madhatter wrote:
seems atomic isn't the only one concerned...
Concern is one thing; sensationalist, hyperbolic, vitriolic expression is another. But, I'll cut Atomic1 some slack. He always has to shout above the sound of chopper blades when he writes.
" sensationalist, hyperbolic, vitriolic expression " ............. ............
Actually even before they run it with the blades on we have a "MULE " hooked up that delivers both Electic power and Hydraulics as we go thru all the different test procedures checking all the pumps, lines and electronics etc.. turning over of the APU's etc... and yes it's noisy and it's what I have to go do right now !~ .........Hope we c-you guy's on the hill this weekend !
Atomic1 wrote:So in closing let me reiterate the reason Obama took up the whole "Net Neutrality issue " . The pounding the Dem's took in the midterms can be traced back to the pounding they took on the internet via social media which is the one media they don't yet CONTROL !
Again, net neutrality is essentially the opposite of "control". Without it, it would be much easier for corporations to silence those forms of social media that were pounding the Dems. This is about maintaining free airways for all, not giving the control to the service providers who will then literally control your internet experience.
For someone with your kind of paranoia of how the media is controlled, you really should be shouting on a rooftop in favor of Net Neutrality. The only reason you aren't is because someone you despise supports it. Try and take the political sunglasses off and view this with a pragmatic mindset.
I'm with Bubba. Your thoughts on this subject are paranoid, sensationalist hyperbole.
Atomic1 wrote:So in closing let me reiterate the reason Obama took up the whole "Net Neutrality issue " . The pounding the Dem's took in the midterms can be traced back to the pounding they took on the internet via social media which is the one media they don't yet CONTROL !
Again, net neutrality is essentially the opposite of "control". Without it, it would be much easier for corporations to silence those forms of social media that were pounding the Dems. This is about maintaining free airways for all, not giving the control to the service providers who will then literally control your internet experience.
For someone with your kind of paranoia of how the media is controlled, you really should be shouting on a rooftop in favor of Net Neutrality. The only reason you aren't is because someone you despise supports it. Try and take the political sunglasses off and view this with a pragmatic mindset.
I'm with Bubba. Your thoughts on this subject are paranoid, sensationalist hyperbole.
It's more of a TRUST issue. Do I need to post all of Obama's Lies and spins ? I don't want him to do anything except just go away . Less Gov. control is what this Country was founded on and I beleive it should stay that way !
Atomic1 wrote:
It's more of a TRUST issue. Do I need to post all of Obama's Lies and spins ?
For at least the third time it's been mentioned in the thread, Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress since at least 2004. This isn't about Obama. You are being incredibly foolish making it about Obama because that clouding of your thought process is making you throw support against something someone with your opinion should highly favor.
You think the left has too much control of the media now? Wait and see what the internet is like without Net Neutrality.
This is likely not going to get settled while Barry is in office anyways. So, say the next guy up is Chris Christie or Bush round three and they are in favor of Net Neutrality.......I'm sure not going to be surprised at you swinging the other way.
Atomic1 wrote:
It's more of a TRUST issue. Do I need to post all of Obama's Lies and spins ?
For at least the third time it's been mentioned in the thread, Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress since at least 2004. 10 years still no...This isn't about Obama. You are being incredibly foolish making it about Obama because that clouding of your thought process is making you throw support against something someone with your opinion should highly favor.
You think the left has too much control of the media now? Wait and see what the internet is like without Net Neutrality.
This is likely not going to get settled while Barry is in office anyways. So, say the next guy up is Chris Christie or Bush round three and they are in favor of Net Neutrality.......not interested in expansion of scope of govt...I'm sure not going to be surprised at you swinging the other way.
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
deadheadskier wrote: I'm sure not going to be surprised at you swinging the other way.
So you're saying Atomic1 might swing both ways?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Atomic1 wrote:
It's more of a TRUST issue. Do I need to post all of Obama's Lies and spins ?
For at least the third time it's been mentioned in the thread, Net Neutrality has been discussed in Congress since at least 2004. This isn't about Obama. You are being incredibly foolish making it about Obama because that clouding of your thought process is making you throw support against something someone with your opinion should highly favor.
You think the left has too much control of the media now? Wait and see what the internet is like without Net Neutrality.
This is likely not going to get settled while Barry is in office anyways. So, say the next guy up is Chris Christie or Bush round three and they are in favor of Net Neutrality.......I'm sure not going to be surprised at you swinging the other way.
Nope, I'm always in favor of LESS Government regardless the party . And Bubba, I hate to ruin your fantasy ...
Net neutrality is a catchy phrase. Is it a power grab to take google or similar companies servers over to prevent fast lanes? Will the FCC ban certain sites like China's govt.? Can politicians make it taxable? Does it need to be fixed now or are there bigger problems in the country we should be addressing?
Let's not vote on bills we don't read. Language needs to be precise so not to relinquish are liberty and freedom to others.
Meh. It doesn't matter. Comcast has bought & paid for Congress. A cable industry insider is running the FCC. Expect the Comcast acquisition of Time-Warner Cable to happen. Your soon-to-be $100/month broadband access fee will fund Comcast buying more content. NBC-Universal is just the start. The end game is to control both the content and the delivery so over-the-top providers can't undercut the cable providers.
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Comcast has bought NECN and a cable sports channel (maybe they started it, but I doubt it) and stadium naming rights and a bunch of other content. Maybe Ted Cruz is against this because he's in the pocket of Comcast and others. It's pathetic to see people oppose Obama just on political grounds. When Obama does come out with a position it is still hard to trust he is on the level and it will be for another two years.
If the regulators let the Comcast/TW merger through we'll know whose side they are on. Why doesn't Obama take a stand and oppose the merger
............ 
