As many have pointed out, US citizens will be hurt by this (much like the current tax plans proposed by Congress). Will we be required to pay differing fees for accessing different bundles of sites and online services? Will it be bundled like TV packages where you pay more for the fastest access and pay less and you get slower. Will there be editorializing of what I can view? Which consumers are eager for ISPs to be able to block or slow traffic from companies that don’t pay for priority access? Even though absolutely no regular consumer would ever want this new "Internet Freedom", Ajit Pai is selling this repeal of consumer protections as the FCC protecting consumers “just as it did before 2015.” In reality--particularly with these changes coming from a former Verizon executive--most observers can view this as another case of this administration being pro-corporation and anti-consumer.
Pai isn’t the only one to have calculated spending on broadband infrastructure. Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group, noted (PDF) investment in networks has gone UP since the Title II classification order in 2015, and that, “not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically.” So selling this as something that will increase infrastructure investment is much like the theory that the Republican tax plan will benefit middle class people because corporations will be paying less in taxes. Makes zero sense.
Regardless of who or what you believe, the truth is the internet will not be as unbiased, free and open in the US as it is now, once the 2015 net neutrality guidelines are repealed.
There's no proof US citizens will be "hurt by this". I'd simply argue that consumers are more "harmed" by regulations which protect local markets FROM competition instead. Let anyone and everyone enter the cable/satellite/Internet service provider/wireless services race and see who comes out on top.
What you argue is stupid and you have clearly made your point on that.
Removing net net neutrality can only hurt consumers and, as others have pointed out, if companies have spent hundreds of millions lobbying against it that means they want to make money and that’s obly going to be ar your expense. I don’t care, I live in Europe, one of the only free places in the world anymore.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
I’m always sad when I read someone say this because it is incredibly naive. Yes, in theory, the power of the market could be in consumer’s hands. But the reality is that most consumers are too lazy and are unwilling to accept sacrifice in order to produce change.
Business, politicians, leaders, groups, etc. take advantage of this as a matter of policy. The most effective attempts at change take the form of gradual changes people don’t want but can more or less tolerate. These smaller changes combined with what amounts to propaganda convince people they actually want these things they never wanted.
The internet is bigger than a simple commercial venture. I want a smaller government but some things should not be left to the market.
Other than national defense and a very short list of other functions allowed the Federal government, minding the Internet is not one of those functions. There's almost nothing the market can do which can be done better by government. This should give Americans hope.
Putting people on the Moon.
Inventing basically every technology that changed he World in the 20th century. All made by public research groups.
I mean, healthcare in the US is a mess. Your life expectancy is lower and child mortality rate higher than every other developed country which shows that your country is a third world county disguised as a rich country.
Come back when you don’t have double the baby deaths as the European Union.
Think big companies fighting don't hurt the consumer? Here's three examples just from 2017.
Google didn't like Amazon's YouTube implementation on the View. So, it blocked access to YouTube on the devices for about two months. Restored this week.
Google and Apple don't agree on VP9 versus H.265. So, Mac, iPhone, and Apple TV users don't get 4K.
Amazon took issue with the Apple TV, and said that it confused consumers because it didn't play Amazon Video -- an app that Amazon would have to and could provide. So, Amazon stopped selling it. And, here we wait for the app, still.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.
Are you still trying to convince everyone that you're right? lol. SPAMsandwich indeed.
How about providing a counter-argument instead of a personal attack?
Pai says: "Well, I favor a free and open Internet, as I think most consumers do.
My concern is with the particular regulations that the FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.
And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up disincentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example.
And that, I think, is something that nobody would benefit from."
You see? What we have here is a hot, steaming load of bullshit.
Where’s your argument in favor of your point of view? You obviously disagree with Pai. Why?
Think big companies fighting don't hurt the consumer? Here's three examples just from 2017.
Google didn't like Amazon's YouTube implementation on the View. So, it blocked access to YouTube on the devices for about two months. Restored this week.
Google and Apple don't agree on VP9 versus H.265. So, Mac, iPhone, and Apple TV users don't get 4K.
Amazon took issue with the Apple TV, and said that it confused consumers because it didn't play Amazon Video -- an app that Amazon would have to and could provide. So, Amazon stopped selling it. And, here we wait for the app, still.
It seems to me like you’re saying people deserve to have YouTube, Amazon should sell what “you”* want them to sell and that the modern conveniences that overlay the Internet to make it more accessible and usable should be dictated by a committee?
Think big companies fighting don't hurt the consumer? Here's three examples just from 2017.
Google didn't like Amazon's YouTube implementation on the View. So, it blocked access to YouTube on the devices for about two months. Restored this week.
Google and Apple don't agree on VP9 versus H.265. So, Mac, iPhone, and Apple TV users don't get 4K.
Amazon took issue with the Apple TV, and said that it confused consumers because it didn't play Amazon Video -- an app that Amazon would have to and could provide. So, Amazon stopped selling it. And, here we wait for the app, still.
It seems to me like you’re saying people deserve to have YouTube, Amazon should sell what “you”* want them to sell and that the modern conveniences that overlay the Internet to make it more accessible and usable should be dictated by a committee?
(*”you” in the general sense of the word)
What I'm saying is big companies getting in fights causes problems for consumers, as demonstrated by the first line of the post. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast count -- and can and will cut back speeds on services that they're cranky about for whatever reason. They've done so in the past, until forced not to by FCC action.
People in this post are saying that the carriers won't do that and haven't done that. But yet, they have and not just once.
There are others claiming that free commerce will pave the way to glory as Pai said it would. That's fine and good if it was actually the case, but other restrictions that the FCC and other agencies have laid down regarding spectrum, cabling, and existing infrastructure will prevent the free market from making a toe-hold in service provision to consumers.
Ask Google how fiber deployments are going. Ask the municipal broadband suppliers how willing the government and big business are to allow them to expand, or be established in the first place.
By it's own data, the FCC has acknowledged that there is no real choice for its definition of broadband. But yet, in the text of the decree, to refute Title II it relies heavily on choice of broadband provider if consumers don't like the terms that any carrier is laying down.
Satellite with half-second latency or more? That's not competition. Wireless with heinous caps? That's not either.
Verizon calls its infrastructure work Title II when it wants federal money, but turns around and calls itself Title I for content regulation. AT&T does the same.
And now, the FCC can't or won't get involved, at all, when a carrier cuts back a service because of reasons only known to itself for sure. Instead, they're relying on self-regulation, which doesn't work.
It's not a good situation.
Anyway. I'm out for Thanksgiving. Be good to each other.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
Seriously???? “Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom" is an absolute bullsht term that is the exact opposite of what it does. The internet is a utility and should be treated as same. It is the property of the people meant to serve the people. Once again the asshat we have as president is destroying all that supports the people in the interest of major corporations. Under this president we are a nation in serious decline.
Good job FCC. Let the competition commence. The less regulation,the better.
What a moronic thing to say. There is a big difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. While stupidity is the inability to know or understand. So which are you? The internet is a utility, whose development was done in the public sector, not the private sector. Let companies compete with net neutrality. THAT is the even playing field. And end the oppressive consolidation by major corporations. If you want competition, quit killing it.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "
The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
The stat is not from AI: it’s from the FCC itself. Link: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.pdf
The tl;dr of that is that Mike is correct: nearly 60% of US households are served by only one ISP offering 25mbps or better broadband download speeds — or have no broadband access at all. Only 13% have more than two broadband options.
Maybe do your own research next time before flapping your lip.
As many have pointed out, US citizens will be hurt by this (much like the current tax plans proposed by Congress). Will we be required to pay differing fees for accessing different bundles of sites and online services? Will it be bundled like TV packages where you pay more for the fastest access and pay less and you get slower. Will there be editorializing of what I can view? Which consumers are eager for ISPs to be able to block or slow traffic from companies that don’t pay for priority access? Even though absolutely no regular consumer would ever want this new "Internet Freedom", Ajit Pai is selling this repeal of consumer protections as the FCC protecting consumers “just as it did before 2015.” In reality--particularly with these changes coming from a former Verizon executive--most observers can view this as another case of this administration being pro-corporation and anti-consumer.
Pai isn’t the only one to have calculated spending on broadband infrastructure. Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group, noted (PDF) investment in networks has gone UP since the Title II classification order in 2015, and that, “not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically.” So selling this as something that will increase infrastructure investment is much like the theory that the Republican tax plan will benefit middle class people because corporations will be paying less in taxes. Makes zero sense.
Regardless of who or what you believe, the truth is the internet will not be as unbiased, free and open in the US as it is now, once the 2015 net neutrality guidelines are repealed.
There's no proof US citizens will be "hurt by this". I'd simply argue that consumers are more "harmed" by regulations which protect local markets FROM competition instead. Let anyone and everyone enter the cable/satellite/Internet service provider/wireless services race and see who comes out on top.
What you argue is stupid and you have clearly made your point on that.
Removing net net neutrality can only hurt consumers and, as others have pointed out, if companies have spent hundreds of millions lobbying against it that means they want to make money and that’s obly going to be ar your expense. I don’t care, I live in Europe, one of the only free places in the world anymore. But I. And stop being astounded that there are millions of suckers just like you in the US who support a delirious government directed by an ignorant stupid immature revengeful egotistical and hateful bigot who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and that Belgium is a city.
He doesnt know anything about anything!!! That’s the clear truth. He is an ignorant of epic proportions unable to concentrate for more than one minute on a security briefing and who probably hasn’t read a book since high school.
And is the same person today as he was when he was five years old. Most truthful utterance he’s made to date.
But that doesn’t mean we should allow it to continue to get worse, as you and the other right wingers in this country. Want, apparently.
Nope, I want the opposite. As do actual traditionalists. You’re the one who pretends corporations are people. Corporations are groups of people–people against whom the government is duty-bound to protect, particularly when they’re international corporations. Corporations do not have rights. People have rights. Any other statement is not constitutional, regardless of if it is currently enforced.
I understand right wing politics quite fine, thank you.
No. I’m sorry. You don’t. As evidenced by your, forgive me, delusion that Fox is a right wing media outlet or that the piece of shit owner of News Corp, Richard Murdoch, is right-wing (much less “far” right).
I have friends who extoll that every week. They also show a remarkable lack of understanding of economics and politics.
Then they’re either not right-wing or they know nothing about economics. That says nothing about the nature of actual traditionalist political policy.
i see way too much of the unfettered economic concepts from this administration.
It’s high time that liberals read the Constitution. I think they’d be interested to see just how much power the government actually has over such things. And news flash: if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say that the government can do something, IT CAN’T DO THAT THING.
See, I can do it, too. Almost makes you wonder if we have a one party system or something. Certainly not what anyone on the left or right wants, right? Identical core goals with superficial differences. Sad, really.
…a basic center position that CNN mostly resides in.
CNN was caught red handed being paid to promote marxist (that’s on the left, sweetie) political platforms. They do it every single day. I don’t care where your personal overton window is; truth is objective, as are the definitions of political positions and the tenets thereof.
As societies become more advanced, and enlightened
Humorous word choice.
…more things are decided to be rights.
That’s not what a right is.
Equal accesss to information is a basic right
1. Says who? 2. Then why aren’t you promoting that? 3. Or perhaps only for the information you want people to know, yeah?
in a democracy
Thank God we’re not one of those.
When that access is denied, because a company decides to not give a services because it st them more to do so
Or when the entire traditional media and all Internet social media and search engine platforms get caught colluding to hide that information…
Whether you like Tim or not, that’s a right.
It’s… not. I don’t have the right to pickles. I don’t have the right to a car. I don’t have the right to yellow paint. I don’t have the right to gigabit Internet. I have the rights to life (which means defense thereof), expression (which means no restriction thereof), association (which means no encroachment thereof), and opportunity (which does not mean the sum total of possible opportunities).
I know you want to go back to the 19th century in these things, as do some others here
Your argument against this being what? Sorry; wrong question. Your argument being what?
it in three years, they loser will be out of office, and things will go back to normal. Heh, the way things are going, he may be gone before that.
CNN is absolutely center. Its just that conservatives and republicans almost all now lean to the far right, so you don’t realize that what you call left if actually the center. There is no left and right in the US. There is the far right on one side and normal people on the other, you know people who trust science, education and morals.
You’re joking, right? Based on your posts elsewhere, I have to consider this nothing but a joke. It’s based on absolutely nothing factual whatsoever.
…our government and all that entails is your enemy while it’s capitalism run amok that really is.
The genocide of 100,000,000 in the last century kind of turned me off to your worldview. I don’t know what it is; that just doesn’t sit right with me. If capitalism was your enemy, you’d be living (read: starving) in the woods right now instead of taking advantage of the capitalist society that brought you the computer you’re using. Because nothing else ever has or ever will do as much for the economic state of humanity as capitalism.
Right... A false equivalency, one lies at least twice as much and pushes a distinct agenda.. You know that but you spouted whataboutism ...
Sites like snopes prove this point, but hey words and facts have no meaning now.
Guess you think that Trump tells the truth just as much as Obama huh, they're "all the same" (sic), one lies 95% of the time the other 1%... they both lie...
Provide evidence for your claims or don’t make them. Is it really that hard? Oh, and Snopes has been caught lying to serve the leftist political agenda in the past, so you’ll want to revise that part of your statement. CNN is the one that lies twice as much; yes, you’re right about that.
This totally idiotic point of view is so funny when you look at Europe and see people working 35 hours per week and having 5 weeks per year of paid vacation, healthcare for all and university at 1000$ per year. That’s not slavery, it’s paradise compared to the US.
You’re welcome for paying the defense bills for your entire continent so that you can pretend that communism works. When we leave NATO, will you still have such a good time? Particularly with the EU forming its own unified military force?
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
What a load of...
this lack of rules are just as much biased and self-interested as anything else. Except with this, our protections from predatory behavior by these companies are out the window. But, I suppose that from the right, that’s a good thing. As long as the bias is in favor of large companies it’s great, when it’s in favor of citizens, it’s not.
Give him credit. To his core, he's a low life libertarian wannabe.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
What a load of...
this lack of rules are just as much biased and self-interested as anything else. Except with this, our protections from predatory behavior by these companies are out the window. But, I suppose that from the right, that’s a good thing. As long as the bias is in favor of large companies it’s great, when it’s in favor of citizens, it’s not.
Give him credit. To his core, he's a low life libertarian wannabe.
What happens when public policy is written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists. I oppose this change by the FCC. It does not serve the interest of the general public, nor does it protect the general public from corporate shenanigans.
Verizon’s statement amounts to: trust us. Kill the regulations and protections and trust us not to be greedy about Internet fast lanes and “pay to play” access to content. Whoops, Apple didn’t pay Verizon a tithe, so we’re going to slow down your downloads from iTunes Store to a crawl. Apple Music is buffering? Aww, maybe sign up for music streaming from one of or “preferred partners” who’ve paid us for the privilege. Never trust the wolves to watch over the flock.
Why are you forgetting that there always be someone else to offer better plans and undercut that overly greedy company? That is how disruptions occur. Uber was not mandated by the gov-t, but it surely disrupted taxi industry for good. Don't like uber? Fine, don't use it.
I think others have already responded to you, but let me add my thoughts. If I understand your basic argument, it’s something like: “free markets always lead to outcomes that support the interest of consumers.” Correct me if I’m wrong about what you meant to say.
OK, you also mentioned Uber like it was some example of that. Really? In Austin, TX both Uber and Lyft spent $8 million to fight a local city ordinance which would have required criminal background checks for their drivers. Both companies threatened to leave town if the ordinance passed, plunging ride-sharing customers back to the era of early 00s. And both shutdown their services in Austin when the ordinance passed. You’d think (according to the free market theory) that if one of those companies left the other would gladly take over as the unchallenged monopoly in that market. But that’s not what happened: both acted in self-interest and fought against the interests of consumers, thinking that if they threatened to leave, it would make their customers think twice about voting for the measure. And they did leave to punish their customers for voting for the ordinance. That’s your free market in action. The free market did not create an outcome that protected consumers’ wishes.
The startups and non-profits that tried to fill the void left by Uber and Lyft leaving Austin never attained the mindshare or popularity of Uber and Lyft combined. Some 60% of former Uber and Lyft customers simply stopped using ride-sharing services. Uber and Lyft were a duopoly, much like the limited or non-exist competition in residential broadband.
Here’s another examine more germane to the topic of net neutrality: in my apartment complex, I’m only allowed to have ONE cable/internet/phone provider. One. A local monopoly. Yes, regulations exist to prevent that, but loopholes also exist to allow it (I checked). Is that consumers want? Of course not. Is the free market providing it? Hmm... other apartments are doing the same thing. Cable companies are paying apartment owners a cut in order to gain exclusive monopolies to those properties. They’re all doing it in my local market. I should be able to pick where I want to live and have my choice between the few ISPs providing service to my city.
The nature of ISP service is that, due to infrastructure requirements, you’re lucky to have more than one or two for a particular market. A free market of one or two that would gladly gang up against the consumer (the way Uber and Lyft did in Austin) is not going to lead to outcomes that protect consumer interests.
Uber and Lyft both left Austin because of a hostile business climate. That doesn’t suggest collusion or monopoly of some kind or other. Why shouldn’t businesses leave a city, state or country if the business or regulatory climate becomes unworkable?
Think big companies fighting don't hurt the consumer? Here's three examples just from 2017.
Google didn't like Amazon's YouTube implementation on the View. So, it blocked access to YouTube on the devices for about two months. Restored this week.
Google and Apple don't agree on VP9 versus H.265. So, Mac, iPhone, and Apple TV users don't get 4K.
Amazon took issue with the Apple TV, and said that it confused consumers because it didn't play Amazon Video -- an app that Amazon would have to and could provide. So, Amazon stopped selling it. And, here we wait for the app, still.
It seems to me like you’re saying people deserve to have YouTube, Amazon should sell what “you”* want them to sell and that the modern conveniences that overlay the Internet to make it more accessible and usable should be dictated by a committee?
(*”you” in the general sense of the word)
What I'm saying is big companies getting in fights causes problems for consumers, as demonstrated by the first line of the post. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast count -- and can and will cut back speeds on services that they're cranky about for whatever reason. They've done so in the past, until forced not to by FCC action.
People in this post are saying that the carriers won't do that and haven't done that. But yet, they have and not just once.
There are others claiming that free commerce will pave the way to glory as Pai said it would. That's fine and good if it was actually the case, but other restrictions that the FCC and other agencies have laid down regarding spectrum, cabling, and existing infrastructure will prevent the free market from making a toe-hold in service provision to consumers.
Ask Google how fiber deployments are going. Ask the municipal broadband suppliers how willing the government and big business are to allow them to expand, or be established in the first place.
By it's own data, the FCC has acknowledged that there is no real choice for its definition of broadband. But yet, in the text of the decree, to refute Title II it relies heavily on choice of broadband provider if consumers don't like the terms that any carrier is laying down.
Satellite with half-second latency or more? That's not competition. Wireless with heinous caps? That's not either.
Verizon calls its infrastructure work Title II when it wants federal money, but turns around and calls itself Title I for content regulation. AT&T does the same.
And now, the FCC can't or won't get involved, at all, when a carrier cuts back a service because of reasons only known to itself for sure. Instead, they're relying on self-regulation, which doesn't work.
It's not a good situation.
Anyway. I'm out for Thanksgiving. Be good to each other.
Unless there are contractual agreements preventing the “vindictive” restrictions you mentioned regarding the carriers, they can run their businesses in whatever way they see fit.
Comments
Removing net net neutrality can only hurt consumers and, as others have pointed out, if companies have spent hundreds of millions lobbying against it that means they want to make money and that’s obly going to be ar your expense. I don’t care, I live in Europe, one of the only free places in the world anymore.
Inventing basically every technology that changed he World in the 20th century. All made by public research groups.
I mean, healthcare in the US is a mess. Your life expectancy is lower and child mortality rate higher than every other developed country which shows that your country is a third world county disguised as a rich country.
Come back when you don’t have double the baby deaths as the European Union.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Google didn't like Amazon's YouTube implementation on the View. So, it blocked access to YouTube on the devices for about two months. Restored this week.
Google and Apple don't agree on VP9 versus H.265. So, Mac, iPhone, and Apple TV users don't get 4K.
Amazon took issue with the Apple TV, and said that it confused consumers because it didn't play Amazon Video -- an app that Amazon would have to and could provide. So, Amazon stopped selling it. And, here we wait for the app, still.
(*”you” in the general sense of the word)
There are others claiming that free commerce will pave the way to glory as Pai said it would. That's fine and good if it was actually the case, but other restrictions that the FCC and other agencies have laid down regarding spectrum, cabling, and existing infrastructure will prevent the free market from making a toe-hold in service provision to consumers.
Ask Google how fiber deployments are going. Ask the municipal broadband suppliers how willing the government and big business are to allow them to expand, or be established in the first place.
Satellite with half-second latency or more? That's not competition. Wireless with heinous caps? That's not either.
You can add my name to the list on that page.
No. I’m sorry. You don’t. As evidenced by your, forgive me, delusion that Fox is a right wing media outlet or that the piece of shit owner of News Corp, Richard Murdoch, is right-wing (much less “far” right).
Then they’re either not right-wing or they know nothing about economics. That says nothing about the nature of actual traditionalist political policy.
It’s high time that liberals read the Constitution. I think they’d be interested to see just how much power the government actually has over such things. And news flash: if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say that the government can do something, IT CAN’T DO THAT THING.
CNN was caught red handed being paid to promote marxist (that’s on the left, sweetie) political platforms. They do it every single day. I don’t care where your personal overton window is; truth is objective, as are the definitions of political positions and the tenets thereof.
Humorous word choice.
That’s not what a right is.
1. Says who?
2. Then why aren’t you promoting that?
3. Or perhaps only for the information you want people to know, yeah?
Thank God we’re not one of those.
Or when the entire traditional media and all Internet social media and search engine platforms get caught colluding to hide that information…
It’s… not. I don’t have the right to pickles. I don’t have the right to a car. I don’t have the right to yellow paint. I don’t have the right to gigabit Internet. I have the rights to life (which means defense thereof), expression (which means no restriction thereof), association (which means no encroachment thereof), and opportunity (which does not mean the sum total of possible opportunities).
Your argument against this being what? Sorry; wrong question. Your argument being what?
Any Day Now™ You’re joking, right? Based on your posts elsewhere, I have to consider this nothing but a joke. It’s based on absolutely nothing factual whatsoever.
The genocide of 100,000,000 in the last century kind of turned me off to your worldview. I don’t know what it is; that just doesn’t sit right with me. If capitalism was your enemy, you’d be living (read: starving) in the woods right now instead of taking advantage of the capitalist society that brought you the computer you’re using. Because nothing else ever has or ever will do as much for the economic state of humanity as capitalism.
Provide evidence for your claims or don’t make them. Is it really that hard? Oh, and Snopes has been caught lying to serve the leftist political agenda in the past, so you’ll want to revise that part of your statement. CNN is the one that lies twice as much; yes, you’re right about that.
You’re welcome for paying the defense bills for your entire continent so that you can pretend that communism works. When we leave NATO, will you still have such a good time? Particularly with the EU forming its own unified military force?