Here's what I found regarding the 300 page document these partisan kooks keep referring,
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-top:8px;">No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-top:8px;">The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not.</p>
What the FCC voted on yesterday was not 300 pages. What they did vote on will be made available for the public to comment on, then the FCC will decide to adopt it or not.
Was the FCC the source of this conclusion you reached? How about including all of your sources instead of providing your own highly partisan spin?
Ok, but remember this works both ways. None of you kooks (and I'm going to use that term from now on because I was just reading some of the racist paranoia you and a couple of others spew in AppleOutsider and PoliticalOutsider) ever provide any sources or evidence.
So, you basically completely lied and lifted quotes out of context to make point that doesn't even exist. Wow. Anyone is free to compare the source material with what you twisted then posted. You blatantly and completely misrepresented what was written. Here are just a few quotes from the source...
Example:
"The Federal Communications Commission is misleading the public about its 332-page plan to regulate the Internet, a Republican member of the commission said Tuesday.
The net-neutrality plan could in fact open the door to new fees and taxes, as well as government control over the prices that Internet providers charge their customers, Commissioner Ajit Pai told reporters."
Example:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
Ok, but remember this works both ways. None of you kooks (and I'm going to use that term from now on because I was just reading some of the racist paranoia you and a couple of others spew in AppleOutsider and PoliticalOutsider) ever provide any sources or evidence.
So, you basically completely lied and lifted quotes out of context to make point that doesn't exist. Wow. Anyone is free to compare the source material with what you twisted then posted. You blatantly and completely misrepresented what was written. Here are just a few quotes from the source...
Example:
"The Federal Communications Commission is misleading the public about its 332-page plan to regulate the Internet, a Republican member of the commission said Tuesday.
The net-neutrality plan could in fact open the door to new fees and taxes, as well as government control over the prices that Internet providers charge their customers, Commissioner Ajit Pai told reporters."
Example:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about?
In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about?
In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about?
You're kidding, right?
I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
Starting with this headline, "Republican FCC Commissioner: Public Is Being Misled About Net-Neutrality Plan", he's spun the out of context quotes as some kind of argument that bolsters his false position on the FCC ruling. Feel free to compare all of his quotes with the source. I'm not doing your homework for you.
I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
Starting with this headline, "Republican FCC Commissioner: Public Is Being Misled About Net-Neutrality Plan", he's spun the out of context quotes as some kind of argument that bolsters his false position on the FCC ruling. Feel free to compare all of his quotes with the source. I'm not doing your homework for you.
No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context.
And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context.
And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
Now you're cherry picking:
"The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules."
If you are going to quote someone, quote the entire bit in context. Either you trust the source you're quoting or you don't.
No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context.
And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
Now you're cherry picking:
"The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules."
If you are going to quote someone, quote the entire bit in context. Either you trust the source or you don't.
It wasn't my quote, so I'm not cherry-picking anything. However, the context of the quote was clearly to support a previous comment that only a very limited part of the document contained the proposed regulations. It did just that. The rest of the quote (above) is also accurate, but did not pertain to that point. For which, however, you accused the poster of lying, taking quotes out of context, and making a point that did not exist. Don't you ever get tired of having your mindless drivel called out for what it is? You can stop any time.
"The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules."
If you are going to quote someone, quote the entire bit in context. Either you trust the source you're quoting or you don't.
The quote I pulled is a fact of the regulation. All the other garbage that you quoted him saying is his opinion.
So, you basically completely lied and lifted quotes out of context to make point that doesn't even exist. Wow. Anyone is free to compare the source material with what you twisted then posted. You blatantly and completely misrepresented what was written. Here are just a few quotes from the source...
Example:
"The Federal Communications Commission is misleading the public about its 332-page plan to regulate the Internet, a Republican member of the commission said Tuesday.
The net-neutrality plan could in fact open the door to new fees and taxes, as well as government control over the prices that Internet providers charge their customers, Commissioner Ajit Pai told reporters."
Example:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
Comments
I also found this,
The Republican commissioner (Ajit Pai) acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.
That's exactly right. And it's all there.
But, careful. Facts just seem to get people confused and angry.
Was the FCC the source of this conclusion you reached? How about including all of your sources instead of providing your own highly partisan spin?
Whatever source you are allegedly quoting isn't indexed by Google, so...sources?
Whatever source you are allegedly quoting isn't indexed by Google, so...sources?
Ok, but remember this works both ways. None of you ever provide any sources or evidence.
Here's where the quote came from, http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210
I think that Limbaugh calls them "keepers of odd knowledge."
I think that Limbaugh calls them "keepers of odd knowledge."
I don't like or listen to Limbaugh either.
Title II has been around since 1934. All of the cable companies and their attorneys know it well.
Check it out here, starting on page 35.
Ok, but remember this works both ways. None of you kooks (and I'm going to use that term from now on because I was just reading some of the racist paranoia you and a couple of others spew in AppleOutsider and PoliticalOutsider) ever provide any sources or evidence.
Here's where the quote came from, http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210
So, you basically completely lied and lifted quotes out of context to make point that doesn't even exist. Wow. Anyone is free to compare the source material with what you twisted then posted. You blatantly and completely misrepresented what was written. Here are just a few quotes from the source...
Example:
"The Federal Communications Commission is misleading the public about its 332-page plan to regulate the Internet, a Republican member of the commission said Tuesday.
The net-neutrality plan could in fact open the door to new fees and taxes, as well as government control over the prices that Internet providers charge their customers, Commissioner Ajit Pai told reporters."
Example:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
I think that Limbaugh calls them "keepers of odd knowledge."
What is your response to MrShow's falsified information now?
Ok, but remember this works both ways. None of you kooks (and I'm going to use that term from now on because I was just reading some of the racist paranoia you and a couple of others spew in AppleOutsider and PoliticalOutsider) ever provide any sources or evidence.
Here's where the quote came from, http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210
So, you basically completely lied and lifted quotes out of context to make point that doesn't exist. Wow. Anyone is free to compare the source material with what you twisted then posted. You blatantly and completely misrepresented what was written. Here are just a few quotes from the source...
Example:
"The Federal Communications Commission is misleading the public about its 332-page plan to regulate the Internet, a Republican member of the commission said Tuesday.
The net-neutrality plan could in fact open the door to new fees and taxes, as well as government control over the prices that Internet providers charge their customers, Commissioner Ajit Pai told reporters."
Example:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about?
In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about?
You're kidding, right?
In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about?
You're kidding, right?
I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
Starting with this headline, "Republican FCC Commissioner: Public Is Being Misled About Net-Neutrality Plan", he's spun the out of context quotes as some kind of argument that bolsters his false position on the FCC ruling. Feel free to compare all of his quotes with the source. I'm not doing your homework for you.
I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
Starting with this headline, "Republican FCC Commissioner: Public Is Being Misled About Net-Neutrality Plan", he's spun the out of context quotes as some kind of argument that bolsters his false position on the FCC ruling. Feel free to compare all of his quotes with the source. I'm not doing your homework for you.
No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context.
And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context.
And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
Now you're cherry picking:
"The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document. But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules."
If you are going to quote someone, quote the entire bit in context. Either you trust the source you're quoting or you don't.
The camels nose is now in the tent...
No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context.
And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
Now you're cherry picking:
"The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document. But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules."
If you are going to quote someone, quote the entire bit in context. Either you trust the source or you don't.
It wasn't my quote, so I'm not cherry-picking anything. However, the context of the quote was clearly to support a previous comment that only a very limited part of the document contained the proposed regulations. It did just that. The rest of the quote (above) is also accurate, but did not pertain to that point. For which, however, you accused the poster of lying, taking quotes out of context, and making a point that did not exist. Don't you ever get tired of having your mindless drivel called out for what it is? You can stop any time.
Now you're cherry picking:
"The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document. But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules."
If you are going to quote someone, quote the entire bit in context. Either you trust the source you're quoting or you don't.
The quote I pulled is a fact of the regulation. All the other garbage that you quoted him saying is his opinion.
So, you basically completely lied and lifted quotes out of context to make point that doesn't even exist. Wow. Anyone is free to compare the source material with what you twisted then posted. You blatantly and completely misrepresented what was written. Here are just a few quotes from the source...
Example:
"The Federal Communications Commission is misleading the public about its 332-page plan to regulate the Internet, a Republican member of the commission said Tuesday.
The net-neutrality plan could in fact open the door to new fees and taxes, as well as government control over the prices that Internet providers charge their customers, Commissioner Ajit Pai told reporters."
Example:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
You are an unrepentant liar.
I want an apology.
The camels nose is now in the tent...
This train went off the rails about eight pages ago.