| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Net Neutrality. Global Warming for the internet? Maybe a good thing but if Obama wants it it will only be good for the companies that bribe Obama. | ||
| Fb1 |
Never said, nor assumed, that you're a puppet of the MSM.  So, which news? That's where I'm going with this: This comment that he made is All. The. Rage. Why? Why is THIS short, brief comment by the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination for 2016, leading "the news"? He's being Palinized. The "Here's How" is HERE, I haven't had time to sink my teeth into it yet. | ||
| Fb1 |
Maybe a good thing but if Obama wants it it will only be good for the companies that bribe Obama. Game, set, match. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Here is a working link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/ 2014/11/11/ted-cruz-was-right-about-net-neutrality -it-is-a-little-like-obamacare-after-all/ That's a good blog, and a good balanced (IMHO) description of both why the tweet was stupid, and why Net Neutrality by government mandate is a screwed up idea to address a screwed up situation. I stand by my belief that it was a stupid tweet, because 99 out of 100 people that read it will reach exactly all the wrong conclusions from it. Had he replaced "obamacare" with "big government", the tweet would have been spot on.
| ||
| Reepicheep |
Game, set, and match lost. Responsible conservatives are not going to win the day by vilifying their opponents and ignoring facts and details. Lets leave that to the liberal partisans. We have facts, and the maths are on our side. We should embrace them. I won't tell you Obama is wrong because he is Obama. I will tell you he is wrong by telling you why he is wrong. I have no use (and no tolerance left) for factless partisan attacks from either side. Lets get to the facts and come up with the best solution for the country. More often than not, the best solution will be aligned with smaller government and conservative ideals. | ||
| Fb1 |
And I stand by my belief that it's making "the news" solely to damage Cruz's reputation. Sadly, it seems to be working. | ||
| Fb1 |
Geez, I sure hope Cruz doesn't tweet anything about binders full of women or Big Bird... | ||
| Sifo |
Game, set, and match lost. Responsible conservatives are not going to win the day by vilifying their opponents and ignoring facts and details. Lets leave that to the liberal partisans. We have facts, and the maths are on our side. We should embrace them. I won't tell you Obama is wrong because he is Obama. I will tell you he is wrong by telling you why he is wrong. I have no use (and no tolerance left) for factless partisan attacks from either side. Lets get to the facts and come up with the best solution for the country. More often than not, the best solution will be aligned with smaller government and conservative ideals. I tend to agree, but we have a huge problem. Right now the leaders of the left are telling their supporters that they are too stupid to support the right ideas unless they are lied to, to trick them into the "right" decision. The only question left for me at this point is if these people are actually stupid enough to continue supporting the leaders that consider them too stupid to be allowed to see the facts. Sadly, there is little evidence that these people are smart enough to stop supporting these habitual liars. As reprehensible as Gruber's statements are, I'm afraid there is more than a little truth in them. If true, where do you go with people that are happy being lied to because they acknowledge their own stupidity? I really don't know. | ||
| Fb1 |
I won't tell you Obama is wrong because he is Obama. I will, and I did, and I'm right in so doing- his batting average is ZERO. If he's for it. I'm against it, works EVERY time. Yes, this "Internet Neutrality" dealio (geez, what a happy, fluffy, rainbow-colored name) is complex and deserves serious debate. And, given the chance, I bet Ted Cruz would be thrilled to give you his take on it all, and probably propose some real, workable solutions that DON'T require MORE frikkin' government intervention into our lives. Whatever the head cheese in the White House is selling, however, is NOT to benefit you and I, it's to benefit HIM and people LIKE him. I can say that with 100% confidence, based on his 100% track record of screwing us, time, after time, after time. Re: Net Neutrality, if 0bama's for it, I'm against it. He has earned my disdain. Re: Ted Cruz, he has my 100% support, on this issue or any other. He has earned my loyalty. | ||
| S2t_bama |
Regarding this: Re: Net Neutrality, if 0bama's for it, I'm against it. He has earned my disdain. Re: Ted Cruz, he has my 100% support, on this issue or any other. He has earned my loyalty. If there is no other information available, I would default to this too. But I have liberal friends who are effected by these issues. If I talk to them as stated above, they will tune me out, and harden their position. OTOH, if I give them the facts and cause them to wonder why Obama is coming down on the wrong side, I may actually cause them to question other Democrat policy positions. | ||
| Fb1 |
S2t_bama, I see your (and Reep's) point. I'm not trying to convince any liberals that 0bama is worthless. I gave up that a long time ago. If, at this point in 0bama's pResidency, someone STILL supports him, well, then, they're beyond hope. If I somehow managed to run into someone face to face who was an 0bama supporter, and IF they could hold an intelligent, honest, adult debate, I'd be happy to try to convince them, with facts and logic, of the error of their ways. And by the same token, I'd be more than willing to hear their arguments as to why they still support 0bama, again IF it was an adult conversation. We may each end up right where we started, but I'd welcome the conversation. Here on the board? I don't think there's a single example on this entire thread - not one - of someone providing a logical reason why 0bama deserves anything other than our scorn and ridicule. This thread is epic, one of the biggest and longest-running in the history of BWB, devoted to one man, and although many BWB'ers have come to his defense, NONE have made a compelling case as to why he's the man. Anyway, I see your point. If I were trying to sway a lib's opinion, I'd choose my words more carefully. I'm not, so I don't. 0bama sucks. He deserves ZERO respect, and that's exactly how much I have for him. Brutal, but true. Best, Ferris | ||
| Oldog |
I have no use (and no tolerance left) for factless partisan attacks from either side. Lets get to the facts and come up with the best solution for the country. I there with you Reepi, I think I can safely say that Ferris and others are too. Ferris has described my disdain,dislike,distrust and my Knee jerk reaction to this admin and its antics. hence my ignorant reaction if barry likes it its probably bad so I will say NO until I am better versed. I soo want that man and his minions GONE Has any one noticed that Russia is war-gaming in the Gulf of Mexico? } | ||
| Aesquire |
I too want fact based debate. I've asked the folk here on the board for opinions and facts as to Why they support the Progressive agenda and all I get is anger and attacks on the Palin o the day. Funny thing is the conservatives are willing to argue with me and actually explain their points. Why can't the progs? The best investment in recent years is bribing Obama. Fact. When will some so called journalist ask Obama what exactly he meant in his promise to Putin? | ||
| Fb1 |
This, IMO, is what 0bama (and the Hildabeast) is most afraid of: The truth about Benghazi.
Source, more: http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/12/new-gop-run-sena te-can-help-investigate-benghazi/ | ||
| Fb1 |
Listen to that clip, and then try to imagine HER being our next president. Damn. | ||
| Oldog |
“The fact is that we had four dead Americans, and if it was because of a protest or because there were four guys out taking a walk and deciding to kill some Americans, at this point, what difference does it make?” Not presidential material. I wish that we could get to the end of this and either jail the perps, or finish this... | ||
| Fb1 |
The mainstream media, at the behest of the cretins-in-charge, will determine if she's presidential material, not us. There's a reason why she retired so early - she needs time to bleach the stench off of her. Great news!
Source, more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/gop-dan -sullivan-maintains-lead-in-alaska-senate-race-as- absentee-ballot-count/ ...President Barack 0bama and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who are unpopular in Alaska. I'd say, based on nationwide mid-term results, they're unpopular EVERYWHERE... | ||
| Court |
It's incumbent no pun intended) on the Republicans to get their asses in there . . LEAD RESPONSIBLY and start bringing this county, all of us Dems and Reps, back on track. If they get caught up in revenge politics and obsessed with "repeal" . . "impeach" or any of that crap (not that I don't agree . . it's just simply not doable, it wastes time and is devisive at a time we need united. The mid-terms were not a vote or endorsement of conservatism . . they were s simple statement that we want change. I explained it to the Roberts folks in Kansas . . . Pat has done some really questionable stuff . . he's lost favor with the folks . . BUT . . .we like him better than the Democratic control we've had. The Republicans have about 12 months to make an impression or this ass kicking will likely go the other way in 2016. The Republicans excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Yeah . . . well how'd that swing . . . with the few folks who'd be seen with you . . . work out big guy?   | ||
| Fb1 |
The mid-terms were not a vote or endorsement of conservatism... Disagree. And yes, it was an old-fashioned butt-kicking. Reep, this was published by Forbes back in May. The author is a techie, like you. I'm still at w*rk so I haven't had a chance to soak up everything he says. I'm curious your take.
Source, more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14 /am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/ | ||
| Reepicheep |
He has one valid point, which I made earlier. The free market will take a path to get to to the best solution the fastest, but the road between here and there could be very painful in the meantime. The cable companies will be assholes, like cable companies are, and they will create a pent up demand that will be met by several parties, and the free market will offer solutions that don't suck and it will become a commodity. All well and good, but this isn't setting up a website, it is real world hardware pulling cables and digging trenches, so it will take some time. Or maybe new wireless technologies, but that may saturate bandwidth. Or maybe half and half (kind of line of site wireless to wired stations). Ihe other two points or bogus. Both the cable companies, most sites he uses, and the federal government will screw him in terms of privacy six ways to sunday. If he wants privacy, it will come from ACLU leaning mathematicians building cryptographic solutions, many of who told us so and who we should have listened too when we were rushing headlong to enact the patriot act. They are wrong about a lot of things, but they weren't wrong about privacy versus security. I'm not even really saying I am for net neutrality. I thing things were screwed up without it, and things will be screwed up with it. Right now, we pretty much have it, and if we loose it, things will get much worse, but that will drive things to get much better. At the end of the day, even if the cable companies do it, they won't be able to do it very successfully. People like me know too many ways to make sure it won't work (VPN tunnels, proxies, virtual machines in the cloud, etc.) As usual, it will be the non techies that will pay the price and get stuck to by "the man". | ||
| Reepicheep |
And don't be surprised if your Fancy Gap ISP decides that since you run a business through your ISP, that you have to upgrade to "business class" broadband, for an extra $79 per month... | ||
| Reindog |
Dennis Miller just said that Obama feels more at home in Red China than Red State America. | ||
| Fb1 |
Reep, thanks. As I said before, I know we're on the same side. I'm not willing to give 0bama the benefit of the doubt when he says, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Sounds like the system needs some work, but if the feds take it over and put control into the hands of the FCC, well, I see no long-term good coming from that. And I still stand by my earlier comments that the MSM pouncing on Cruz's tweet was a coordinated smear campaign. After the research I did online last night, I'm more convinced of that than ever. I don't feel his comments were stupid or ill-advised; I think he was trying to make a point. He was successful in that effort, IMO, and the point is valid, IMO. I think we can expect more and more Palinizing of Cruz as time goes on. He is the progs biggest threat right now, and even though 0bama and his socialist agenda took a beating in the mid-terms, 0bama still owns the MSM, and he certainly hasn't altered his agenda. FB | ||
| Fb1 |
Dennis Miller just said that Obama feels more at home in Red China than Red State America. Why not? Consider 0bama's parents and his upbringing. His vision of America closely resembles that of China. It's too bad it takes Dennis Miller to point out the obvious. Wouldn't it be nice if the MSM did the same?  Image source: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/11/10/unr eal-his-own-circle-allowed-this/ http://youtu.be/Np_PCmSVUpI 0bama looks right at home. | ||
| Aesquire |
Rush used to do montage audio of the "news" parroting the mantra of the day. Same exact words from every network. | ||
| Reindog |
I think this is what FB1 (and Reep) are saying.    (Message edited by reindog on November 13, 2014) | ||
| Reindog |
The MSM is not reporting Professor Gruber's assault on the American People. I am shocked.    | ||
| Reindog |
Good thing that Hillary and Barry's Reset Button worked. Russia's bombers to conduct regular patrols, ranging from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico By Vladimir Isachenkov, The Associated Press MOSCOW - In a show of military muscle amid tensions with the West, Russia will send long-range strategic bombers on regular patrol missions across the globe, from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, a top official said Wednesday. The announcement by Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu came as NATO's chief accused Russia of sending fresh troops and tanks into eastern Ukraine. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-bombers-conduct- regular-patrols-ranging-arctic-gulf-140627703.html | ||
| Hootowl |
When the Soviets used to fly these missions back in the 80s, there was an F14 up their asses all day. I would imagine it will be the same today, though with a different interceptor. Russia's economy isn't doing all that well, what with the price of oil plummeting. They'll soon tire of being bird dogged while wasting fuel/money and go home. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I have little doubt the government is already monitoring all internet traffic. Just look at the size, cooling, and power requirement fro the new NSA data canter. They don't need this act to do any of that. What can they monitor? We don't know for sure, but probably much more than we think (confirmed by the Snowden leaks). Much of the cryptography used on the Internet is incredibly strong (any HTTPS connection). To crack a single message, you would have to run every computer ever built for the known age of the universe to have a 50/50 chance. So of course you don't just attack the encryption. You attack the keys, the keyholders, and the endpoints. Much easier, and it will *always* be possible, it's just a matter of how much time and money it will take to do it. If I was going to draw the political cartoon, I'd draw wolves in suits wearing cable company shirts, and wolves in suits wearing "big government is here to help" suits, and show them arguing over a cable broadband user (a tied up sheep) about how they are going to split up dinner. |
