gpatt0n

Sometimes your lies are worthy of ... pubby

As a Reagan appointee Low, he was in the eyes of conservatives, at least, one of the good ones. Of course Trump will probably appoint Justice Roy Moore. His synchophants will probably think that is an improvement as at least Moore would ask their momma's before making a move on 'em. pubby PS: At least Justice Roy will have seen the inside of a courtroom; something several of Trumps other judicial appointments to the federal bench have not.

And here I thought media matters was very credible. pubby

What you promote and call free markets are rarely free. To wit, in the cable ISP delivery scheme, 82% of all consumers either have no access to high speed broadband Internet or have access to only one provider. This, of course means that for all intents and purposes, cable TV and its sister broadband Internet service is provided in markets where there is a monopoly provider. I think we here in Paulding are pretty well versed in the wonders and benefits of a monopoly internet provider. http://paulding.com/forum/topic/322183-dear-local-monopoly-media-provider/ Gosh, you can tell just

It is widely published: This passage comes from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Here is another article that details Trump's appearance on Jone's Infowars ... and some other notable interactions ranging from the Pizzagate meme and Obama's birther movement (Jones is a birther like Trump). Would you also deny that Trump and Roger Stone have a relationship? Then I remember you deny there is any sort of relationship between Trump and Vladimir Putin ... so I guess since you deny that exists, it is rather futile to get you to acknowledge that Trump has any kind of questionable relation

Nope, as an internet entity and content creator I've been keeping up with the issue and can think on my own. It does seem you keep to the right wing party line more consistently than I do the left. pubby

Oh, and since you're likely too dense to understand as well as deferential to your commandant, let me show this little video explaining the way the Internet was in the time you suggest we went back to. You know, when you claim all is well. I'll point out the publisher of this bit of 'truth' was that bastion of liberal-think, the Wall Street Journal. Yep, they are the one's who pointed out how the ISPs are now salivating with the new found power Ajit Pie has heaped on them with the help of Donald Trump. pubby PS: I especially like the bit how they started censoring opinions they

So the argument is that net neutrality is not needed because the Clayton anti-trust act is there to stop abuse. And the last time the Clayton Anti-trust act was invoked was in the 1980 AT&T case which broke up AT&T which, incidentally was great but if you look around, AT&T is back together. Further these laws have not been used effectively in the US since the sea change in attitude that happened during the Reagan administration when merger mania began. Since then the media ownership landscape has shrunken from it taking nearly 200 media companies to cobble together 95 percent

Well good for you. I can tell you that Trump knows and even called upon Alex Jones for support. The problem I have with the blaze and Glenn Beck is that he preaches the world crumbling around us and then seeks to sell you gold through his site. The reality though is that the problem with most of the media on the right is they seem less anchored in reality and more prone to propagate that special kind of news; you know the type - and no it is not fake news - rather (add drumroll) it is that news based on alternative facts. So, so Orwellian of the right. Seriously, did you know that

Well don't you except Fox, Brietbart and prisonplanet (Alex Jones outfit)? I saw you quoting the Blaze on another topic... I suppose you except them too? Or do you, praise the LORD!, think these media are corrupt and lying with impunity? pubby

In a very technical sense, you are correct. The rules regarding net neutrality had been established under another section of commuication law and while those regulations guaranteeing net neutrality were enforced, the ISP's (Comcast,AT&T etc.) fought those regulations in court ultimately getting a ruling that said the authority the FCC used in the law to enforce net neutrality was not legal. Hence the status quo ante that these guys are using to suggest that I was lying. In the short period of time between the loss in court, the ISP's started doing their thing throttling delive

I actually agree that ALL the media are corrupt to one degree or another. While you except Fox News, brietbart, prisonplanet, etc. from the evil media, I recognize that all the media are self-promoting and self-serving entities. And yes there are instances of failure of all the media brands. Still, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote and I personalize, I would rather have the media and no government than government and no media. The ultimate truth is that no matter how you twist things (and Fox twists them a lot) nothing can make racism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, ignorance, corruption an

I know that there was an effort two years ago to strip the conditions of net neutrality and the decision was made to protect it under common carrier regulations and that those regulations have been ditched. What I also know is that the FCC has been captured by the companies that it regulates and has been since Ron Reagan to one degree or another and that their decisions have been disastrous in many ways. As far as handlers ... Did Alex Jones tell you to say that or are you naturally a conspiracy theorist. pubby

On the word banning episode; let me guess! Your defense is that Trump lacks the intellectual ability to use the words banned - they aren't in his vocabulary - so the institutions so ordered were doing so in order that the commander in chief could understand what was being said without going to sleep. Yeah, now it makes sense. pubby

Nope, he's just a company man stirring the pot for the benefit of the greedy rich and famous. pubby

That's a lie. pubby

I think it is debatable whose comment went over whose head. Just saying. pubby

I suspect that question won't even be asked. You do know how big the universe is and how insignificant, in the cosmic scheme of things, we are? Maybe not. Such are the burdens of my fealty to the Constitution; specifically the tenets of the first amendment. pubby

A right wing political hack who got a plum job for which he was not qualified. pubby

Let's see, Conyers has resigned, Franken and neither were found guilty of a crime. Rather there were credible allegations regarding their character that convinced those on the left they were not deserving of leadership positions. I don't necessarily agree with the notion but I recognize that when you represent all the people you are and should be held to a higher standard. Republicans used to believe that too but when they accepted the notably flawed billionaire not to mention the apparently flawed - the allegations of the women accusing Roy Moore were credible - character of the recent

She was smart enough to leave Alaska as well pubby

No one, no Feinstein, not Bill Clinton, not Moore, not Franken, not Trump are being prosecuted and jailed for their alleged indiscretions with women (or girls). Like the high school teacher in Georgia who lost her job because she was critical of Trump and other people who lost their jobs (the woman who gave his motorcade the finger) or Al Franken, they at most lost jobs because of their expressions. At issue with the press is whether people have the right to know the moral character of the people they, as a group, hire to perform public business. The SCOTUS, in Sullivan v. NYTimes basi

I'll admit that I called the alleged acts he committed criminal but the alternative would be to call the women who accused him liars. Since I believed them, I made the judgment that I didn't want to call him Senator. I fully admit and retract the statement that he is a criminal and would entreat all on the right to cease calling folks like Hillary criminal followed with the apparently joyful chant 'lock her up' part of their political discourse. Indeed, political discourse tends to run higher level discourse out of circulation much like bad money drives good money out of circulation.