NRA Honors FCC Chair with Rifle for Repealing “Net Neutrality”

Liver said:
View attachment 55617
Click to expand...

And the race to the bottom continues.

The only way to bring this country back from the brink of bankruptcy is for both sides to:

1. Start ignoring their "death before compromise" extremists; and
2. Work together to solve our problems.*

The politicians will NEVER do either of these things unless we collectively demand that they do. And we as a people will never collectively demand anything as long as we're at each other's throats. This cycle of blaming and intransigence when out of power -- followed by gloating and preening when in power -- is going to destroy us all in the end. It is nothing more than scorched earth policy on a national scale.

* Make no mistake: Solving our problems is going to be PAINFUL. Anything who tells you otherwise is a snake-oil salesman and is unworthy of your vote.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
That would be more of a reason to ban guns. At least we can confiscate these weapons and destroy them. Only cops should be walking around with guns.
Click to expand...

Like the 1st 4 cops on scene who......stayed outside behind vehicles and did not protect the helpless, unarmed kids inside?
 
thebufenator said:
Like the 1st 4 cops on scene who......stayed outside behind vehicles and did not protect the helpless, unarmed kids inside?
Click to expand...
Even in the best case scenario, the amount of time a cop can get to the scene is way too long to defend you from harm. In the worst case, they end up shooting the person who was harmed.
 
Meanwhile Google gives websites penalties for not running them the way they feel they should including modifying the Chrome browser to interfere how you've set up your ads. And people keep continue to forget the original point of net neutrality was for 3rd Parties to not get between you and your target website (aka censorship).
 
Last edited:
bugleyman said:
No, no it isn't. Though I appreciate that it may appear that way to you.
Click to expand...
When media outlets defend the actions of antifa, i don't know what other kind of proof you need to realize that the extreme left is now mainstream. When a democratic chair candidate says her job is to "shut other white people down" https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/24/sally-boynton-brown-dnc-chair-candidate-says-her-j/ then yeah, it's way far gone. They've embraced identity politics which used to be a extremist ideal.
 
Gigus Fire said:
The "Extreme left" is now mainstream.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Both sides extremes have been multiplied, neither are mainstream. For every person advocating straight-up socialism there are loonies who want white power. Thinking one side or the other is at fault helps no-one.

We all need to shut down the extremes, on both sides. Not target one or the other.
 
Gigus Fire said:
When media outlets defend the actions of antifa, i don't know what other kind of proof you need to realize that the extreme left is now mainstream. When a democratic chair candidate says her job is to "shut other white people down" https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/24/sally-boynton-brown-dnc-chair-candidate-says-her-j/ then yeah, it's way far gone. They've embraced identity politics which used to be a extremist ideal.
Click to expand...

And I suppose you'd accept that the president re-tweeting anti-Muslim videos is proof that the extreme right is now mainstream?

...I thought not.

As long as we stay in our bubbles, it's easy to paint the entire other side as "extreme." Unfortunately, doing so is neither accurate nor helpful. In fact, it is downright corrosive.
 
Last edited:
Cali3350 said:
Nonsense. Both sides extremes have been multiplied, neither are mainstream. For every person advocating straight-up socialism there are loonies who want white power. Thinking one side or the other is at fault helps no-one.

We all need to shut down the extremes, on both sides. Not target one or the other.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though I might say "amplified" rather than "multiplied." I'm not sure there are really more of them, but they're definitely louder.
 
Cali3350 said:
Nonsense. Both sides extremes have been multiplied, neither are mainstream. For every person advocating straight-up socialism there are loonies who want white power. Thinking one side or the other is at fault helps no-one.

We all need to shut down the extremes, on both sides. Not target one or the other.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the left believes in free speech or that certain speech which offends people should be considered an act of violence and we need hate speech laws?
Because guess what the left wants now.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Do you believe the left believes in free speech or that certain speech which offends people should be considered an act of violence and we need hate speech laws?
Because guess what the left wants now.
Click to expand...

You are saying "the left" pretending it's one big unified force. That's not how things work.

David Duke is on the right. Should I pretend all of his thoughts represent the right?
 
Cali3350 said:
You are saying "the left" pretending it's one big unified force. That's not how things work.

David Duke is on the right. Should I pretend all of his thoughts represent the right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, i know. When the former head of the largest leftist group known as the DNC calls for hate speech laws https://www.dailywire.com/news/15610/former-dnc-head-howard-dean-hate-speech-not-free-ben-shapiro# that's like pointing to a single person or a group of a few hundred that spout crazy nonsensical ideas.
Clearly it's not mainstream because you have declared it as such.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Yeah, i know. When the former head of the largest leftist group known as the DNC calls for hate speech laws https://www.dailywire.com/news/15610/former-dnc-head-howard-dean-hate-speech-not-free-ben-shapiro# that's like pointing to a single person or a group of a few hundred that spout crazy nonsensical ideas.
Clearly it's not mainstream because you have declared it as such.
Click to expand...

And the literal current sitting president wants to toughen libel laws because he doesn't like being criticized. Individual people making individual statements mean shit. If the "left" comes together and actually pushes that in any meaningful way, you can claim its mainstream. But thats not happening, and its not even close to happening. A few random people are talking. That is the definition of not mainstream.
 
Good on Pai, standing up to the waves of misinformation and hive-mind ignorance. NRA is on the receiving end of that exact same crowd right now.

I am tired of this group think mentality of general "doing good and being good people" when it comes to issues that these people dont know up from down or right from wrong, and refuse to discuss details beyond emotional banter.... "The path to hell is paved with good intentions"... These 'do-gooder' types are going to walk the entire nation into its demise, not caring about how they know NOTHING on which they speak about from their supposed moral high ground.

The country need more bad-asses like Pai, who are willing to stand up to a mobilized mass of tens of millions of ignorant and misinformed people.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about the net neutrality thing (low signal:noise on that one, IMO); I just want to echo your sentiments about "do-gooders." If Satan was born on Earth, first shit he would do would be to resolve to cloak every act in "do-gooding." His campaign slogan would be "do it for the children."

What the hell sort of interest does the NRA have in NN? Something of a bizarre award.

3 posts in and I already can’t tell if two of them are being sarcastic or not. Should be a fun thread to read.
Click to expand...

The 1st and the 2nd sorta go together. Buttress and reinforce each other.

I think this was just a case of the NRA figuring all the anti-gun people want NN so they are against it for the sake of being against it...
Click to expand...

This is actually not a terrible way to choose one's positions (in the absence of a better method, of course), in my experience. The trick is having a good grip on who your friends and enemies are.

Seems to me when all this NN was going down, everyone was pissed off. Throw the NRA in there and comments like this come out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...

Leftists can't stand that the right have one lobby that kicks ass. Leftists always want to own all the nice toys.

On the one side: Google and Facebook, who want the lion's share of Internet-related revenue, and therefore favor net neutrality.
On the other side: ISPs like Comcast, who want a percentage of all the money Google and Facebook are making over their pipes.
There's no white hats on either side.
Click to expand...

I always figured the end-game for content providers was to own the pipes delivering it. I.e., MyFace and Gewgle (and Hollywood) buying Comcast and telcos. Piracy is what led me to that conclusion - owning the ISPs is the reliable way to get paid off of all of this...

But in the near future, the landscape may change. New forms of ISP (like LEO internet services) may actually restore competition to the ISP market. If that happens, then there may be good reasons to be against net neutrality, because there will be competition int he ISP space.
Click to expand...
God yes, please God.

To hell with our highway system with that kind of mentality. Pave your own damn road, and get the hell off mine dude.
Click to expand...

Roads. Everybody always brings up the friggin' roads. Fine, make taxes a la carte, and I'll gladly pay for the friggin' roads. The 1% of the tax burden that I actually get something back from.

Ah, white people. This whole "Blues vs Greens over taxes and size and scope of gov't while barbarians move in and repopulate the empire" thing is morbidly amusing.
 
tetris42 said:
Uh... yes, they were. The level of income you have dramatically determines how long you live in the United States. Medical expenses are also the #1 cause of bankruptcy. Don't get me wrong, people are STILL dying in the streets since Obamacare didn't do anything for the poorest segment of Americans. It's more like a reshuffling than anything else.
Click to expand...
Yeah, great! We should definitely have passed a 1000 page bill re-ordering 1/6 of the US economy under better gov't control, then, huh? Fucking brilliant. Fact of the matter is, they could have achieved a FAR better result with ONE PAGE, expanding Medicaid. End of story. But they never really gave a damn about people "dying in the street". They'd just prefer the gov't had a bigger hand in it.
 
Jim Kim said:
Wow, " alleged", just wow.(y)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...ow-to-determine-true-conspiracies-from-false/
Click to expand...
Yes, actually. Good to put a name with someone repeating absolute falsehoods. In these 18 shootings, there are actually TWO that you could consider "mass shootings", IIRC. In the other 16, five people, total died, most from suicide. Some of them didn't even happen at a school.
 
heatlesssun said:
What? I said that everyone here has benefited from costs that are socialized. That you are posting on this forum means that you are getting use from government spending. And I know this is far from the only thing. The bottom line, no one here paid for the total cost of everything they use, be it a publically funded road or the phone or computer you're posting from. No one here by themselves paid out of pocket all of technology they use.

Too many people think free market means I paid for the development of all things I used out of my own pocked. The costs were socialized.
Click to expand...
No, you're right. I definitely get $50K worth of value out of my taxes every year. DUH. There are net takers and net makers. I bet the overwhelming majority of people posting here are not net takers.
 
DukenukemX said:
So these shootings aren't real? Look at how often pistols are used in high schools. That shit is nuts.

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/

22 January: Italy High School, Italy, Texas – A 16-year-old student opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun in the school cafeteria, wounding another student.

22 January: NET Charter High School, Gentilly, Louisiana – An unknown person fired shots at students from a vehicle in the school parking lot. One person was injured (though not by gunfire).

23 January: Marshall County High School, Benton, Kentucky – A 15-year-old student opened fire with a handgun on school grounds, killing two and injuring 18.

25 January: Murphy High School, Mobile, Alabama – A student fired a handgun into the air during a fight with another student. No injuries were reported.

26 January: Dearborn High School, Dearborn, Michigan – Shots were fired during a fight in the school parking lot. No injuries were reported.

31 January: Lincoln High School, Philadelphia – A fight during a basketball game resulted in the shooting death of a 32-year-old man outside the school.

14 February: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida – A 19-year-old former student opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle, killing 17 and injuring 14.
Click to expand...
Seriously ? We're discussing MASS SHOOTINGs like Parkland and Sandy Hook. If we're just talking about "shootings", now, I'd say there's a lot more to do in the cities of Chicago and Baltimore than there are in schools.

Keep moving those goalposts!
 
deadrody said:
Yeah, great! We should definitely have passed a 1000 page bill re-ordering 1/6 of the US economy under better gov't control, then, huh? Fucking brilliant. Fact of the matter is, they could have achieved a FAR better result with ONE PAGE, expanding Medicaid. End of story. But they never really gave a damn about people "dying in the street". They'd just prefer the gov't had a bigger hand in it.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, it was broken before the ACA, it was broken in a different way afterwards. The thing is, expanding Medicare / Medicaid is ALSO more government, except it's the kind that helps people. What we got instead was a mandate to buy insurance or be penalized, which was the neoliberal solution to things, using the government to force everything onto the free market, even if it doesn't belong there.
 
deadrody said:
No, you're right. I definitely get $50K worth of value out of my taxes every year. DUH. There are net takers and net makers. I bet the overwhelming majority of people posting here are not net takers.
Click to expand...

I'm curious: Do you imagine all the "net makers" are of one political persuasion?
 
deadrody said:
Yeah, great! We should definitely have passed a 1000 page bill re-ordering 1/6 of the US economy under better gov't control, then, huh? Fucking brilliant. Fact of the matter is, they could have achieved a FAR better result with ONE PAGE, expanding Medicaid. End of story. But they never really gave a damn about people "dying in the street". They'd just prefer the gov't had a bigger hand in it.
Click to expand...

We only got the ACA because straight-up Medicaid expansion was a non-starter...even if you only count the Democrats.

Besides, Congress will never produce a one page law. If they did, we might start questioning why we even need them.
 
Cali3350 said:
And the literal current sitting president wants to toughen libel laws because he doesn't like being criticized. Individual people making individual statements mean shit. If the "left" comes together and actually pushes that in any meaningful way, you can claim its mainstream. But thats not happening, and its not even close to happening. A few random people are talking. That is the definition of not mainstream.
Click to expand...
BS. These are people that are voted in to represent the democratic party. They're the biggest mainstream left party there is in the US. That's 44 million members. If the crap their espousing isn't main stream then there is no bar that you would be satisfied with.
Strengthening libel laws? I see no problem with that. Libel is already illegal, maybe there should be penalties for publishing unsubstantiated reports on something and then doing a retracting a few weeks later. The whole russian dossier comes to mind. That had 0 backing and get major news media outlets ran with the story.
There used to be a time where news outlets fact checked stories. That time has long since passed. Maybe you disagree with the president and would like them to run with a lot more unsubstantiated reports without any penalty, but it's fairly obvious they need to be reigned in.

Again you're talking the president talking shit in tweets vs dnc party heads coming out and saying SJW crap. It's mainstream, it's extremist if you compare it to the DNC only 10 years ago.
 
Gigus Fire said:
BS. These are people that are voted in to represent the democratic party. They're the biggest mainstream left party there is in the US. That's 44 million members. If the crap their espousing isn't main stream then there is no bar that you would be satisfied with.
Strengthening libel laws? I see no problem with that. Libel is already illegal, maybe there should be penalties for publishing unsubstantiated reports on something and then doing a retracting a few weeks later. The whole russian dossier comes to mind. That had 0 backing and get major news media outlets ran with the story.
There used to be a time where news outlets fact checked stories. That time has long since passed. Maybe you disagree with the president and would like them to run with a lot more unsubstantiated reports without any penalty, but it's fairly obvious they need to be reigned in.

Again you're talking the president talking shit in tweets vs dnc party heads coming out and saying SJW crap. It's mainstream, it's extremist if you compare it to the DNC only 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
I see. You are the extreme right. I can see why you only see the left side then.

You are claiming the 15 year passed ex-leader of a party saying something is more mainstream than the current leader of a party in power. You are choosing to see things how you want to.
 
Last edited:
Cali3350 said:
I see. You are the extreme right. I can see why you only see the left side then.
Click to expand...
I see. So because i disagree with you i must be part of the extreme right. You put your blinders on and disagree no matter what proof i show you. At least i don't live in a fantasy world.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I see. So because i disagree with you i must be part of the extreme right. You put your blinders on and disagree no matter what proof i show you. At least i don't live in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...

You are pushing back against my mention of what is mainstream vs not, however the examples you are citing are being very selectively viewed by you. The current sitting leader of a party "tweeting shit" is less mainstream than the ex leader of a party 15 years removed "tweeting shit". That is not something a rational mind can say.

And what proof? You haven't provided any proof, you simply stated opinion. How can you possibly prove something that is an opinion? As far as I can tell, you must be referencing the links talking about twitter posts. I dont see how thats relevant. I never claimed there weren't extreme views on the left. I said they aren't isolated there. There are plenty of tweets by those on the right saying ridiculous things. I dont consider them "mainstream".
 
Last edited:
Cali3350 said:
You are pushing back against my mention of what is mainstream vs not, however the examples you are citing are being very selectively viewed by you. The current sitting leader of a party "tweeting shit" is less mainstream than the ex leader of a party 15 years removed "tweeting shit". That is not something a rational mind can say.

And what proof? You haven't provided any proof, you simply stated opinion. How can you possibly prove something that is an opinion? As far as I can tell, you must be referencing the links talking about twitter posts. I dont see how thats relevant. I never claimed there weren't extreme views on the left. I said they aren't isolated there. There are plenty of tweets by those on the right saying ridiculous things. I dont consider them "mainstream".
Click to expand...
I keep on showing you articles where people voted to represent the left are espousing ideas which are extremist. In retort, you're showing me tweets from a guy who was a democrat for his entire life and then ran as a republican surprising everyone and winning both the nomination and election due to his non-pc rhetoric. Is Trump a good representative of the right? Hardly. Comparing apples to fish for some odd reason is the level of conversation we're having.
Trump winning had more to do with awful candidates combined with him saying populist things while not being a politician than him espousing right ideals.
Trump was generally disliked by the republicans. But you believe him to be the source of rightist ideals? Well to each their own.
I've been waiting for quotes that can be searched for moronic rnc heads or candidates which shows how stupid they are, but you keep on going to Trump, like i should even care about what he tweets.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Specific to NN, how many "righties" sent death threats?
Click to expand...

It's clear the comment I responded to was a rash generalization... Are you implying somehow that when "righties" make death threats it's somehow more acceptable because of the issues they do or do not support?
 
DukenukemX said:
I totally agree. It's not my problem if you can't afford to pay for good internet. These people are stagnating the market with their regulations. Free the internet and let the market deal with it. Look at what it has done with our health care system.

Click to expand...

Free market? You clearly live in some fantasy world. With very few exceptions, there is no free market in the world of ISPs. I have exactly 1 broadband provider where I live in Dallas (Charter). When I lived in MS, I had exactly 1 interent provider Comcast. My parents live in Lafayette LA, they have 2 broadband providers: Cox and Municipal fiber from LUS (which Cox and AT&T tried to stop for years).

If there was competition and a free market, then Pai would have a point. Right now, he's just a stooge for the telecom industry and I'm sure they'll cut him a big check once he leaves the FCC in 4-8 years.
 
Cali3350 said:
I see. You are the extreme right. I can see why you only see the left side then.

You are claiming the 15 year passed ex-leader of a party saying something is more mainstream than the current leader of a party in power. You are choosing to see things how you want to.
Click to expand...

Do tell, what is your definition of mainstream? What is your definition of mainstream news media? Second part, what would you consider to be mainstream new media providers?
 
I suspect none, because that issue went "their" way. But why does that matter? His point stands: Both sides have an extreme fringe that pulls that crap.
Click to expand...

If you think violence and intimidation are coming from both left and right equally, you want to buy shares in the bridge I'm building...

Seriously, this is what people who aren't really paying attention think.

Edit: I'm talking USA. I can't say whether there is a right to match the left in intensity and size in Europe or elsewhere.
 
That would be more of a reason to ban guns. At least we can confiscate these weapons and destroy them. Only cops should be walking around with guns.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the pinkos heard from. Seriously, where do they raise these un-American people? Are they imported?

America has soundly rejected this thinking, over and over and over. Americans don't want to rely on cops (who legally have no duty to intervene, btw), who may show up in minutes, when seconds count. Americans are moving in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from you. The last couple decades have seen a real blossoming of "shall issue" and CC permit laws.

Guns aren't like drugs, in that there's no good use for them, ergo confiscation just makes sense. You can't defend yourself and your family from violent criminals with a bag of coke.

If you have a problem with gun violence in your area, fix it. Leave the rest of us alone, we like our guns.
 
Trump winning had more to do with awful candidates combined with him saying populist things while not being a politician than him espousing right ideals.
Click to expand...

Trump won because of his position on immigration in particular, and his American nationalism in general.

He steamrolled the entire GOP field in the primaries because this constituency (immigration), long denied a voice, was much more loyal to him than the GOPers in general were to their usual cast of Chamber of Commerce sock puppets.

People like saying it was about Trump's take-no-prisoners personality, but I think the truth is that he was so willing to speak his mind that his supporters figured he was more honest in his opinions than the next guy; add that to having better positions than the next guy, plus a slack-jawed out-to-lunch Clinton campaign, and you get President Trump.
 
Morlock said:
Trump won because of his position on immigration in particular, and his American nationalism in general.

He steamrolled the entire GOP field in the primaries because this constituency (immigration), long denied a voice, was much more loyal to him than the GOPers in general were to their usual cast of Chamber of Commerce sock puppets.

People like saying it was about Trump's take-no-prisoners personality, but I think the truth is that he was so willing to speak his mind that his supporters figured he was more honest in his opinions than the next guy; add that to having better positions than the next guy, plus a slack-jawed out-to-lunch Clinton campaign, and you get President Trump.
Click to expand...
I just condensed everything and you expanded on it. We both agree. I don't think i would have voted for any of the other candidates if they would have won the nomination.
 
What? ¡Jeb! didn't fire you up?

Edit: you have to wonder how much of Big Media's Trump Derangement Syndrome derives from their regret at not taking him seriously. Clearly the "dismiss him with handwavium" method didn't achieve the desired result.
 
vpskbqruitvy56va72rn.gif
 
Gigus Fire said:
Trump was generally disliked by the republicans. But you believe him to be the source of rightist ideals? Well to each their own.
I've been waiting for quotes that can be searched for moronic rnc heads or candidates which shows how stupid they are, but you keep on going to Trump, like i should even care about what he tweets.
Click to expand...

Key word there is was. Republicans have swallowed Trump up because he won. The majority I have witness defend him with impunity. His ideals are now those of the right. as they have lined up single file to align with his views. Again this is not all Republicans but the majority I have witness both personally and via MSM. So yeah he is now a source of rightist ideals. I'm sure whenever he is gone Republicans will attempt to deny he represented the party accordingly but that's just bullshit posturing to avoid responsibility for backing his vile and contemptuous rhetoric and policies.
 
masterosok said:
Key word there is was. Republicans have swallowed Trump up because he won. The majority I have witness defend him with impunity. His ideals are now those of the right. as they have lined up single file to align with his views. Again this is not all Republicans but the majority I have witness both personally and via MSM. So yeah he is now a source of rightist ideals. I'm sure whenever he is gone Republicans will attempt to deny he represented the party accordingly but that's just bullshit posturing to avoid responsibility for backing his vile and contemptuous rhetoric and policies.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the vile and contemptuous rhetoric, but whatever. Politicians are slimy in general and don't have morals or scruples, so if they see a net gain to side with Trump they will. You're probably right that in 2-6 years they'll probably change their minds and deny it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top