Federal Government's Internet Bill to Pass on Feb 26, 2015

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Wont allow anyone to look at the bill. Will pass in secret.

 

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai talks to the Mark Levin Show. (~8 mins)

[timster]

a government passing a bill without letting anyone know what's in it ... that's new .. oh wait

[Memphis]

I would wager that note people would care to respond if you posted an actual story and not a peice from a right wing commentated. The FCC doesn't write "Bill" its a regulating agency that regulates things under the authority of congress. Saying they pass a bill in secret is like saying that the board of nursing passes secret laws when they issue new infection control regulations to hospitals.

[chrisj1968]

yeah ask Nancy Pelosi. she knows all about legislation that we can't know about what's in it until they pass it...

[chrisj1968]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-open-to-new-regs-on-donors-internet/article/2560099

 

 

Democratic Chairwoman Ann Ravel, who called the hearing, has said she wants to regulate politicking on the Internet, though she has pulled back amid a public outcry, especially among conservatives who see her move as a bid to silence center-right websites and Internet based conservative groups and news sites.

 

nope. no right wing lunacy here... nothing to see move along!

[Memphis]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-open-to-new-regs-on-donors-internet/article/2560099

nope. no right wing lunacy here... nothing to see move along!

So you are apposed to campaign law for paper publications applying to digital publications?

[T3X4S]

So - how trustworthy is all this ?  

Is this Ajit Pai just trying to get people anti-dem with the FCC or is this happening ?


 

[Memphis]

So - how trustworthy is all this ?  

Is this Ajit Pai just trying to get people anti-dem with the FCC or is this happening ?

 

 

Read up on his Netflix statement from a few months ago, this republican commissioner is looking out for big business and is extremely clever in how he goes about it. The anti net neutrality argument only works if your ISP is not a local monopoly like most ISP's. Competition in the market is utterly stifled. My area is a great example. We have DSL through centurylink with a max of 7mbps in our area, and Cableone with up to 100mbps. Thats it and their is no competition because anyone who streams pretty much needs cable one and everyone who doesn't might as well go with cable one anyways because centurlinks plan is only significantly cheaper than cable ones when bundled under a promotion. Bottom line, their is no choice of ISP, so they treat you however they want. Up until last year we had a 50gb monthly internet cap for cable. If competition was healthy, then net nutrality would happen all on its own, but the pseudo monopolies make it impossible to have innovation.

[chrisj1968]

So you are apposed to campaign law for paper publications applying to digital publications?

 

I'm against what this woman wants. crush freedom of speech. she backed off as the article stated because she gave away her true intentions. I'm about freedom... whether Democrat or Republican. leave freedom of speech alone.

[Memphis]

I'm against what this woman wants. crush freedom of speech. she backed off as the article stated because she gave away her true intentions. I'm about freedom... whether Democrat or Republican. leave freedom of speech alone.

 

I want you to show me the quote where she says "...I would like to crush freedom of speech..." I don't care what goes before it or goes behind it so long as this verbiage is there. If not, this is the usual political hyperbole. Again, she wanted to apply existing campaign law on paper publications to internet publications.

[chrisj1968]

I want you to show me the quote where she says "...I would like to crush freedom of speech..." I don't care what goes before it or goes behind it so long as this verbiage is there. If not, this is the usual political hyperbole. Again, she wanted to apply existing campaign law on paper publications to internet publications.

based on the article link above

 

 

Democratic Chairwoman Ann Ravel, who called the hearing, has said she wants to regulate politicking on the Internet, though she has pulled back amid a public outcry, especially among conservatives who see her move as a bid to silence center-right websites and Internet based conservative groups and news sites.

 

bold and italics emphasis mine. so common sense would dictate that, her motives weren't genuine and she got cold feet(figuratively speaking). the right see her smoke and mirrors.

 

AGAIN.. let me repeat what I said earlier; "whether Democrat or Republican, I believe her motives are to crush dissent and free speech. I don't want ANYONES rights trampled.

 

Added @ 3:10PST

 

 

During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency

[Memphis]

based on the article link above

 

 

bold and italics emphasis mine. so common sense would dictate that, her motives weren't genuine and she got cold feet(figuratively speaking). the right see her smoke and mirrors.

 

AGAIN.. let me repeat what I said earlier; "whether Democrat or Republican, I believe her motives are to crush dissent and free speech. I don't want ANYONES rights trampled.

 

Added @ 3:10PST

 

You did not answer the question, I will repeat, show me the quote where she says "...I would like to crush freedom of speech...". Or you can admit that this is solely an opinion.

[chrisj1968]

I refuse to get into semantics with you. if you can't get the meaning from what I've posted.. then I'm not getting pulled into a senseless debate on semantics. call it what you want.

 

 

You did not answer the question, I will repeat, show me the quote where she says "...I would like to crush freedom of speech...". Or you can admit that this is solely an opinion.

[Memphis]

I refuse to get into semantics with you. if you can't get the meaning from what I've posted.. then I'm not getting pulled into a senseless debate on semantics. call it what you want.

 

 

 

Its not semantics at all, you said that her agenda is to "crush free speech". Shes never said anything of the kind, This is nothing short of slander. You cannot prove that is her agenda, it is your opinion only, please preface such remarks in the future as such to not confuse an ignorant reader.

[T3X4S]

i be ignorant