Net Neutrality

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

We're about to be fucked. The least we can do is call our senators. This site will automatically connect you. Took me 2 minutes to leave a couple messages.

 

https://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

[RazorStar 4,025]

How many times do the american people have to fight for net neutrality before congress fucking gets it?

[blotsfan 2,112]

How many times do the american people have to fight for net neutrality before congress fucking gets it?

 

As long as it takes for the democrats to be in charge since that was one of the things they ran on while the republicans explicitly run against net neutrality.

 

Golly gee, theres no way to know.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I didn't think the Senators could even do anything? I thought it was just the five members of the FCC voting for it.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

As long as it takes for the democrats to be in charge since that was one of the things they ran on while the republicans explicitly run against net neutrality.

 

Golly gee, theres no way to know.

 

Let's not make this 100% Dem vs GOP here.

 

For example, it was Barack Obama who appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC. Yes, Trump made him chairman, but Obama put him on the board in the first place.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Thanatos

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

Let's not make this 100% Dem vs GOP here.

 

For example, it was Barack Obama who appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC. Yes, Trump made him chairman, but Obama put him on the board in the first place.

 

Can't have more than 3 people of the same party on the FCC. Obama had to nominate a republican.

 

Edit: And before anyone says "he couldve nominated a third party person" the senate has to approve of all the appointees so that wouldn't have flown.

Edited November 22, 2017 by blotsfan

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yeah, Obama was a lame duck President and really couldn't do a lot unless it was screwing people over. McConnell hand picked Pai. Why Obama just went along with scum like that, screams that he is ripped from the same cloth -- but of course we already knew that.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Yeah, Obama was a lame duck President and really couldn't do a lot unless it was screwing people over. McConnell hand picked Pai. Why Obama just went along with scum like that, screams that he is ripped from the same cloth -- but of course we already knew that.

 

Or he tried to show an ounce of bipartisanship. He had to pick a republican, so he turned to the republicans to take their guy. Obviously in hindsight, he should've done every dirty underhanded trick he could (like McConnell would've). That being said, unless you have a democrat change party affiliation just for the sake of stealing this spot, you're gonna have trouble finding a republican that supports net neutrality that has some semblance of knowledge on the issue. But keep doing your armchair psychology in order to keep up this fantasy that both sides are the same.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Armchair psychology? You mean how you justify everything Obama did, no matter how terrible? He literally set the foundation for this to happen.

"Oh no, he was just trying to be nice to Republicans".

Yeah, okay. Lmao.

In all seriousness though, when it comes this issue -- voters are are equally outraged. The media or telecommunications or whatever you want to call it though is one of the highest lobbied sectors in this country. The money is going to win out eventually, even if it is only them making some concessions to give the illusion of a loss... It sucks, no doubt..

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

Can't have more than 3 people of the same party on the FCC. Obama had to nominate a republican.

 

Edit: And before anyone says "he couldve nominated a third party person" the senate has to approve of all the appointees so that wouldn't have flown.

 

You can't tell me there wasn't a better option out there.

[oochymp 2,393]

How many times do the american people have to fight for net neutrality before congress fucking gets it?

It might help to elect some representatives under the age of 50

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It might help to elect some representatives under the age of 50

 

My god this. This current generation really cant see what the real play is here. We underestimate our power. We outnumber the babyboomers and when it comes to who wields the mightiest sword in politics it is most definitely our generation. This is why the media does all of these things to keep us divided. They know that if it were not for the diversion tactics they are using if we ever united the political landscape would be overhauled completely in 6 years. Alas, we have all these movements and political standings on things that need not be political, like the fucking Girl Scouts (seriously, the cute little kids that sell you cookies are political pawns) and they do a good job of keeping us from doing what we need to do as a society.

 

I will say people like even Blots and I agree on like 10% of things, and if we have that much the rest of us have a lot more than that. If we were to say," Fuck the petty bullshit, lets get shit done. WE are going to go after Net Neutrality and make it permanent, we are going to fix our crumbling infrastructure, and break up super corporations like Wal-Mart and end corporate welfare. We are going to focus on those three things until they get done, and that is it. Everything else is minimal."

 

The younger generations values are closer to one another than those of 50 year old people who are afraid of getting a real job. This is why they must keep us divided and never give us candidates that are our own age. The sad part is they conditioned us, so they know us better than we know ourselves. We will never unite, and we dont have the resolve to change anything. WE would never as a people, just not show up to the polls. WE will always believe the lies, and think that this candidate actually cares, they dont.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Baby Boomers are the worst generation in the history of the country probs lol.

 

Gloating over shit like this when it's totally unwarranted is pretty dumb and divicive. We could get so many things done if we just united on issues like this with more libertarian minded people. Like, nobody ever really wants war usually but yet we're constantly at war and spending insane amounts of money on it. We could get together with people we disagree with on that. Maybe we can't agree on spending money on health care or education but we could damn sure agree on stuff like not spending our money killing people and net neutrality.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Slightly off the cuff, but think about the talking points we are given for why terrorists do what they do. We are told that they want to change our behaviors or alter our lives by engulfing us in fear and uncertainty. And that leads to division, in hopes of making us weaker..

 

Isn't that.. exactly what the mainstream media and our own government does to us? Uses fear mongering and decisive headlines to keep us mad and arguing at each other -- making it more difficult for us to come together and actually find a resolution.

[seanbrock 1,684]

One of the biggest reasons why I think all these terrorist organizations over there were created by the CIA. We know they trained and armed the Taliban and that's not a conspiracy theory. It's actually something that would be straight out of the prince basically using a made up group like that to do your dirty work or be your boogy man. I have no links or anything to prove this. It's just a thought I have but I do not trust the CIA at all. Just based on what we DO know they're a really fucked up organization.

Edited November 23, 2017 by seanbrock

[BwareDWare94 723]

I am appalled that this can pass through the conscience with no warnings for these people. At the same time, I think there will be a level of excitement for me if it happens, because I'll just delete most of the apps and dumb shit that takes up too much of my time, and I probably won't even keep Wi-Fi at my house anymore. Fuck it. Imagine all the extra time I'll have.

But will other American consumers wise up and drastically drop companies' profits by not purchasing unneeded shit every month? Are citizens smart enough to let this backfire on them if they really go through with it?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

No.

[OSUViking 505]

Yeah haha, as smart as the population is (high literacy rates and all) they're fucking dumb. Is this for sure passing?

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well while I hope it doesn't pass I'm not going to get too riled up because I don't technically need these services

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Yeah haha, as smart as the population is (high literacy rates and all) they're fucking dumb. Is this for sure passing?

 

Unfortunately, I think it has a good shot at passing. The only way it won't is if people keep making their voices heard.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

If it passes and ends up being the nightmare we're all scared of, it'll get young people to vote in droves in 2018 and 2020, and Republicans will be utterly fucked.

 

You can pass legislation about taxes, do whatever foreign policy, and it won't really matter. But start messing with people's Internet? Watch out.

[seanbrock 1,684]

If it passes and ends up being the nightmare we're all scared of, it'll get young people to vote in droves in 2018 and 2020, and Republicans will be utterly fucked.

 

You can pass legislation about taxes, do whatever foreign policy, and it won't really matter. But start messing with people's Internet? Watch out.

Yeah this is a fucking death sentence for Republicans. Watch them run Hillary again and lose again. They'll have Congress though and they'll kill it in local elections.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You arent wrong but if Net Neutrality goes , I dont think Dems try bringing it back. Itll just be gone

[seanbrock 1,684]

You arent wrong but if Net Neutrality goes , I dont think Dems try bringing it back. Itll just be gone

Yeah I agree that the corporate Dems won't try to bring it back but a lot of Bernie style Dems have be running for office and winning. It'd be great if they took the party. We might actually have a chance if that happens. People WILL mobilize over this.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Lol, no They won't.