfect. So Boehner will ask to eliminate all funding the the NEH using that as an e xample of why the govt has to get out of funding the arts. I’d just love to see Obama get into a fight over that defending the NEH. He’s proven to be a rotten salesman to begin with and he’s smart enough to know this example is an outrage. He defends it he’ll take a hit. It’s a perfect setup for Boehner.

I am shocked you don’t think Islamic moderates should be working actively to evict the radicals. or at least make sure they know they don’t represent them.

Both American liberalism and conservatism fall under the penumbra of classical liberalism,

********************************************

Not true. American liberals favor govt control. They’d regulate TV/Radio/Internet if you let them. They’re trying to regulate our diets. They’d regulate every business if they could and they’ll never forgive Reagan for lowering tax rates from 70%

When you educate yourself about what net neutrality is

***********************************************

It’s an attempt by the FCC to regulate the internet. That’s all the education I need. 52% of Americans do not want the FCC to regulate the internet. No in ANY way, shape or form. They want it to remain as it is now. What net neutrality is or is not doesn’t matter. It’s not a factor. The clear message from 52% of Americans is too keep your grubby hands off the internet.

You are comically dense. You want to explain what it is because you think people don’t understand it. You are the one lacking understanding. We want the FCC to disappear. Net neutrality is not going to happen. I am not going to waste 3 seconds reading about it. I am not going to trust the govt, especially this govt, to fix something that isn’t broken.

If there is a disconnect on what they think it is and what it is your side better get cracking and correct the record.

*************************************************

My side is winning 2 to 1.

It’s an attempt by the FCC to regulate the internet

Once again, no it’s not. You don’t know what it is, what it entails, how it does or does not benefit you. There is a serious disconnect between what net neutrality is and what you apparently think it is, although you won’t even explain that. It’s just has that big scary “R” buzz word and you begin freaking out.

You are comically dense. You want to explain what it is because you think people don’t understand it. You are the one lacking understanding. We want the FCC to disappear.

I am the dense one? You are the one mindlessly railing against something that you admit you know absolutely nothing about. It’s also amusing how you take a poll, a very imperfect and biased poll at that, to mean that people want to get rid of the FCC. I’m not even sure you understand the purpose of the FCC. Once again, you see that buzzword that your masters have told you is bad and you’re up in arms against it.

I am not going to waste 3 seconds reading about it

So you admit, when we tell you what net neutrality actually is, you completely ignore it? You’re like a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and goes “Na na na na can’t hear you can’t hear you!”
.
Once again, educate yourself. I guess that is impossible since you are completely devoid of the ability to think for yourself or to think critically.

No, that’s called being sheep. You don’t know what you are against. You don’t care what you are against. Your masters have told you to be against it so you are, even though you admit (and have ably proven) you are completely clueless.

WD40: You keep throwing around that poll. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

As has been stated numerous times before, (which you have so completely ignored) net neutrality is not about the government regulating the internet. However, the questions in that poll are so horribly biased it’s not even funny.

1* How closely have you followed stories about Internet neutrality issues?

2* Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?

3* What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition?

4* If the Federal Communications Commission is given the authority to regulate the Internet, will they use that power in an unbiased manner or will they use it to promote a political agenda?

Of course, on the main page there is no mention of that first question. So once again, whether or not these people actually know what the issue is become a major concern. (As said before, you have aptly proven you are clueless about it)

I have a feeling this will get taken out of context but here goes; I don’t think the FCC should regulate the internet like it does radio and television. We are actually in agreement there. But that is not what net neutrality is! The FCC is not going to doll out space on the internet like it does on the electromagnetic spectrum for radio stations.

I’ll say it again: That is not what net neutrality is!

The third question is patently ridiculous; net neutrality is mainly about protecting customers from content providers, aka ISPs, not content producers. Of course, free market is best for content producers. However, ISPs are some of the most notoriously customer unfriendly companies out there. (Look at ATT being voted worst customer service recently) And there is no free market when it comes to ISPs. There are monopolies or maybe duopolies. I can only get Comcast. That is all. My parents can only get Bright House. That’s not very free market-y.

And once again, the fourth question is irrelevant because net neutrality is not about regulating the internet

On a side note, I feel increasingly tempted to sprinkle all-caps in words in this post. Maybe thats the only way to get the message through?

We want the FCC to disappear.

This is laughable. That same poll you keep throwing about? 55% want the FCC to continue to regulate radio and television.

Which is not at all what I said. Of course the moderates should be working against the radicals. Just as moderates in this country should be working against the radicals such as Westboro Baptist Church. However, I am completely against you painting all Palestinians as terrorist supporters unless they meet some sort of standard, just as I am completely against someone saying all priests are child molestors, all northern Irish catholics are car bombers, and all Christians are horrible, hateful people (see WBC)

Are you crazy?

This is a very basic ideological position. It’s not complicated. I do not want the FCC to be doing anything at all involving the internet. Regulating the ISPs is regulating the internet.

52% of the people do not have a misunderstanding regarding all of the sweetness and light you are providing. 52% of the people think the govt is not capable of having a positive effect. Like me they think there is more downside than upside.

It’s just like taxes. Liberals want higher taxes to give the govt more power. I don’t. I’m sure you have a ton of great idea’s for the govt. I don’t care. I don’t want to hear them. No tax increases. Not for any reason.

You can educate and rant all day long. It’s not about the plan. It’s about letting the govt in the regulatory door. The polls are not wrong. They don’t misunderstand NN. You are the one who does not understand.

BTW: for the record. ISPs are part of the internet. ISP is short for INTERNET service providers.

“1* How closely have you followed stories about Internet neutrality issues?

2* Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?

3* What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition?

4* If the Federal Communications Commission is given the authority to regulate the Internet, will they use that power in an unbiased manner or will they use it to promote a political agenda?”
.
This is your typical garbage in and garbage out poll. Something rdw himself profess not knowing anything about. If I myself didn’t know what net neutrality was I would assume it meant that FCC (by the angle of the questions) was about to start controlling who could do what on the net. That’s at least what rdw writes.
.
And he doubles down on the stupidity by saying ‘I don’t care – I don’t want FCC to control anything’. In other words – gramps just wanted the government to stay away from medicare. It’s a ignorant statement professing not only that someone don’t understand what it is, but also professing that he don’t care even if he thinks its something it’s not.

“Are you crazy?

This is a very basic ideological position. It’s not complicated. I do not want the FCC to be doing anything at all involving the internet. Regulating the ISPs is regulating the internet.

52% of the people do not have a misunderstanding regarding all of the sweetness and light you are providing. 52% of the people think the govt is not capable of having a positive effect. Like me they think there is more downside than upside.

It’s just like taxes. Liberals want higher taxes to give the govt more power. I don’t. I’m sure you have a ton of great idea’s for the govt. I don’t care. I don’t want to hear them. No tax increases. Not for any reason.

You can educate and rant all day long. It’s not about the plan. It’s about letting the govt in the regulatory door. The polls are not wrong. They don’t misunderstand NN. You are the one who does not understand.

BTW: for the record. ISPs are part of the internet. ISP is short for INTERNET service providers.”
.
Thanks for telling us what ISP stands for. That is about the only thing that’s accurate in your long ignorant rant.

That’s at least what rdw writes.

**************************************************

That is NOT what I wrote. Your analogy to medicare is useless and irrelevant. The internet works just fine and I don’t want the govt in there mucking it up.

BTW: you have so much baggage that’s costing you. #4 above gets to PBS, NPR and the NEH. Of course if they get a shot they’ll use it to promote a political agenda. They always do. So even people who might be OK with NN as designed they are still not going to trust the FCC to make revisions or otherwise bastardize NN in a way to have the same effect. For my side, it’s a smart political tactic to point this out and even suggest that NN is so poorly designed it will have that effect immediately.

It’s called politics, the art of the possible. We agree I think that any politican seeing something polling 2 to1 want to be with the 2. Please the most people and all that. Many might in fact want to lead the charge because that’s unusually decisive. The politician can’t spend a lot of time asking of the people are misinformed or not. Even if they are their opinion is still their opinion and their vote as good as someone as well informed as you are. That’s just the way the game is olayed. I personally do not want NN so I tell people it’s about the FCC sticking it’s nose in the internet and let them draw their own conclusions. The natural position is if it’s not broke don’t fix it. The internet is not broke.

You just have a very weak hand. Even if you think it’s a good thing you can’t sell it. It’s far too complicated, people are not that interested, and they already have fully formed opinions on the ability of the FCC to be fair. These are the people who want the fairness doctrine. They absolutely would love to regulate content. While that is not in this bill the smart political strategy is to suggest it is. Sorry, I know that makes your head explode but that’s the facts of life. Deal with it. Do not invest in this emotionally. You are going to lose. You can’t beat 52% to 27% and that’s the number that is out there.

So why are you trying to act as if they’re not part of the internet? That’s not just wrong it’s obviously wrong. You play my hand when you get slippery like that.

This is why liberals cannot win on big issues. You are not trusted. One of the cool election results was in very liberal Washington state. The gates family supported and funded a bill to create a millinaires income tax. You’d think that would get broad support. An income tax just on millionaires. It got smashed. People realized that’s just a foot in the door and it would be a short time before it applied to them.

you are not trusted.

So why are you trying to act as if they’re not part of the internet? That’s not just wrong it’s obviously wrong. You play my hand when you get slippery like that.

“This is why liberals cannot win on big issues. You are not trusted. One of the cool election results was in very liberal Washington state. The gates family supported and funded a bill to create a millinaires income tax. You’d think that would get broad support. An income tax just on millionaires. It got smashed. People realized that’s just a foot in the door and it would be a short time before it applied to them.

you are not trusted.”
.
I;m just saying you nailed the meaning of what ISP means – the rest including this is jibberish.

“You just have a very weak hand. Even if you think it’s a good thing you can’t sell it.”
.
The facts are free. You not only bought your garbage at a premium – but you refuse facts because being ignorant seems liberating to you.
.
It’s simple. I could take every three words that you write and make sentences out of it and it would make as much sense as your post above. And that’s because you keep repeating the same ignorant sh!t over and over; more to convince yourself than you do any cognit induvidual in the whole world.
.
Even a pygme hammering on a old Amiga 500 handmedown understands common sense and simple facts. You just don’t want to believe them because you’ve been told otherwise.
.
As I wrote before. I gladly defend your constitutional rights to be ignorant but I’m not taking your train anywhere. It smells, the funny jibbering will keep me awake when I want to sleep and they serve Beck as the only meal every 2 hours.
.
And the only way you can ever explode my head is if you shot it for real. Otherwise your intellectually incurious rants don’t even muster a solid meh in my mind.

Wow. Just- just – wow.
.
You have to hand it to him, hippoath.
.
He’s staunchly against whatever it is he thinks that he’s against. Sort of.
.
Glad that he doesn’t have the opportunity to handle, say, North Korea.
.
He wouldn’t need to know anything about that, either! All he has to do is look it up in his Little Red Book…

As far as internet neutrality is concerned, let me ask you this rdw:
.
you start an internet business.
.
The higher-ups in the ISP serving your connection decide they don’t like you or your business.
.
They divert searches and traffic away from your business.
.
You file bankruptcy because your business has failed.
.
Is this ok? What if I exercised my free speech rights and put up something criticizing a business that my provider likes?
.
Eh? Speak up1 What does your “ideology” say about that?

He’s staunchly against whatever it is he thinks that he’s against

******************************************

I know exactly what I am against. I am against the FCC getting involved with the internet in anyway. I don’t need to know what they think they s/b doing. I think they need to keep their hands off and what I think will rule the day.

I know you don’t like the fairness doctrine raised as an issue now as if it’s part of NN but I think we can agree as a tactical issue it’s smart politics for my side. The fairness doctrine is an example of how the liberals need to control content. It’s really almost elegant when you think about it.

The facts are free. You not only bought your garbage at a premium – but you refuse facts because being ignorant seems liberating to you.

****************************************************************

relax, I spent nothing and I am quite content. The ignorance you need to worry about are the 52% against this. I am sure some think, incorrectly, this is another fairness doctrine. That’s not a bad thing for my side. The idea is for the politicians to see the 2 to 1 ration so they know they need to block it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing.

Well then, answer the questions above.
.
Are you then prepared to sacrifice your First Amendment rights to corporations? Is it better for an ISP to violate your rights, somehow?
.
Speak up!

Are you then prepared to sacrifice your First Amendment rights to corporations? Is it better for an ISP to violate your rights, somehow?

***************************************************

This is why the example of the fairness doctrine is so critical. That was a sacrifice of free speech rights engineered by the govt. The FCC did that. It’s important we understand how they are before letting them get involved in the internet.

The answer of course has to be to prevent another fairness doctrine.

BTW: there are already criminal laws covering the crimes you cite. We don’t need the FCC in there.

It’s not a tactical issue at all, rdw.
.
It’s a free speech and free access issue. By free, I mean without encumbrances, such as corporate interference.
.
Most of what I’ve read so far indicates to me that you are simply relying on your trust of corporate interests to not encumber your First Amendment rights, such as in the scenarios above.
.
FYI, if polls were what ruled the day, Civil Rights woulda never made it – and don’t forget – there is such an issue as “tyranny of the majority”. Our forefathers discussed it extensively…

I;m just saying you nailed the meaning of what ISP means

***********************************************

I’m just saying you’re not slick. That was sleezy. This is why Govt is not trusted. This is why you lose.

It’s absolutely a tactical issue and it’s smart politics. The fairness doctrine as an orwellian abomination. You have to live with it now.

Actually, that is only true if you have the money to prove it.
.
Therefore, and lets not be evasive about this, there are instances occurring now in which ISP’s are diverting searches and traffic toward their interests. I don’t see anyone going to jail over it, do you?

And whose free speech are you talking about? Corporate free speech?
.
If so, then there is an element of mutual exclusivity here in re the First Amendment.

I’m not too unhappy with it. It’s not great, but there are some defenses in place to blunt corporate efforts to abridge free speech and free commerce.

So rdw:
.
Do you actually think it is ok for corporations and business to violate our First Amendment rights?

Thanks for the meaningless percantage points you keep repeating. I’m fully relaxed. You’re the one who is sh!tting your pants about something FCC is not going to do regardless for the reason that you think but it’s not really the intent and will never be.
.
“orwellian abomination”
.
You use orwellian a lot. Do you even know what it means?

“This is why the example of the fairness doctrine is so critical. That was a sacrifice of free speech rights engineered by the govt. The FCC did that. It’s important we understand how they are before letting them get involved in the internet. ”
.
I agree it’s important to understand things but shouldn’t it start with you understanding net neutrality? It’s like you lecturing us about what you think it is about this fantasy you made up.
.
It’s also clear that you don’t know what the fairness doctrine is.

“I’m just saying you’re not slick. That was sleezy. This is why Govt is not trusted. This is why you lose.”
.
First you call me a 12 year old and now this. How can I possibly recover from your lazer sharp wit. I like the continued insanity tho, I’m not slick and it was sleezy (look up the word, I think you meant cheezy) and that’s why the Goct can’t be trusted? And I lose?
.
You’re a hoot. Do you use some kind of program that cranks out 3 different words, one always being something about government and then stich it together in a mangled sentence?
.
I think you should give your self a diploma, badge and go brag over at the blaze about how you put another liberal lefty scum in place.

53,
.
He don’t know what it means and he only knows what other people tells him. Don’t ask him to stray outside his bubble because it’s safe. He have a stack of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh books and every time someone tells him something the walls starts shaking.
.
It’s uncofortable to think about the calamity to contemplate just how wrong he is.
.
He cuddles, cradles and nurse those numbers so instinctly and by what he actually feels about israel I genuinly think he think might makes right. That a majority can never be wrong. Not that a wrong majority is a self reinforcing bubble, but it’s a safety in numbers that makes him sleep good at night.
.
And if he lose his job it’s not his employers fault, it’s the liberals for letting socialism destroy the free market. So the story goes, perpetually reinforcing his own self inflicted wounds and fears.
.
At least he’s not pretending to be a doctor or some old wise person.

WD40

You really are the worst idealogue I have ever seen. You don’t know what net neutrality is, don’t care to know what it is, (and have been told many times) and yet are staunchly against it because you were told it’s bad.

You really are the crotchety old man who doesn’t understand technology so you are against it because it’s different. I always thought Colbert was a good caricature of the hardline right-winger, but you take the cake.

Also, please keep throwing around that 52% number and saying that you and “others” want the FCC gone. I’ve already torn down that poll and all you can do is call me crazy and begin spouting off about taxes.

52% of the people do not have a misunderstanding regarding all of the sweetness and light you are providing. 52% of the people think the govt is not capable of having a positive effect. Like me they think there is more downside than upside.

Readlly? Have you personally talked to these people? How do you know they are not exactly like you, completely lacking any understanding of what net neutrality is, the desire to remain ignorant, and staunch disagreement with anything you’re told to disagree with.
.
Like I said, the questions were completely biased and any statistician will tell you that is a horribly loaded question. They also completely leave out any data on the first question. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that perhaps it shows that most of the people taking the poll have no idea what net neutrality is but see the big bad “R” word and run away crying?

I agree it’s important to understand things but shouldn’t it start with you understanding net neutrality?

************************************

No

It’s also clear that you don’t know what the fairness doctrine is.

***************************************

I know as much as I need to Know. What is cool here is that anyone with an IQ > 80 knows instinctively when the gov calls anything the fairness doctrine it’s definitely not fair.

refer to previous answer

I’ve already torn down that poll

*******************************************

actually you didn’t but it’s irrelevant. Its the old perception = reality thing. We have been trained to know instinctively not to trust institutions that name things with terms like the ‘fairness doctrine’. Orwell is famous for mocking big brother for this nonsense. You are tryng to extend the reach of the FCC and it’s simply not going to happen.

You know as much as you need to know? You really embrace ignorance, don’t you? What next, am I an elite because I have a college education and job based on my degree? What happened to the old adage “Knowledge is power?” Why do you celebrate you ignorance to your potential detriment.
.
Also, blanket statements are fun. Many people who actually know what net neutrality is and are familiar with technology are for it. You, on the other hand, are neither of those things.
.
You are completely blind to anything else but what you are told is the truth. You cannot think for yourself in the least bit. Truthiness is all that’s important.

You don’t know what net neutrality is, don’t care to know what it is, (and have been told many times) and yet are staunchly against it because you were told it’s bad.

******************************************

I wasn’t told it was bad. It’s not about the law. It’s about another federal bureaucracy extending it’s reach where it’s not needed. I don’t want the FCC regulating the internet period.

I didn’t? Ok, how? Please go, point by point, and counter my arguments. That’s how this is supposed to work. You, instead, call me crazy, trumpet the 52% number while ignoring what I said about that, and then go off on a tangent about taxes.
.
It’s also fairly comical that you bring up perception = reality. You have no idea what net neutrality is, what the FCC actually wants to do,(despite being told over and over and ignoring it) and yet are convinced that you are right and we are wrong.
.
I’ll say it again; the FCC is not trying to regulate the internet or what’s on it. The whole point of net neutrality is consumer protection, to ensure that people are not subjected to the whims of corporations. It is about free speech for those on the internet and preventing the limitation of that speech.

What next, am I an elite because I have a college education and job based on my degree? What happened to the old adage “Knowledge is power?” Why do you celebrate you ignorance to your potential detriment.

*****************************************

I have a degree too, as well as a masters and CFA. A degree just means you are certified, It doesn’t mean you have common sense or can think for yourself. A elite is someone who has reached the top level of their craft. An elitist is someone who thinks their opinion it more important than everyone else’s.

My position on NN is the opposite of ignorant. It’s well informed. I am aware of govt malfeasance and incompetence and wish to limit it. It’s a very basic but well researched and supported position held by the 40% of the population who self-identify as conservative.

How do you know it’s not needed? You don’t even know what the FCC wants to do or what net neutrality is. The FCC is not regulating the internet. Here, I’ll put it into wingnut speech:
.
The FCC is NOT REGULATING the INTERNET.
.
Right now, ISPs are already limiting bandwidth to sites of their choosing, for whatever reason. This is not about control or regulation, it is about protecting consumers from the most notoriously consumer un-friendly companies out there. Can you imagine the uproar if your fellow wingnuts could not get onto Fox’s site because Comcast only wants them to get news from NBC? That can happen right now. Net neutrality would prevent this.
.
Or are you convinced that the corporations know best?

My position on NN is the opposite of ignorant.

This is absurd. You have stated numerous times that you don’t know what net neutrality is nor care to find out. That is the very definition of ignorance. As you stated, you may have a degree, but that doesn’t mean you can think for yourself.

Here, try educating yourself for once.

Who wins and loses under the FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

The govt IS trying to regulate the internet by controlling the ISPs. They’re not going to. I called you crazy because you are unable to grasp a very basic and old concept of govt reach. What they are trying to do to the internet isn’t relevant. It’s not their role and they need to be stopped. That’s what is relevant.

And they will be stopped. The details of the poll are not important. What matters is how the top line numbers are received. This is a well known poll. The top line numbers have been accepted as reflective of public opinion. As a result Congress has little choice but to block the FCC. This house would do it anyway but you are going to see Democrats in the Senate like Ben Nelson and Webb side with the GOP. It will be up to Obama to fall on his sword and I don’t see him doing that not when boehner will simply deny the funding anyway and the courts will almost certainly reverse them. There is very, very little upside for Obama. He’s got more important issues.

Any way you look at the politics of this thing they don’t work. Only 20% of us are liberal. That’s just not enough.

The FCC is NOT REGULATING the INTERNET.

**********************************************

Not yet but they are trying. Regulating the ISPs is regulating the internet.

I’ve asked you before, but how do you think the FCC is trying to “control” the ISPs? You don’t know what net neutrality or the FCC’s proposal is but are convinced it’s horrible.
.
So do you admit that you have no counter-argument when you say “the details of the poll are not important”? That is absurd. A poll can be made to say anything if you don’t look at the details. It’s a biased and loaded poll and you have nothing to argue against that.

You know as much as you need to know? Nothing?
.
That’s like…you know…not anything.
.

“Not yet but they are trying. Regulating the ISPs is regulating the internet.”
.
At least you know what a ISP is…or can spell out out.

You are comically dense. How is regulating the ISPs, which provide access to the internet, the same as regulating the internet as a whole.
.
To most rational people, saying the FCC is going to regulate the internet like it does TV and radio would cause them to assume it’s going to regulate the content of what is on the internet. That is not the case at all. The entire point of net neutrality is to ensure that everyone has access to the entirety of the internet equally, that your ISP cannot throttle bandwidth to a site because it is a competitor, it doesn’t like it, or it’s Wednesday.

“I have a degree too, as well as a masters and CFA. A degree just means you are certified, It doesn’t mean you have common sense or can think for yourself. A elite is someone who has reached the top level of their craft. An elitist is someone who thinks their opinion it more important than everyone else’s.
.
My position on NN is the opposite of ignorant. It’s well informed. I am aware of govt malfeasance and incompetence and wish to limit it. It’s a very basic but well researched and supported position held by the 40% of the population who self-identify as conservative.”
.
I very much doubt you have that kind of education. Not that sound elitist or whatever you think the word means. it’s because in order to get a masters degree you also have to come in contact with a lot of information and there’s just no indication that Beck university ever provided a masters degree in anything. So unless you actually went to a real school I find it unlikely that you got that far ignoring relevant facts for whatever sh!t you try to say here.
.
There’s just to much BS. To much, I don’t know, I don’t care, to much assumptions etc for anyone who have the drive to get a masters degree to be so uniformly uninformed about basic stuff. I could be wrong of course. You might have a lot of degrees since you can get a degree in practically anything. Woodworking for example.

“To most rational people, saying the FCC is going to regulate the internet like it does TV and radio would cause them to assume it’s going to regulate the content of what is on the internet. That is not the case at all. The entire point of net neutrality is to ensure that everyone has access to the entirety of the internet equally, that your ISP cannot throttle bandwidth to a site because it is a competitor, it doesn’t like it, or it’s Wednesday.”
.
He reminds me of one of my cousins. When proven wrong he doubled back into some kind of stubborn coma refusing to see reality for what it is. I’m thinking he’ll continue to think whatever he thinks and no amount of facts will penetrate that wall. But it is revealing that he have said in the past that he’s atheist in defense of people being hard on Sarah’s religious BS and now he has a masters degree which makes him not ignorant while writing so over and over.
.
This being the end of the year I think I’ll give him a diploma. Most stubborn troll of the year.

I saw, hippoath. I just want to see him cornered by his own reasoning. It appears to me that he’s fine with such potential.
.
He will eventually find out that totally free enterprise does not add up to total individual freedom, and the internet is the perfect Petri dish to show him how his “idiology”* does.
.
*intentional misspelling. It’s clear that his ideology is a shortcut for thinking.

Ok, rdw:
.
Let’s cut to the chase. Answer here:
.
Are you telling us that ISPs, by diverting traffic and directing searches away from “undesirable”* sites and toward other sites more to their liking are not abridging the free speech and the free market aspirations of those sites?
.
Are you telling me that corporate interests are not, right now this minute by doing the above, regulating the internet for their own benefit?
.
Answer here, rdw. Explain yourself!

rdw56 forgets that the ISPs themselves don’t like the NN and FD precisely for the reason that they want to continue to be able to regulate the internet for their own benefit
.
See below at 92.

see 87.1 also.
.
Answer the question without evasion, rdw!

This is the first time I have ever heard someone tout the virtues of ignorance on a subject during a debate.
.
He is basically and candidly admitting two things:
.
He doesn’t have to think.
.
He is fine with someone(thing) else doing it for him.

The ISPs are the internet. Do you know what provide mean?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regard to political philosophies. Despite our rabid differences here in the US, conservatives and liberals are basically of the same political cloth. When Lenin called liberals “useful idiots,” he wasn’t referring to American liberals, e.g. Democrats, but rather classical liberals, i.e. democrats. He was speaking about you, RDW, and your free-market ideals.

I’ve said nothing about the ISPs. They are irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about the expansion of govt, via the FCC.

The ISPs are the internet. Do you know what provide mean?

Really? Did you really just say this? I have been trying really hard not to just come out and call you an idiot, but I really don’t think I can anymore. You are an idiot.
.
Do you know what provide means? ISPs provide access to the internet. ISPs are not the internet. The internet is the collection of all websites, such as Google.com, Time.com, Foxnews.com, et al. As it stands right now, ISPs are not content creators. However, if the Comcast-NBC merger goes through then you have one content both creating (through online content) and providing access to (such as Comcast does now) to content on the internet.

“To most rational people, saying the FCC is going to regulate the internet like it does TV and radio would cause them to assume it’s going to regulate the content of what is on the internet. That is not the case at all.

*******************************

This is called what goes around comes around. Liberals created the orwellian fairness doctrine and often pine for it’s return. They also attempted to reduce free speech in the campaign finance reform bill and were reversed by the courts. So yes, it is the natural assumption and the people don’t want it.

“I’ve said nothing about the ISPs. They are irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about the expansion of govt, via the FCC.”
.

“90.4 – The ISPs are the internet. Do you know what provide mean?”
.
Okay – you don’t say anything about the internet other than ISPs are the internet and you don’t want the internet controlled and we’re not talking about NET NEUTRALITY, we are talking about expansion of government.
.
Okay – you need to step away from the computer. Have a cup of coffee, maybe a few hours nap. Take out your masters degrees books and read up about critical thinking and such and get back to us.
.
Maybe throw your feet up on that wooden computer desk you made using your advanced woodworking degree.

Yes you have. You have done nothing but shill for the ISPs. The core concept behind net neutrality is to protect consumers from corporate interests, namely those of the ISPs. Because ISPs have a near monopoly in most areas, the only way consumers can protect themselves is via the government. There is no free market solution because a free market does not exist.
.
The whole point of net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from directing, shaping, and throttling traffic based on the source of that traffic. As stated before, they can and are currently throttling traffic to some sites, for any reason between that site is a competitor, they don’t like that site, or it’s Wednesday.
.
But go on, continue to stick you fingers in your ears and yell “la la la la can’t hear you can’t hear you” all you want. It doesn’t change the facts:
.
1) You have no idea what net neutrality is
2) You don’t know what you’re arguing for or against
3) You lack the critical thinking ability of a 6 year old
.
You can claim the discussion is about the expansion of government, which is part of it. But it is not the whole, despite your continued efforts to remain wholly ignorant of everything else.

Hippo, you need to step away and relax. My side is holding all of the aces. I am relaxed. I get why people thinking NN is about regulating the content on the internet sucks for you. But how is it you fail to understand why it is good for me? It’s pretty obvious.

I think you knew all along the fairness doctrine was pretty obscene and would one day be used against you. This is that day.

I think that the debate is just about over. rdw thinks that the ISPs are iffelevant!
.
Then, pray tell, whey did he say this?!?!
.
“The ISPs are the internet. Do you know what provide mean?”
.
Now, if I were rdw, I think I would get some sleep and chalk up a severe loss before I dig myself yet another big hole to fall into…

What aces, rdw?
.
Nevermind. Monty Python was right on target…

rdw:
.
Answer the question with respect to corporate interests at 92.0 paragraphs 3 and 4!
.
Stop your evasion!

1) NN is irrelevant

2) I know precisely what I am advocating. Keeping the FCC away from the internet

3) This isn’t rocket science. Limited govt is an old and very well defined concept.

“This is called what goes around comes around. Liberals created the orwellian fairness doctrine and often pine for it’s return. They also attempted to reduce free speech in the campaign finance reform bill and were reversed by the courts. So yes, it is the natural assumption and the people don’t want it.”
.
And there you have it as I explained above in a post.
.
You’re an ideologue. No integrity and no principles. You behave just like the rest of us but excuse it while telling us about our amoral ways because what comes around goes around. It’s your righteous revenge on us dumb evil liberals that you can behave like us, but it’s different.
.
And for the last time – corporations DO NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH.
.
They are legal entities to maximize profit. They are not induviduals. We are. Only HUMANS can have rights. Only you and I. A paper legal document called X corp is NOT a HUMAN.
.
I capitalized some parts to make it abundandly clear how fracken stupid your basic argument is.
.
You are just like me. Wrapping yourself in your imagined conservative super shield only makes you look like an idiot. You are governed by the same moral and social laws as I am. You calling me liberal does not grant you some kind of masterkey to ‘now I can frack you up’.
.
If you return whatever imagined slight you feel we/I did to you your only acting the way you accuse us of.
.
To sum it up -
.
You don’t know sh!t. You said so, you shown it and the only thing you have is the imagined slight you have on your shoulder and whatever idiotic scenario you think will happen if liberals roam free.
.
Tonight I will have fun with my family. You will most likely watch Beck, listen to Rush and welcome the new year when your imagined fiscal GOP will put us evil liberals in place. You might also have your quarterly missionary with your wife.
.
The sun goes up, the sh!t don’t happen and you’re still a ignorant twit wasting your precious time filling yourself up with Glenn hate juice hording food to survive whatever sh!t Glenn says will happen. But it won’t.
.
Because there’s this guy called a liberal that fights and make sure that your ignorant freedom remains free, unions fight for worker rights so you can spend all this time on the internet complaining about evil liberals.
.
You’re welcome. No seriously. You are.

You specifically avoided the questions relating to corporate regulation of the internet for their own benefit
.
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CORPORATE REGULATION OF THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

It’s irrelevant. If Congress determines there is a restraint of trade they can prosecute.

Let me guess:
.
You’re frustrated, too, right?
.
I’m thinking that his avoidance of the issue speaks to the fact that he knows the answer but does not want to admit it.

I’m done, hippoath.
.
rdw56 can take home the Last Word if he wants, but he takes home little else…

corporations DO NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH.

********************************

Didn’t the Roberts court just rule in citizens united that they do? I think they did.

“Hippo, you need to step away and relax. My side is holding all of the aces. I am relaxed. I get why people thinking NN is about regulating the content on the internet sucks for you. But how is it you fail to understand why it is good for me? It’s pretty obvious.
.
I think you knew all along the fairness doctrine was pretty obscene and would one day be used against you. This is that day.”
HAHAHAHAHAH
.
Huh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
WTF?
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
You have me in stitches. Bravo. Seriously. This is the funniest sh!t you have written in two days.
.
My son came down with some smoked sausage for the new year stuff and he was wondering why I almost fell out of my chair and I had him read it and now he’s in stitches.
.
He might not care about politics but he knows stupid when he reads it.
.
Thank you.
.
Have a great new year – do a lot of liberal horrible thing and beg beck for forgivness.

My First Amendment rights are irrelevant!!!!!!?
.
The common man’s right to free commerce, unfettered by regulation by corporate interests is irrelevant?!?!?!
.
Well, I see that the First Amendment is not important to you at all!
.
To rdw56, the First Amendment is irrelevant!

AF UCKING STONISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not avoiding anything. This is about the expansion of the FCC. I don’t want it and I’ve carefully and patiently explained why my side is going to win it. You are frustrated because you know I am right and I am right because your past sins are largely why I am right.

This isn’t Europe. The ISPs made the internet what it is not govt. We’ve had tremendous expansion and continuous improvement. Now the govt wants to come in. I don’t think so.

Well, at least we know.
.
rdw56 cares nothing for an individual’s rights under the First Amendment!

“Didn’t the Roberts court just rule in citizens united that they do? I think they did.”
.
yes they did. Are you saying that a supreme court judge cannot be wrong?
.
Here a suggestion. Look at the what citizen united was originally and what Roberts changed it to be ruled about.
.
Two different beasts.
.
And if you believe that a legal paper entity is a living breathing entity you’re a lost cause. Or rather the perfect ideologue idiot. And should have your master degree in knitting revoked.

I ddn’t ask you whether you think your “side” would win or not.
.
I also didn’t ask about Europe.
.
Neither do I think you are right.
.
Read…those…questions…again.

I am a fan of Beck for doing God’s work and doing it quite well but I don’t listen to his radio show or TV show. I’ve never bought a book. I follow him on the internet. What he’s done to boost Goldbergs work in liberal fascism and to understand the progressive movement was outstanding. His TV ratings are astonishing. I think he makes over $30M. You have to admire his success.

You are chasing your tail. This puppy is going down. It’s a political issue and the politics for you are terrible.

No, you can’t squirm out that way, either, rdw56.
.
Answer the questions set out specifically in paragraphs 3 and 4 of comment #90!

“I am a fan of Beck for doing God’s work and doing it quite well but I don’t listen to his radio show or TV show. I’ve never bought a book. I follow him on the internet. What he’s done to boost Goldbergs work in liberal fascism and to understand the progressive movement was outstanding. His TV ratings are astonishing. I think he makes over $30M. You have to admire his success.”
.
Wait a minute – I told you said previously that you’re a atheist?
.
How can you admire someone doing Gods work if you’re an athetist?
.
Haven’t you noticed that outside your small fanatic clique not one single person thing Beck is sane and that what Goldberg teaches is fictional cr@p? That’s not exactly advancing anything. That’s called inbreeding,

The First Amendment is a political issue. Hmmmm.
.
So the individuals’ rights under the First Amendment are going down..
.
Have it your way…

Campaign finance reform was a bad bill. once you protected the rights of unions you surrendered the ability to say rights extend only to the individual. Liberals wrote it to keep the union edge. Now entities don’t count?????

That’s just stupid.

I have a feeling that his mitochondria are in full revolt, hippoath…

Beck is an industry unto himself. There isn’t a liberal commentator with his reach.

Gods work is a figure of speech we’ll all allowed to use.

godlberg has refined the discussion on fascism and ruined Wilson. It is a big govt religion aligned on the left with liberalism and other big govt religions. That’s an abomination to old libs but a commonsense truism to those in the middle, especially those under 50.

NN is political issue. The 1st amendment is under the capable protection of Roberts and Scalia

“Gods work is a figure of speech we’ll all allowed to use.”
.
Actually – no. Agnostics might do it, but atheists would never talk about someone doing Gods work. That’s implying that he is doing the work of someone you yourself believe in.
.
You’re not using it in a ‘according to whatever Beck believes in’. You’re stating a fact about something you agree in.
.
I don’t care what you do and believe. I believe in God myself. I’m a Christian. I believe in the living work of Christ. Not the typical call myself a Christian but act like p!ssed of old testament God that could only love it’s Children after Christ died for us. I believe in a Christ that died for us so we could see that God still loved and cared for us.
.
Bud – stop pretending something you’re not. Like pretend doctor earl or you the atheist guy with a master degree that can only display utter ignorance. You never listen to Beck or Rush but your references to them are almost angelical.
.
What are you afraid of? That it’ll make the stuff you write not plausible if you repeat every single batsh!t thing they say without putting some kind of neutral wall between you and them?
.
To late buddy – it bleeds through everything you type. At least textee don’t pretend being anything other than a talkingpoint vomit cannon and put up this pretence that anything he says or write have this fake skin of normality over it.

“godlberg has refined the discussion on fascism and ruined Wilson. It is a big govt religion aligned on the left with liberalism and other big govt religions. That’s an abomination to old libs but a commonsense truism to those in the middle, especially those under 50.”
.
And pigs fly, gnomes clean your house while you sleep, flies can actually hear you when they’re on the wall and…

The ISPs made the internet what it is not govt.

And there it is folks, the coup de grace. You are so completely out of touch that you drop this little gem. I really am speechless.

First the first half of the quote: No they didn’t. They provide access to the internet. From CompuServe and AOL to Comcast and ATT today, they provide access to the internet. In the early days, sure, when the internet essentially contained glorified message boards, maybe. But today? To say that the ISPs created the modern internet is laughable. Google is not an ISP. Facebook is not an ISP. ESPN is not an ISP. Time is not an ISP. Ebay is not an ISP. Free Republic is not an ISP. HuffPo is not an ISP. I could go on and on. They are all content creators.

Comast, ATT, Verizon, Time Warner, Cox, they are all ISPs, they provide access to the content on the internet created by all those mentioned above. They are the ones that are actively limiting your access. That’s why this is so comical. What would you do if you had Comcast and they decided to throttle bandwidth to Fox News’ website? They, afterall, would benefit from increased traffic to NBC’s news sites. That is what net neutrality wants to prevent. That is what you are arguing against.

Now the second part; the government funded the creation of the networks that became the internet. Essentially, through DARPA, the government is responsible for the creation of the internet.

Well, I would say that you are certainly indulging in one serious golden calf moment, rdw.
.
Too bad that there’s a reason why the Ten Commandments were cast in stone…

It’s sad that rdw don’t know the history behind ‘internet’ and that his/our government created it.
.
I bet he believe that when he (not that he wants to) file his taxes online through say Turbotax, turbotax itself have this magic tool that file it for him. Not that they file it on your behalf through a free filing tool that IRS provides.
.
It’s magic.

Evading again, I see…

I honestly don’t think that “those in the middle” appreciate corporate “rights” to the level you do, rdw.
.
As I said to sasquatch8 once, “Caveat emptor” are not words someone would use to remind themselves about why they are charging that pillbox on that hilltop in the face of a hail of bullets…

rdw56 is an oligarch. Of that I’m certain. He just doesn’t want to admit that he is.
.
To him, corporations are the be-all-end-all of how societies should be managed.
.
I think we’ve been lucky to get the bounding box around him as small as it is. There s a lot we know about him now…

“Common sense truism”? I fall squarely in the middle. I’m under fifty and make less than $60k a year. I still don’t see how fascism is on the left, (or why you came back to this) but you can go on believing whatever you want in your own little world.
.
In the words of Steve Perry: Don’t stop, belieeeeeeevin’!

It was Al Gore.

It wasn’t the FCC. The simple truth is they don’t have a role. They seek a role to extend their useful lives. The loss of the house will be devastating in this regard.

If you want the FCC to regulate the internet you need an eloquent, savvy leader who believes in it and can sell the idea. Much as Reagan did in lowering tax rates from 70% to 28%. Pity, but Obama is neither eloquent nor savvy and is unlikely to even try. Reagan more than anyone showed the limits of govt. It’s also a pity when Al Gore invented the internet he didn’t also invent a reason for the FCC to regulate it.

. They are the ones that are actively limiting your access.

************************************************

See, here’s where you go wrong. If you want to create a need for regulation it has to be authentic and obvious. I have no problem with access. I don’t know anyone who does. We’ve all learned to distrust big govt. Those instincts are at play. Until we see it for ourselves there won’t be support for the FCC. It is touching you are concerned about Fox. I’m thinking they can take care of themselves.

Happy New Year rdw, hippoath, npo and Exiled (plus Joe and everyone else).
.
Happy Birthday 2011!

“See, here’s where you go wrong. If you want to create a need for regulation it has to be authentic and obvious. I have no problem with access. I don’t know anyone who does. We’ve all learned to distrust big govt. Those instincts are at play. Until we see it for ourselves there won’t be support for the FCC. It is touching you are concerned about Fox. I’m thinking they can take care of themselves.”
.
Happy new year rdw. I’ve always believed in you have the right to your own opinion, not your own facts. You can and like you’ve done here many times make up your own reality around net neutrality and that of the internet. Over and over. But facts are different. You will never win this argument if you change the reality of the facts. Just as Goldberg will never be right no matter how much he tries to alter the reality of his spiteful vindictive work of fiction.
.
Simple – here’s reality – what stuff is. Here’s you and what you think things are. You can’t marry those concepts unless your opinion is a oppositionary construct of the reality. Like – I know that Net Neutrality means this but i fear that if the government gets involved they will ultimately change their role as guardians of net neutrality to this.
.
But no – you don’t engange in philosophical differentiers. You make up a whole new reality and then make an insane argument.
.
So hope you had a great new year – maybe will spend 2011 picking up different books and get back to reality where almost all other people are.

You can and like you’ve done here many times make up your own reality around net neutrality and that of the internet.

***************************************************

I’ve not made up a single thing about NN. I haven’t talked about the details in any way. I’ve said I think the internet is developing just fine and I don’t want the FCC anywhere near it. That’s an authentic and widely supported philosophical position held by a majority of conservatives and libertarians.

That’s reality.

Further I’ve explained why my side is going to win this and it’s because we have the legislative ability to block them and the judicial support. The FCC has been blocked by the courts more than once and this will make it’s way back.

That’s more reality.

It is possible Obama could cut some kind of a deal but he’s already go the fight of his life coming regarding budget cuts. The FCC spends a lot of money with questionable value. Speaker Boehner has already made it clear the FCC is one of the agencies that will be under a comprehensive review. The suggestion is they will not have the staff necessary to pursue this sort of regulation anyway.

“I’ve not made up a single thing about NN. I haven’t talked about the details in any way. I’ve said I think the internet is developing just fine and I don’t want the FCC anywhere near it. That’s an authentic and widely supported philosophical position held by a majority of conservatives and libertarians. ”
.
As I’ve said – you’re entitled to your own opinion not your own facts. None of us can help if you and your widely held opinion is a piece of fictious cr@p. You can further explain your sides victory and have a hypothetical idea of what Obama should do, but that’s engaging in mental masturbation over something that’s not.
.
It’s not my problem nor my fault that you have not the slightest idea what it’s all about. Name dropping people and writing FCC like a smurch in every sentence won’t change that either.
.
As I written numerous time – pick up a real book. Get some data and find a philosophical stand point anchored in reality. That’s all it takes.

Now I know how lurkers feel when I am in a debate with wingnuts.
.
I spent two and half hours reading through all of this.
.
Let me start.

When the federal government, under the proposals of Al Gore, civilianized the internet ISPs came along.
.
All websites had equal access.
.
All websites would travel at the same speed.
.
If traffic was light to moderate it was at the fastest speed for everybody.
.
If traffic was heavy, they all would slow down at once.
.
There was no law protecting this right for all websites to have equal access. It was a matter of ethics.
.

.
(etticks, it’s what separates us from the Animals – etticks. It’s just that I love the movie Miller’s Crossing.)

Now, rdw, you said you were of Irish ancestry, too.

Imagine this is back was back in the heyday of Tammany Hall in New York.

I open Patrick’s Irish Pub in 1898, get to know the right people and form some connections to the party machine.

In 1907, you and your wife try to open Bobby’s Irish Pub four blocks away.

For some strange reason, you can’t get the permits for three years. You end up going to court and, finally, hundreds of dollars (in 1910 money, tens of thousands today) in legal fees later, you open your pub.

For some strange reason, the department of sanitation “forgets” to clean your street while the street I am on is clean.

One thing after another happens because you’re the newcomer and I am the one with the right people in my pocket.

Is that right?

Is that fair?

Well, we can agree, of course not.

Fast forward one hundred and three years and instead of pubs, we’re opening internet businesses.

I make what is now considered a legal deal to make sure that you can get to my website selling widgets no matter how heavy internet traffic is very quickly. You and your wife, who are selling better widgets can not afford to pay the ISP for this premium service.

You go out of business.

Is that fair or reasonable?

Should that be legal?

No?

Then if you believe it should be illegal for me to buy priority service from an ISP, you believe in Net Neutrality.

With the infrastructure already existing, the FCC can take up this duty effortlessly rather than starting a new government agency from scratch.

This is 0% related to the fairness doctrine.

I am not supporting the fairness doctrine

The fairness doctrine was that for any FCC regulated on the air broadcast, on any issue deemed controversial, the opposition could demand equal time.

I am not supporting this, but this is what it is.

This means that after 15 minutes of Bill O’Rielly (if he is on broadcast TV only – not cable) a 15 minute show with a liberal host presents the opposite POV.

Also, 15 minutes in Keith Olberman’s or Rachel Maddow’s show, a conservative would take on 15 free minutes to present the conservative side.

Like you, I do not support the fairness doctrine.

This is because:

1) determining what is “controversial” is difficult and subjective.

2) Getting an appropriate person to disagree and present the other side well is very cumbersome.

3) Most Networks will find their way around this by refusing to let anybody bring up anything “controversial” by FCC standards making news super bland and subtract from the quality.

4) Conservatives like you would stick their fingers in their ears every time a liberal speaker comes on and shout “LA LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA”

So, like you, I oppose the fairness doctrine.

The suggestion is they will not have the staff necessary to pursue this sort of regulation anyway.

And what sort of regulation would that be? You’ve yet to answer this very simple questions and continue to prattle on about how you don’t want the FCC near your internet while simultaneously lacking any understanding of fundamental internet concepts. Are you still using AOL too?

How to argue like a right wing idealogue:

1) Blindly support your side, never wavering in opinion over anything. Engage in no discussion and flatly state the oppisition is wrong

2) When you’ve repeated yourself too many times, switch topic to something new, preferably with a buzzword, such as “regulation” or “tax cuts.” (Or claim fascism is on the left)

——2a) Preferably, remain totally ignorant of what the new topic actually entails. Rather, argue that you are against it soley for the purpose of being against it.
—–2b) When information is presented contrary to what you think the topic is, tell opposition they are wrong and that you have all the information you need to form an opinion

3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 for over 300 posts

4) ????

5) Profit!

Well, hopefully RDW actually made any money on this. But the way he argues I think he’s doing it for a ideologue reason. He’s the perfect ditto head. So willing to swallow the swill. He must really believe that there’s such a thing as a liberal and conservative and we’re like 2 different people. One the total control of the universe and the other some defender of the small island called the bestest country in the world.
.
The way he keeps denying he doesn’t listen to any of those guys like Beck and Rush is kind of cute. He clearly idolize them. But there’s still hope – even he knows that if he ever professed that he did he knows that a majority of people would think that he had a screw loose.
.
Next he’s going to say that he’s a atheist independent, to give his drivel some ‘neutrality’.

This is 0% related to the fairness doctrine.

I am not supporting the fairness doctrine

The fairness doctrine was that for any FCC regulated on the air broadcast, on any issue deemed controversial, the opposition could demand equal time.

I am not supporting this, but this is what it is

*****************************************************************

This is a blog about politics is it not? The orwellian fairness doctriine was designed to stop all political discussion in part by making it impossibly boring. It was ended by Reagan and Limbaugh saved AM radio. It was liberalism at it’s fascist core. Your totalitarian instinct to control speech. There is an ironic elegance today in the fairness doctrine is considered in 2011 to be an abomination, a comically clumsy attempt to suppress free speech. Even Barney Frank understands trying to bring it back would make then look like fascist fools. Yeah, we want Barney Frank to decide what we should listen to. As consumers we’re too stupid to decide for ourselves.

The fact of the matter the 80% of the population refusing to call themselves liberal think it’s pretty arrogant and you’ve really got to be a total horses ass to want some dickhead like Al Gore decide how we get our news. .

This is why the current political climate is so deliciously ironic. As a conservative I can cite the fairness doctrine as living proof of how liberals think and act when given the chance and if you give them the chance they WILL regulate what we get on the internet.

We know this because they’ve done it before.

Tell me that’s not powerful. Let me tell you. It’s immensely useful. One of the problems the right has are our far right members who impressed with the sounds of their own voices talk too much and say too many stupid things. We’ll quess what? That happens on each side. The fact is many member of Congress HAVE expressed outrage we don’t have a fairness doctrine and have promised to bring it back. This is why Lenin called liberals “Useful Idiots”.

Yes I know NN isn’t the fairness doctrine. But it might as well be.

You at least have some recognition of the pure silliness of it. Any serious liberal should be humiliated you relied on it in the 1st place and so many want to bring it back.

The most obvious flaw it that it’s pure intellectual cowardice. Limbaugh makes a living mocking you on this and uses it often in different ways to point out the intellectual failure of liberalism and of liberals. Why isn’t there a liberal Rush Limbaugh. You’ve tried often enough. Bill Clinton just spent the last decade pissing way tens of millions of Soros currency speculation trying to make Air America the liberal version of talk radio. He laugh at Clinton and offtered to bet him $1M it would fail. He even described how, why and when it would fail.

One of the major reasons conservatives now use the Fairness Doctrine so often is to remind you that you cannot compete in the marketplace of idea’s and when you try liberalism fails. And it fails badly each time. The obvious way to counter Limbaugh would be to find you own. You would think since he makes over $50M a year the line trying would be quite long.

I can promise you it is a topic conservatives can’t get enough of because your failure is so glaring and it’s the perfect example of liberal fascism.

NO,

The FCC = The Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives seek to end the FCC.

Since we are talking about interstate commerce there are all sorts of laws on the books regulating trade. We don’t need new laws.

There’s also the silliness of liberals pretending to worry about Verizon screwing Fox or any other profit making enterprize.

Then Congress should pass a law. Why are they there? All of these hypotheticals are nice but besides the point. You want the FCC to regulate. I want the FCC out of business.

There’s also the silliness of liberals pretending to worry about Verizon screwing Fox or any other profit making enterprize.

That example is used as an extreme. Want a realistic one? What about Netflix streaming? I pay $X a month to Comcast for 15/3 mbits internet. I also have Netflix, which allows me to stream movies over the internet.

Now, in this example, Comcast wants me to purchase their On Demand movies. In order to achieve this, they throttle bandwidth to Netflix to the point where it is impossible to watch a movie, constant starting and stopping to buffer. What am I to do as a consumer? I can’t change ISPs, and I certainly don’t want to shell out a premium for the On Demand movies. The same example could be used for Youtube or Hulu.

Again, these are examples, but there are documented cases of ISPs throttling bandwidth to lower-traffic sites and there are documented examples of ISPs wanting to put forth limits on bandwidth depending on where the traffic originates.

Yes I know NN isn’t the fairness doctrine. But it might as well be.

If you acknowledge that it is not the Fairness Doctrine, then why do you keep comparing the two? Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the actually content being transfered.

“There’s also the silliness of liberals pretending to worry about Verizon screwing Fox or any other profit making enterprize.”
.
“Current status

Currently, many telecommunications providers treat traffic served to end-users in a neutral fashion. That is, there is no discrimination on the part of the provider based on such factors as which website or location legitimate traffic originates from or which type of service the traffic is supporting. Lines and equipment are simply provided for use. Tiered access would allow control over how fast or slow content from different entities is delivered. In effect they could charge consumers higher fees to access certain sites quickly, give preferential treatment to their own media, or have other content providers pay them for faster access.”
…..
“Telecommunications companies such as AT&T have been lobbying for legislation that would ease the creation of tiered Internet service in recent years. Supporters of the tiered Internet scheme argue that such services will allow for quick and effective delivery of content. Other companies such as Yahoo and Google, oppose such laws, fearing that they will give telecoms too much power over Internet content. Internet advocacy groups are also wary of tiered service, fearing such moves will have a detrimental effect on consumer choice and marginalize smaller content providers.”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiered_Internet
.
RDW56,
.
I am going to refrain from insulting you, but, it is not silliness.
.
It is a current event!
.
At this very moment Free Enterprise is being stopped for businesses that do not pay the higher fee!

“All of these hypotheticals are nice but besides the point. You want the FCC to regulate.”
.
See 111.2
.
No, I only want net neutrality.
.
Please STOP PRETENDING YOU ARE PSYCHIC!
.
YOU LIKE SEEING NEW BUSINESSES CRUSHED AND FREE MARKETS DESTROYED.
.
Like that?
.
No?
.
Then stop pretended that you know what anybody else in the world thinks.

“Why isn’t there a liberal Rush Limbaugh. ”
.
There is.
.
He is named Micheal Moore: Morbidly obese and prone to being highly inaccurate but entertaining to people who share his POV.

“”The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[5] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[6]

In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission asserted that the United States Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of “access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue…” but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had “voluntarily” complied with the “spirit” of the doctrine. It warned that:
“ Should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of 'voluntary compliance'] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated.[7] ””
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Origins
.
Well, from it’s first use in 1974 until it’s ending in 1988, how well did it work for liberals?
.
1976: Carter.
.
1980: Reagan
.
1984: Reagan
.
1988: Bush Sr.
.
Well, if it were an Orwellian plot to get Democrats elected it failed.
.
It seemed to do an amazing job of getting Republicans elected if it had any impact at all.
.
I would say that it had no impact at all.

“…I can cite the fairness doctrine as living proof of how liberals think and act when given the chance and if you give them the chance they WILL regulate what we get on the internet.”
.
“47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV
Thursday, August 14, 2008

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too. ”
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2008/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_radio_tv
.
That’s using famously biased rasmussen reports.
.
So, are “liberals” 47% of the US while “conservatives” only 39% of the US?
.
If so, and the fairness doctrine is your benchmark, I am a conservative.

Coming up next: after arguing that Net Neutrality is the Fairness doctrine, he will argue that FEMA is the FBI and that it is all a government conspiracy to arrest and detain Rush Limbaugh.

Let’s be honest. At no time did I confuse the fairness doctrine and NN. I said the opposite. What I said is the fairness doctrine was a priceless political gift to conservatives as a reminder of what liberals are about. This is about your past behavior coming back to haunt you. It’s like a fine wine. The further we get away from it the more useful it is. It’s like 70% tax rates. You tell a 35-yr old you want to regulate what can be said on TV or Radio and they’ll see a fascist. With 3,000 stations you don’t like what is on one change it. The idea that someone like you thinks you should be in a position to tell them what they can or cannot listen to is insulting.

Well, if it were an Orwellian plot to get Democrats elected it failed.

***************************************************

Most political plots do fail. Look at the attempt by the MSM to ignore the Rather and Xmas in Cambodia scandals. This was less about getting people elected and more about controlling information with the intent they could help elections. But go to the core incentive 1st. For example I was in my 50ths when I learned Wilson was a racist turd. He re-segregated the post office and oher govt institutions. The history of the 40′s thru the 90′s as in many parts pure garbage and it was very useful for liberals to control the MSM. I was also taught the New Deal ended the depression. Today we know the new deal extended the depression. Kerry’s loss wasn’t because the MSM didn’t do everything it could to support him but their loss of control of the narrative. We live in a society today where 70% tax rates are considered an abomination. All this is because these Orwellian plots failed.

One of the funnier stories last year was the NYTs twisted in knots explaining why the leaked the wikileaks
stories. They printed a policy after climategate of not printing data leaked unintenionally or illegally. At the time they announced why they didn’t leak climategate you just had to laugh and muse as to how long before they changed that policy. It obviously had nothing to do with journalistic practices or ethics but their political position.

You tell a 35-yr old you want to regulate what can be said on TV or Radio and they’ll see a fascist. With 3,000 stations you don’t like what is on one change it. The idea that someone like you thinks you should be in a position to tell them what they can or cannot listen to is insulting.

Which is exactly what no one here is advocating. It has been stated over and over that net neutrality is not about determing what should or should not be on the internet but you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell “la la la la la can’t hear you” over and over like a 5-year old. No one is trying to say what you can or cannot listen to or view. (excecpt perhaps the religious right, what with the decency and obscenity laws)
.
The ones who do want to determine what you can and cannot watch are the ISPs. Don’t you think Comcast would much rather I watch it’s On Demand programming rather than Hulu or Netflix? So please, continue to be an unthinking shill; it hasn’t stopped you before.

I was referring to the fairness doctrine,not NN. Liberals are always trying to limit Fox and talk radio. Again,, that’s why the orwellian fairness doctrine is so cool. The rules for TV and Radio are set by the FCC not the religious right.

Scott Rasmussen finds that self-identified Republicans now outnumber Democrats among American adults by a 3.3% margin, 37.0%-33.7%. This is the GOP’s best showing since 2004, and the lowest number ever recorded for Democrats in Rasmussen’s tracking, which began in 2002:

rdw- from powerline.

So please, continue to be an unthinking shill; it hasn’t stopped you before.

*********************************

Why so snarky? You know I am right. This house is very hostile to the FCC. It’s not going to happen. Further if they were able to implement it this Supreme Court would toss it out. That’s a real tricky decision, when to test the court. The brilliance and the NRA is besides terrific PR their mastery of the judicial has been superb They’ve been patient for a very long time waiting for the best 2nd amendment case to put before the best court, the Roberts court. Few liberals in 1992 thought we ever have guns rights guaranteed to the individual.

I think in the post-Reagan ear people are more hostile to govt regulation in places it does not exist. Confidence in govt is at all time lows. Plus the internet has been a fabulous success story. The FCC is smart to want to do this but it’s a desperate act. They had little choice. Obama hasn’t improved confidence in govt even a little bit.

I was referring to the fairness doctrine,not NN. Liberals are always trying to limit Fox and talk radio. Again,, that’s why the orwellian fairness doctrine is so cool.

But this discussion is about NN, not the Fairness Doctrine. No one is arguing for the Fairness Doctrine either. It’s also cute that you think you can speak for everybody who might be classified as a liberal. The thing is, most people who dislike Fox don’t dislike it because it’s conservative; we dislike it because it continuously lies, misleads, and purposefully distorts what it “reports.” I could give a rat’s a$$ which way it leans, as long as it at least get’s the truth.

The rules for TV and Radio are set by the FCC not the religious right.

And who would go into a tizzy if those obscenity and child-protection rules were removed? Who went into a tizzy over the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? Who goes into a tizzy any time their poor sensibilities are brushed against. No sh!t the FCC sets the rules, but can you guess who lobbies for them?

Why so snarky?

Because you’ve yet to actually form an opinion beyong “Regulation = bad”. You cite a poll, which is flawed and biased, as a source for public opinion on net neutrality when they actual question has nothing to do with net neutrality. You are, by the definition, an unthinking shill.

You know I am right.

About what? You’ve admitted you don’t know what net neutrality is (multiple times) and when told you continue to ignore that. You have yet to say what you think the FCC is going to do. You have no clue.

But this discussion is about NN, not the Fairness Doctrine. No one is arguing for the Fairness Doctrine either.

***********************************

The fairness doctrine is your burden. It’s there because the GOP is putting it there.