The hijacking of the term" Liberalism"

[ants]

Oh your right. I forgot about how they regulate our phone calls & deny access.

 

 

What music is playing in your head right now?  

[adkbuck]

You're kidding me right?

 

Would you rather have profit driven corporations imposing their control over what or who gets to see on the internet through exorbitant fees or even (possible) outright refusal to allow subscribers access? They are already doing that very thing.

 

 

I'm dead serious.

 

I am not a fan of any Comcast or any internet service provider.  As more options develop for in ISP technology the free market will eliminate companies with unfair fee structures.   More efficient low cost operators will prevail.   But if monopolies are bad, why should the biggest and most powerful monopoly on earth, the US Government, be entrusted with managing the internet?

 

 Do you think the great advances in cell phones, smart phones and portable computer technology would have happened if telephony technology was still managed by the U.S. Government?

The governmental red tape, regulations and bureaucracy that will be created will make it very difficult for small start-up companies and will kill competition, not enhance it because only the biggest companies will have the monetary and legal assets required to navigate through the bureaucratic mine field that will be created. 

 

The US government has shown repeatedly that it is ineffective in managing much of anything.  The government under the current administration of spent the equivalent of 6 years of Face book’s operating cost just to build a simple health care website.  That’s over 2 billion dollars ($2,000,000,000.00)  of taxpayer money! 

 

The founders of the constitution you described intentionally created a government that was slow, ineffective in areas outside its legitimate realm. They wanted it entangled in grid lock in these matters because the greatest danger to the freedom of the citizenry is a government that acts too fast for the people to protect themselves from its propensity to grab power.

 

For some time, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai has stated that the text of his internet neutrality rules plan is 322 pages long . However he and the Obama administration have refused to make it public. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”  There again we have another prime example of executive branch  transparency!  Here again, why should something like this be decided by unelected Obama appointees?

 

It scares me, are you comfortable with a government that has already tampered with mainstream routers and intercepted private emails having even more power?

 

Net Neutrality means the government will be installing its own hardware and software to monitor internet traffic, something it is ill equipped for technically and for which it has no legitimate business doing under the first amendment of the constitution. 

Edited February 25, 2015 by adkbuck

[Mr VJP]

All you need to know about net "neutrality".

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/02/25/soros-ford-foundations-lavish-196-million-push-internet-regulations?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=soros-net-neutrality

[wildcat junkie]

What music is playing in your head right now?  

What are the voices in your head telling you?

Edited February 25, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[phade]

Cockroach calling, liberal definition and ownership, net neutrality, and people too hard headed to admit they honestly think they are infallable.

We almost covered it all. Almost.

[ants]

What are the voices in your head telling you?

 I hear the theme song from the old sit com " The Facts of Life". It helps me deal with the fact that the Koch Brothers killed every puppy in my neighborhood and stole everyones recyclables out of their blue bins.  Wonder what they're gonna do with those huh???  Yeah… I think we ALL know whats going on there!!!

[growalot]

PHADE GET OFF YOUR OWN PEDESTAL...PEOPLE HERE READ WHERE I APOLOGIZED FOR HIS MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT I SAID..THAT I WROTE I NEVER CALLED HIM A COCKROACH..LITTLE LOT STIRRER

[greg54]

[phade]

PHADE GET OFF YOUR OWN PEDESTAL...PEOPLE HERE READ WHERE I APOLOGIZED FOR HIS MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT I SAID..THAT I WROTE I NEVER CALLED HIM A COCKROACH..LITTLE LOT STIRRER

Grow, you are testy imo. Have some levity for petes sake. The only person riled up in this thread is you. Edited February 26, 2015 by phade

[The_Field_Ager]

Vigil -

 

I'm so tired of his hypocrisy, I'm giving up being serious with him. Notice he doesn't even answer the serious questions I ask him.

 

 

You mean like, 'whats me view of the current Pope ?'  

 

 

lol

[The_Field_Ager]

LITTLE LOT STIRRER

 

 

Ever notice how the  liberal  tribal dance gets more n more irate and less 'tolerant' when their B.S. isn't being swallowed?

 

I know I have.

[mike rossi]

I think it should be one of the banned words, along with a few other partisan terms, because for us that truly hunt its quite a bore...

 

Just for housekeeping purposes, the OP, in the first post, mentions the "progressive movement". I have seen the terms "liberal" and  "progressive" used interchangeably, seemingly to bolster the liberal ideology.. However,  I believe the "Progressive Party" was a party started by Teddy Roosevelt, the only conservation president this country has ever had. He started out as a republican and quit it and formed this party. The party failed and doesn't really exist anymore.

 

Although TR acted as a republican and then as his self defined progressive, the successful conservation  funding strategies we have today that TR created, or in the case of the Pittman - Robertson Program, he inspired; are actually more like socialism then anything else. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by mike rossi

[Curmudgeon]

You mean like, 'whats me view of the current Pope ?'  

 

 

lol

 

Come now on Papist. Don't be obtuse. Here are the questions directed at you in post #9 - this thread.

 

What do any of you intend to accomplish with these political discussions? Beyond entertainment for those who like to read them, or recreation for those who like to argue, did any of you ever change one person's mind? Is that a goal?

 

You are a smart guy. Why don't you present arguments in a way that educates instead of provokes?

 

BTW - Just so you know what weight class you are in this morning, I fought a battle with an English muffin this morning, and lost.

 

Grow - No hard feelings on this end.

[wildcat junkie]

All you need to know about net "neutrality".

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/02/25/soros-ford-foundations-lavish-196-million-push-internet-regulations?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=soros-net-neutrality

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! This is the only source you should seek. Everyone else is lying to you.

[philoshop]

When did unelected bureaucrats become lawmakers in this country?

 

The refusal of the bureaucrats to even disclose their proposed regulations to the actual lawmakers should be a pretty good clue that they don't have completely benign intentions in this matter.

The whole idea of Public input and discussion was dismissed after the first failed attempt. Now it's entirely behind closed 'curtains' so that there's no dissenting opinion.

 

Certain parts of the proposal do have merit in their overall intent. If that's the extent of your concern, shout it from the rooftop. But even a casual look at what we're being allowed to see in the light of day concerning the actual content, and what is being heard from 2 of the 5 FCC commissioners, lead many of us to believe the basic intentions are far from noble.

 

[adkbuck]

Thanks for the good post Philoshop. The FCC is made up of 5 commissioners as you pointed out.  By law the president can only appoint three members of the same party, so three (the majority) are Democrats.  Ajit Pai  and Michael O'Reilly (the two Republicans) have tried repeatedly to have an open debate but Obama is planning to abuse his powers again bypassing congress under the guise that this is merely a routine matter of "regulation" and his appointed chairman,  Democrat,  Wheeler, in banana republic fashion, is set to change the internet forever and for the worse by this unconstitutional action and power grab.   With so much in common, it is no wonder why our president is so friendly toward the Cuban dictator. 

 

I was incorrect in my post by saying Ajit Pai and Obama refused to make the 322 page micro managing FFC interment controlling document public.  Ajit Pai was actually try to warn us. It was Obama and Thomas Wheeler the Chairman who are keeping this secret until it is voted on.  As I mentioned above, nothing good or of benefit to our country will come of this.

 

I am amazed there are some people in the forum who don't see the value of discussing such matters as this  which really goes beyond normal politics.  Their fundamental rights are being taken away right before their very eyes and they don't seem to care.   Amazed!

Edited February 26, 2015 by adkbuck

[Mr VJP]

I am amazed there are some people in the forum who don't see the value of discussing such matters as this  which really goes beyond normal politics.  Their fundamental rights are being taken away right before their very eyes and they don't seem to care.   Amazed!

 

Far from amazing IMHO.  Some people are simply die hard big government Obama supporters that hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil about this administration.

 

Perhaps it's their blind hatred of the prior Bush administration that was implanted in their minds by the leftist media, that just prevents them from ever seeing any corruption in the Democrats.

 

As far as rights being removed, it's not that they do not care, they refuse to believe it is happening!

[phade]

It's not that I don't care - it's more along the lines of not really fitting in with a hunting forum imo. But, we've went around and around on that topic and nobody comes off point.

 

 

[Mr VJP]

"Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.

Republican FCC Commissioners Mike O'Rielly and Ajit Pai, who voted against the plan, alleged that President Barack Obama unfairly used his influence to push through the regulations, calling the plan a "half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent and indefensible document."

Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately "bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight."

Big Government Expands Further Into Your Private Life

[phade]

Is this true (I have no idea it is or not)?

 

"A Republican bill in Congress right now lays out almost exactly the same net neutrality plan the FCC just voted on."

[Mr VJP]

It's not that I don't care - it's more along the lines of not really fitting in with a hunting forum imo. But, we've went around and around on that topic and nobody comes off point.

 

Having seen attacks on their hunting and firearm rights for decades, some hunters are just very vigilant when it comes to further attacks on any of their rights by bigger intrusive government.  I'd say these posts are very much in line with the interests of many freedom loving hunters and firearm enthusiasts.

 

On the other hand, many hunters see the pastime as an escape from the pressures and demands of the real world and choose not to participate in the vigilance.  That's how they wind up with infringements on their rights, like the SAFE Act.

[scolopaxmatt]

Left, right, center...  Who the hell cares.  If you hold office you're a villain.  Period.

[philoshop]

It's not that I don't care - it's more along the lines of not really fitting in with a hunting forum imo. But, we've went around and around on that topic and nobody comes off point.

 

I'll never apologize to anyone for disrupting their comfort with my opinions on very real concerns. I'll fight to the death for your right to ignore me.

 

I wish you good hunting this season, and always.

Mark

[phade]

I'll never apologize to anyone for disrupting their comfort with my opinions on very real concerns. I'll fight to the death for your right to ignore me.

I wish you good hunting this season, and always.

Mark

Be careful, keep talking about hunting and a hunting thread might breakout on politicalny errr huntingny.com.

[The_Field_Ager]

Be careful, keep talking about hunting and a hunting thread might breakout on politicalny errr huntingny.com.

 

 

Just a reminder for those that haven't noticed. It is down season and many of us have 4+ feet of snow in our yards and woods. Won't be any hunting for some time yet round my way.