Net Neutrality

Will Obama and the FCC Break the Internet with Net Neutrality and Title II?

|

Last week, President Obama came out in favor of reclassifying the Internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. That's a tighter level of regulation than the current Title I and the switch is one of the rallying cry of many who are calling for Net Neutrality. Proponents of Net Neutrality and Title II reclassification contend that more regulation of companies such as Comcast and Time Warner is the only to keep the Internet as free and wide open as it has been…without such rules. Net Neutrality advocates are especially worried about "fast lanes" or "paid prioritization" in which some Internet services or customers would be forced to pay ISPs in order to make sure streaming video and other services get to users smoothly.

In a Time piece from last week, I argue that such fears are overblown. Snippets:

Let's leave aside the inconvenient fact that reclassification under Title II wouldn't actually prevent "paid prioritization" deals, that ISPs are constantly managing online traffic in all sorts of ways to keep users happy, and that the FCC's legal standing to regulate the internet is far from a settled matter. The real question is whether experiments in delivering content and services would necessarily be bad for the rest of us (I write as a Netflix subscriber, the editor of web and video sites, and an Internet junkie)….

The answer is no. Clemson University economic historian Thomas W. Hazlett defines Net Neutrality as "a set of rules…regulating the business model of your local ISP." The definition gets to the heart of the matter. There are specific interests who are doing well by the current system and they want to maintain the status quo via government regulations. That's understandable but the idea that the government will do a good job of regulating the Internet (whether by blanket decrees or on a case-by-case basis) is unconvincing, to say the least. The most likely outcome is that regulators will freeze in place today's business models, thereby slowing innovation and change….

According to the FCC's own findings, the speed and variety of American Internet connections are growing substantially every year. Despite claims that monopolistic ISPs don't have to listen to customers, 80% of households have at least two providers that can deliver the internet at 10Mbps or faster, which is FCC's top rating. It's in the increasingly intense battle over customers that a thousand flowers will bloom; all sorts of interesting, stupid, and dumb innovations will be tried; users will be empowered; and tomorrow's Internet will look radically different from today's.

Read the whole thing.

More from Reason on Net Neutrality.

NEXT: Todd Krainin on Washington's Beautiful, Illegal Tiny Houses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Because the TOP MEN at the FCC are better positioned to determine the best way to deliver internet service than the people with a financial interest in getting and keeping subscribers.

    1. more regulation of companies such as Comcast and Time Warner is the only to keep the Internet as free and wide open as it has been

      How can anyone even write that?

  2. I want to download everything and make other people pay for it. Is Net Neutrality for me?

    1. You seem stupid so yes.

    2. Besides, internet service providers have made enough money. What about the people??

      1. It’s a giant unending pool of cash! They can afford whatever is thrown at them!

    3. The net neutrality crowd is analoguous to a bunch of fat gluttons demanding that the federal government force every restaurant in the country to become a one price all you can eat buffet.

  3. How about a pilot study with “snail-mail neutrality”, in which every packet piece/ounce of mail is treated equally? No paying for priority shipments.

    1. An excellent idea!

      Or how about school neutrality? Every child must receive the same education. No more private schools for rich pols.

      Or food neutrality. Everyone gets the same government ration. No more paying for better food.

      Clothing neutrality would require each citizen to wear the same gray jumpsuit.

      And then haircut neutrality, car neutrality, etc.

      1. I would find this funny, but I can’t because I just know someone else in the world is seriously considering it.

      2. Every child must receive the same education.

        What could *possibly* be fairer than that?

      3. During a bout of wildfires in our area there were local ninnyprogs that were oh so concerned that some homeowners/insurance companies purchased extra fire protection through private providers because not everyone could.

        So since not everybody could nobody should.

        1. “You can’t chew gum unless you brought enough for the whole class.”

          It’s the mindset of a grade school teacher.

          1. Even going so far as to take it away from you to maintain fairness.

  4. My brother has been trying to convince me that Net Neutrality is good. He said that without it, my ISP could charge me more to visit sites I like- thus censoring them.

    My counterargument is that everything the govt is far more likely to censor. The whole reason cable TV came about was to get around FCC content restrictions.

    1. without it, my ISP could charge me more to visit sites I like- thus censoring them.

      Why do so many authoritarians start with this principle, that some harm could potentially occur, thus we must interfere? It seems especially curious considering that harm could be occurring right now, but isn’t.

      1. Damn it, man, the longer we wait the closer we are to some potential harm!

        1. Without Net Neutrality, any of these could happen at any moment!

          Global Warming

          Unwed Teenage Mothers

          World War III

          Mass Extinction

          Honey Boo-Boo back on the air

          Alien Invasion

          Penis in a Chinese Finger Trap

          Zombie Apocalypse

          Supernova

          Ice Age

          Death

      2. Robert Falcon Scott? You’re supposed to be dead!

        1. Eh, I’ve only had Obamacare a few weeks, give it time.

          1. The NHS would have saved him.

    2. My brother has been trying to convince me that Net Neutrality is good. He said that without it, my ISP could charge me more to visit sites I like- thus censoring them.

      Uh, then why aren’t they doing that already?

      I love when people argue ‘theoretically a company could do X, therefore government has to make regulations!’ even if the company has, up until now, never even attempted the thing they’re worried about.

      1. It applies to everything.

        “Something bad might happen, therefore laws!”

  5. If you pull that finger Obama is going to send you an AOL CD.

  6. You’d think that by now if Obama supports something that would cause people to automatically shitcan the idea.

    1. You can never be truly free of a cult, Warren.

      1. The Great Pumpkin is real, dammit!

    2. Automatically doing the opposite of what Obama says is still allowing Obama to control you.

      1. I don’t think telling someone to fuck off is the same as doing the opposite of what they say.

  7. Alt-Alt-Text: Fuck you, and you, and you, and you, and you. . .

    1. I was under the impression that O had no fucks left to give.

  8. What’s NSA’s position on Net Neutrality?

  9. OT: I heard about the hearings where the NSA defended its right to spy on 3rd party data.

    But wait a minute- the mail also passes through a 3rd party: the postal system.
    If the govt needs a warrant to read my mail, it sure as hell needs a warrant to spy on my phone calls or email.

    1. Big “if”.

      1. Well, the 4th amendment says “papers”, so I presume that includes mail.

        1. No. It’s only papers they don’t want to look at.

          Papers they want to look at, well obviously the state has a vested interest in seeing those papers.

          1. Oh. I guess that whole “no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause” is sort of like the “shall not be infringed” part on the 2nd amendment.

            Just a bit of obsolete legalese. Move along you looky loos! Nothing to see here!

            1. I’ve often wondered how they managed to get around the “no law” part of the 2nd Amendment.

              It’s as if they’re acting with a complete disregard for our founding principles, and suffer absolutely no consequences for flagrantly breaking the law!

              1. Pedant powers activate!

                The “shall make no law” is from the 1st amendment.

                But yeah, they tend to ignore that one too.

                1. Pardon Mwah.

                  I gets confused when I get sleepy.

              2. It’s as if they’re acting with a complete disregard for our founding principles, and suffer absolutely no consequences for flagrantly breaking the law!

                Principals trump principles.

              3. It’s as if they’re acting with a complete disregard for our founding principles, and suffer absolutely no consequences for flagrantly breaking the law!

                Principals trump principles.

                1. You can say that again.

    2. No it doesn’t. Fuck you. You’ll take your government spying and like it. Oh, you don’t like it? Well, pay a huge fine! Wait, you don’t want to pay a huge fine? Rot in a cage! What’s that, you don’t want to rot in a cage? Well, have fun getting shot!

      Sigh.

      I’m getting cranky.

  10. Why can’t we just have another light-hearted conversation about camel fucking? This is getting depressing.

    1. Everyone camel-toe the lion!

      1. Speaking of camel toe, there was a hottie at our local bar (a single wide trailer with add ons) 30 years ago.

        Hot gal with tight white pants sitting next to us at the bar. My buddy opined, something like “honey, you should feed that thing some meat, it’s starting to eat your pants”.

        He got slapped but we were rolling on the floor, was a classic moment.

    2. Light-hearted for you. The camel? Not so much.

    3. I’ll be the first to admit that it’s nice when you retire for the evening, if you can lie down in your bed and pretend that psychopath authoritarian monsters like Obama, Diane Feinstein, and and Chuck Schumer do not exist, but it’s also dangerous apathy to do so.

      As much as our nuts are bruised everyday by not sticking our heads in the sand and waiting for blissful ignorance to take hold, we are better off suffering instead.

      I had to say that just to remind myself once again. Now it’s time for another beer, it’s at least some temporary relief from the pain.

      1. “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
        The courage to change the things I can,
        And the wisdom to know the difference.”

        Or, alternatively..

        “I don’t worry about nuthin, no, because worryin’s a waste of my…. time.”

        1. Worrying is unproductive, and typically harmful, but vigilance sometimes pays off.

        2. WHAT IT SAYS

          “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
          The courage to change the things I can,
          And the wisdom to know the difference.”

          WHAT PROGS HEAR

          “God, deny me the serenity to accept things I cannot change,
          Grant me the courage to take on acceptable targets,
          And maintain my supreme wisdom which guides me to decide things for everyone.”

  11. Remember when Calvin and Hobbes and Bloom County? Also, Peanuts.

    1. Spoke in complete sentences?

    2. Far Side.

    3. Apparently the guy who wrote Bloom County won’t write political comics anymore because America is going through ‘tough times’ and they made him really bitter.

  12. For those actually interested in a competitive market rather than just defending the status quo for connected corporate interests:

    Net Neutrality is Just a Symptom

    1. I refuse to read things you post.

      Go fuck a camel.

    2. Sure Comcast is evil. But government is more evil. Keep that in mind. It’s best to just keep government in check and let the market and technical innovation drive progress.

      I remember when I paid $60 a month for dial up internet and it took a week for a site to load the first page. It’s gotten a little better and not because of government, but despite government.

      1. Also, should have added that Comcast is evil because government has allowed them to be. In a more unregulated market where monopolies were not possible, terrible companies like Comcast would be quickly driven out and prices would fall dramatically.

        1. I think Stormys point is that since Comcast has been/is supported by government interventions simply withdrawing government neutrality regs would not result in anything like a free market. Sort of like the arguments for right to work laws that bar union shop agreements even when employers might want them, on the grounds that government favoritism for unions elsewhere had to be balanced with RTW restrictions

        2. Which has been my repeated point: not that we should back net neutrality, but that the alternative is not defending the equally statist status quo. But all of the “free minds and free markets” here are too busy standing up for poor little Comcast to actually fight for free markets.

          1. Which has been my repeated point: not that we should back net neutrality, but that the alternative is not defending the equally statist status quo. But all of the “free minds and free markets” here are too busy standing up for poor little Comcast to actually fight for free markets.

            This is nonsense. Net neutrality is a terrible idea, and standing up to it is good in and of itself.

            Everyone here agrees we should not allow Comcast and other companies to engage in cronyism on their own behalf, but since the current attempt at expanding state power is net neutrality, people are naturally more interested in defeating that first than they are in fighting on a second front.

            I have yet to see anyone talk about how sad they are for ‘poor Comcast’ so you should probably try building another strawman with a bit more believability.

            1. Everyone here agrees we should not allow Comcast and other companies to engage in cronyism on their own behalf

              Other than passing lip service, I don’t think most of the people here do agree with this. As you just so demonstrate, it’s always “I’m not in favor of Comcast, but Net Neutrality is bad”. Since I’m not advocating for Net Neutrality this does nothing to address any of my complaints.

              1. fuck your complaints. stop sending them money dumbass. the country doesn’t need to be less free because you hate your own choice for an ISP.

                1. See what I mean, Irish? Here we have a supposed libertarian arguing that ending government enforced franchise monopolies “makes the country less free”.

                  But you keep assuring me that no one here is actually defending corporate cronyism.

      2. Besides that, isn’t the current system in place because the fedgov granted what amounted to a monopoly to corps like Comcast?

        1. Yep, that very entity who were supposed to protect us from monopolies, are instead creating them.

          1. Regulatory capture was a problem with the Interstate Commerce Commission in the 1880s.

            But it will be different this time, because TOP. MEN.

            TOP MEN, I say!

            1. This whole thing reminds me of America’s original lesson (which has yet to be widely learned) about statist–collectivist cronyism: the story of the Union Pacific vs. the Central Pacific in the 19th century.

              The UP and CP were subsidized, and thus corrupt and vicious from top to bottom. Meanwhile, you had an independent entrepreneur named JJ Hill who built the Great Northern without subsidies or cronyism of any kind.

              1. who built the Great Northern without less subsidies or cronyism of any kind.

                1. He didn’t get land grants like UP and NP, bro.

  13. It is snowing in north TX in November. Clearly this is proof that global warming is even worse than predicted.

    The science is settled! The debate is over! 97% of climate scientists agree!
    Repent- the end is nigh!

    1. Well, look, you uneducated libertarian hicks, you disagree with 97% of scientists, you deniers. I guess I have to agree with the scientists, and I once had a degree in something, and I once had a job, but because you libertarians shutting down the government and all and running down poor children in the streets with your giant polluting Kochtopus SUVs, now smart people like me are unemployed.

      /Tony

    2. I know I’m beating a dead camel here, but why don’t we just rename the entire climate change movement to something more honest? I like the sound of “Money Theft Movement” or “Climate Liars”.

      1. They’re cultists, we can start with that.

        The Inquisition of the Holy Church of Warmists?

        Seriously, these same people, if alive back in the 1500s, would be running around in hooded robes and burning people at the stake for saying that the world isn’t flat or denying that the invisible sky god exists.

      2. Concerned Citizens Against Technology & Prosperity

        1. Moms. Moms Against Technology & Prosperity.

        2. Also referred to as Luddites.

          Stop those tractors!

          Stop those steam engines!

          Stop those automobiles!

          Stop those libertarians!

    3. I realize you’re partly joking here, but I think the GW proponents are talking about rising averages, not saying there will be no more cold weather days.

      1. “I realize you’re partly joking here”

        But you’ll go ahead and be a fucking killjoy anyway.

        God you’re so fucking awful.

        1. There’s no reason even in jest to say something that sounds idiotic crazy person.

          1. YES!!! UHHHHHHH!!!!

            SCOLD ME BO!!! YEAH!!! FUCKIN HOT!!!

            You’re not totally a killjoy exactly like I said you pathetic fucking nothing.

            1. Please stop that, it’s getting everywhere.

      2. I think the GW proponents are talking about rising averages, not saying there will be no more cold weather days.

        But the “rising averages” claims have often taken an extreme form. Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions

      3. not saying there will be no more cold weather days.

        Actually yes many proponents have said exactly that.

        In fact they only lessened saying that after 2013-2014’s winter.

    4. Ah the old, irrefutable argument that disproves a century of science: “It’s cold where I live right now.”

      1. A century? That’s interesting because the first study on atmospheric CO2 was in the 1960s.

        You do realize it’s a bit odd for it to be snowing in Texas in November?

        1. You do realize it’s a bit odd for it to be snowing in Texas in November?

          Don’t even try. Tony will say that is because of global warming.

  14. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) on Sunday bashed Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) description of net neutrality as “Obamacare for the Internet.”

    “He has it completely wrong and he just doesn’t understand what this issue is,” Franken said about Cruz on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    “We have had net neutrality the entire history of the Internet. So when he says this is the ObamaCare, ObamaCare was a government program that fixed something, that changed things,” Franken explained. “This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same that they’ve been.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l…..neutrality

    1. tl;dr

      “You’re too stupid to get it! We’re smarter than you, so just do as we say!”

      -Al Franken

    2. I have to agree with Al.

      However, as much as I want NET NEUTRALITY, I know Obama and the Republicans will never agree on anything.

      The Original ACA had a PUBLIC OPTION. The Original ACA had no plans on regulating other insurance companies nor was there a plan for EXCHANGES.
      Once KABASHED not just by republicans but by stooges of the insurance industry, Obama had to settle for NO PUBLIC OPTION and the EXCHANGES requiring regulations on Insurance Companies.

      So, Obama’s original statement that “if you like your healthcare, you can keep it” would had been true with the original ACA with PUBLIC OPTION. Obama was too too stupid to even use this as a defense.

      Either way, I’m more mature now. I know that Obama will get NOTHING DONE. And, if somehow he weasels thru the REPUBLICANS, it will be a total FUCK UP.

      1. However, as much as I want NET NEUTRALITY

        Would you like some weekly rations of laundry soap along with your ration of government gruel?

        China has a heavily regulated internet. Perhaps you should try living there for a while just to try in on for size?

        1. You missed the point simply explained by the former Stewart Smalley. This is not heavy regulation. This is maintenance of the status quo. Private interests can “regulate” things too–they just don’t even pretend to operate in the public interest.

          1. they just don’t even pretend to operate in the public interest.

            Good thing you’re smart enough to know what the public interest is. Now no one is burdened by trying to figure it out on their ow!

            1. *own!

            2. The public interest can largely be determined objectively (the public is made up of humans with specific and universal interests), but nevertheless is open to democratic debate. I know this doesn’t compute–to you “I as an individual will determine what’s in the public interest” isn’t either nonsense or an advocacy of tyranny. Maybe I just don’t get it yet.

              1. There is no such thing as the public interest. The public can’t have an interest. It isn’t an entity with a conscious mind that can think and have interests. Only individuals can have interests.

                1. Plus Tony doesn’t much care when the public decides that its interests are opposed to what Tony wants. Tony talks a big game about how he loves Democracy (which is how we always make fun of him for the fact that his stated love of Democracy would easily result in genocide and similar abominations) but that’s all for show.

                  When the public opposes Tony and the Democrats on immigration (which they do) Tony ignores it. When the public opposes Tony on net neutrality (which they do) Tony ignores it. When the public opposes Tony on higher taxes (which they do) Tony ignores it.

                  Tony maintains his illusion of loving Democracy by ignoring the dozens of instances where true Democracy would result in outcomes Tony does not like.

                  1. He should actually love libertarians like me who would give him a basic bag of free shit and just eliminate all the bureaucracy, when a democratic majority might result in him dying in the streets.

          2. This is not heavy regulation.

            And said regulation will surely never grow to beyond its current size. Never happens in government.

          3. Yeah, Tony, righttttt, it’s never heavy regulation, it’s never going to be abused, you’re a fucking idiot.

            1. You’re too harsh, Hyperion. I find that sort of naievete charming and cute.

              I just hate that I can’t be there, in the room, when his Lord and Master the State turns on him. I’d give away a kidney to see that.

              1. Yeah, he should take my offer for a modular tiny house and free government gruel now before his masters put a giant boot print on his face. But he’s too dumb for that.

          4. This is maintenance of the status quo

            It shows how out of touch people are that they would support such a thing in an industry marked by the speed of its innovation.

      2. However, as much as I want NET NEUTRALITY, I know Obama and the Republicans will never agree on anything.

        When did progressives start applauding policies that stem from backroom deals between the government and Ford, Visa, and UPS? Yeah, you’re really progressive, supporting a policy hatched in smoke filled rooms by credit card companies.

        Incidentally, 61% oppose federal regulation of the internet.

        Progressives love Democracy, except when progs find themselves in bed with credit card companies as they try to oppose the will of the people.*

        *Note: I don’t personally give a fuck about the will of the people, since at various times the will of the people gave us slavery, genocide, and Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that progs love claiming to be on the side of the people, except, apparently, when they think it behooves them to start carrying water for Visa’s CEO.

        1. and Nazi Germany

          *foams at mouth*

      3. No, you are just stupid Mitchipoo.

    3. ObamaCare was a government program that fixed something

      I think that right there is more than enough for us to stop taking Stuart Smiley seriously, for those of us that were dumb enough to do so in the first place.

      There should be a new law. That law should state that any politician who even suggests fucking with the internet should be tarred and feathered, hung in public, and their tar feathered head mounted on a pike on the national mall.

      1. The weapon or the fish?

        1. Leaving it to your imagination.

      2. The Official Office of Politician Suffering, or OOPS.

        Their sole purpose of to torture politicians that author, co-author, vote for or suggest the implementation of legislation about anything ever.

    4. I don’t care much for Cruz but I think it’s clear he meant “Obamacare for the internet” in the sense that Obamacare sucks and so would increasing government regulation of the internet also suck.

      1. Of course that’s what he meant, but a genius like Stuart Smiley can’t figure that out.

      2. That, plus how long before there would be demands for these “public utilities” to ban hate speech, or be made available to the poor at no cost, or be required to use green power, or whatever?

    5. ObamaCare was a government program that fixed something

      It sure fixed his Party a couple weeks ago

      1. That was pretty good.

  15. I don’t get whoring for large corporations when they’re not paying you. There’s surely no genetically based reflex that causes this habit.

    1. Tony, do you want the same people surreptitiously spying on us via internet to be the ones empowered to control it for our ostensible benefit?

      1. Define “control it” in this context.

        1. The common definition: determine the behavior or supervise the running of.

          1. But the proposal is to ensure the exact opposite of that happening. The Internet currently is not shaped by either government or a handful of corporations. That status quo is what is meant to be preserved, not some new exercise of control.

            1. So we need to make changes to maintain the status quo. Got it.

              1. So we need to make changes to maintain the status quo. Got it.

                +1 intertoobz

            2. The FCC needs to take action to keep things the same???

              1. Also, note the rich, delicious irony of Tony the American Liberal arguing for conservatism.

                1. I argue for conservatism all the time. I argue for maintaining the environmental status quo while you guys advocate a radical and communist imposition of global change. I advocate keeping in place well-functioning and long-established economic policies, while you guys advocate for a radical overhaul of them. Etc.

                  1. while you guys advocate a radical and communist imposition of global change

                    LMAO! WTF? We advocate a communist imposition of global change?

                    Hey, Tony, are you going to freak out and show us some pictures of cruise missiles now, or will you pass out and puke on your mum’s basement floor before you are able to do so?

                    1. You advocate for an equal distribution of global climate change. Of course that’s what “global” means.

              2. Why is that counterintuitive? The private sector is capable of changing the status quo too.

                1. I again have to ask why anyone would think themselves on the right side of history arguing for the status quo in the tech industry.

                  1. One word: LUDDITE.

                  2. Touche there.

            3. This is the stupid thst is Tony, laughable.

      2. so isps traking our purchases surreptitiously is good but the govrnemnt looking for terrorists who want to kill people is bad. i think im understaning libertariansim1

        1. Buzz off, Mary. Your act is tiresome.

          1. thats your best response? typical. i suppose when the libertarian repetoire gets exhausted pretty quickly: “strawman! goalposts! commie! markets! invisible hand! bad typer!” thers little else to say.

            i have to admire the courage that you all carry on despite totally getting pwned by logic, science, reality and rational thinking over and over again. im suprised more creationists arent libertarians . dont mind me though. keep believing alex jones and ayn rand if it makes you happy.

            1. Oh, so you actually want me to address your incredibly silly argument?

              OK, Mary Stack

              I’ll give you some hints:

              1. Corporations can’t imprison people.

              2. There is this thing called the constitution which specifically prohibits the government from snooping on people who have not been charged with a crime.

              Now take your meds.

              1. Obviously, the insanity of last night isn’t over yet.

              2. thats as maybe. the troble with your argument is that youre constructing the governments intentions based on your own paranoias and prejudices rather than anything to do with reality. sure prism violates the 4th amendment but the only proof that theres anythkng more sinister about it than protecting the us from terrorists come only from the wingnut/moonbat orbit. at best its no better than someone planting sofftware on your pc just to sell you things and steal your credit card.

            2. ” typical.”

              Well, if many people typically associate you with a known stalker and fanatic, you’ve got a lot more to worry about than political theory. And like so many broken people, you can’t even see how bad it is.

              1. dunning krueger goes both ways genius

                1. Yeah, but usually you can tell someone isn’t too bright when they show your, how do I put this, nebulous grasp of the English language.

                  If you learned how to spell words or figured out that the shift key lets you type in capital letters, I’d still think you’re a moron, but it would be slightly less obvious.

                2. I see I struck a nerve!

                  1. Wow, 2 Mary sock puppets in one thread!

            3. Mary, you’re a 50 something woman who spends her days trolling libertarian sites and flying into spittle infused rages because you’re insane.

              I’d actually feel pretty bad for you if you weren’t such a clear and present threat to yourself and others.

              1. Were you talking to me? Because I wasn’t talking to you.

                1. No, I was talking to Flaming Ballsack, AKA Mary Stack.

                  1. My bad I got confused.

        2. the govrnemnt looking for terrorists who want to kill people is bad.

          Well, look who’s a neocon now.

        3. The difference is between your girlfriend talking about sex with you behind your back and a peeping tom filming it and distributing it.

      3. Tony, do you want the same people surreptitiously spying on us via internet to be the ones empowered to control it for our ostensible benefit?

        Bingo. Progressives rightfully complain about government spying on internet and phone activity, and then provide the government with a tremendous opportunity to exert their influence over those same activities while making it easier to engage in said spying.

        Progs seem to have a difficult time realizing when some of their arguments obviously contradict their other arguments.

    2. They’re called “principles”. Perhaps you should look into getting some.

      1. I’m a very principled man with an extensive education in the history of thought on principles. Apparently I was sick the day they taught about how corporate whoring is an essential aspect to any decent set of principles.

        1. Which corporations? Google and Netflix or Comcast?

          1. It’s not impossible for a corporation to come down on the correct side of a political issue.

            The flaw in thinking here is a central libertarian fallacy, that power evades vacuums, that government abuse is somehow mystically a worse kind than an equivalent amount of corporate abuse. The opposite of a “neutral” Internet is one that is manipulated either by corporations or government. No one in the US is advocating for a government-mediated Internet.

            1. You didn’t answer my question.

              1. Comcast, etc., obviously.

            2. So despite repeatedly complaining about it, it’s not the corporate whoring you disagree with, but the reason for the whoring.

              Got it.

            3. What exactly is the disconnect here, Tony?

              What is it about giving more power to people who will happily kill you or lock you in a cage forever that makes you so happy?

              People can and will be evil, in every walk of life. The ones with a monopoly on force are the ones we should be wary of. Voluntary service providers are considerably less dangerous.

              1. Government’s going to have a monopoly on legitimate force before and after a net neutrality law is passed. Nothing’s getting any more power than it already has. There is no such thing as not making a policy choice here. Government either enforces or ignores net neutrality. Nether policy choice is an increase of power; it has the power to do either at any time.

                1. Government’s going to have a monopoly on legitimate force before and after a net neutrality law is passed. Nothing’s getting any more power than it already has.

                  That dude over there could kill me if he wanted to. I should just give him all of my money now because he might ask for it.

                2. Nothing’s getting any more power than it already has

                  Then what purpose is served by new legislation, if it has no effect, as you admit here?

                3. Government’s going to have a monopoly on legitimate force before and after a net neutrality law is passed. Nothing’s getting any more power than it already has. There is no such thing as not making a policy choice here. Government either enforces or ignores net neutrality. Nether policy choice is an increase of power; it has the power to do either at any time.

                  Tony circa 1933: “Government’s going to have a monopoly on legitimate force before and after the Nuremberg Laws. Nothing’s getting any more power than it already has. There is no such thing as not making a policy choice here. Government either accepts or ignores the obstreperous and traitorous Jew. Neither policy choice is an increase of power; it has the power to do either at any time.”

                  Obviously there’s no comparison between net neutrality and the Nuremberg Laws, but this exhibit should show the fairly obvious flaw in your logic, dipshit.

                  1. but this exhibit should show the fairly obvious flaw in your logic

                    Tony does not see that as a flaw. He believes in the power of the mob.

                  2. show the fairly obvious flaw in your logic, dipshit.

                    Which he’ll never acknowledge, as he never argues in good faith.

                    Never.

                    Indeed, his arguments should only be responded to with something of equal intellectual weight. That is, the lyrics of “Space Jam” by 1990’s hip-hop group Quad City DJs.

                  3. I don’t see why. A hypothetical government does have the choice to either kill the Jews or leave them in peace. Pray it does the latter.

                4. Government gaining new power isn’t an increase in government power? This is a stupid argument even by your standards.

                  1. No, see, government theoretically could gain this power at any moment, therefore giving this power to them isn’t a gain in power.

                    Similarly, since government theoretically could start reading all of our mail and breaking into our houses without warrants, allowing them to do so doesn’t increase government power.

                    Do you see?

                    1. It retains the monopoly on legitimate force and the ability to change policy. In this case it is hamstrung by the constitution, and for good reason. But sufficiently motivated it could alter the constitution. That is within its power. The choice available to citizens is to mold the composition of government in a way that pleases us, say to preserve these rights. There is no choice to take power out of the equation. It abhors a vacuum.

        2. Oh really? Then why don’t you tell us how the Interstate Commerce Commission got they railroads to clean up their act.

          What’s that? The commission ended up being co-opted by the groups they were supposed to regulate?

          Huh. How about that.

          1. Many powerful private interests seem to be able to manipulate their regulators. Obviously the solution to that problem is to get rid of the regulators so they don’t have to bother.

            1. If the regulators have never helped, why bother with them?

              Did it ever occur you that the best way to keep businesses from misbehaving is to encourage competition?

              1. Yes… which net neutrality is meant to preserve. Despite yet another libertarian “I just made this up” version of history, corporations can reduce and have reduced competition all on their own.

                1. corporations can reduce and have reduced competition all on their own when assisted by government

                  When access to providing the last mile is held by government whether local (cable) or federal (FCC), the level of competition is set by the government.

            2. To you, entrusting the solution to the same government that caused the problem in the first place is a good idea. How that makes sense to anyone is beyond me.

            3. Many powerful private interests seem to be able to manipulate their regulators. Obviously the solution to that problem is to get rid of the regulators so they don’t have to bother.

              TOP. MEN.

            4. Many powerful private interests seem to be able to manipulate their regulators.

              You mean if you set up a system, someone will try to manipulate it? That’s a sound argument for more system if I’ve ever heard it. Maybe once we’ve made the system so large and labyrinthine, it will be impossible to manipulate.

              Onward to utopia.

              1. You can’t possibly not understand this. Analogy: some people commit murder despite enforced laws against murder, thus to solve the problem we make murder legal.

                1. And by conflating malum in se with malum prohibitum, Tony, once again, proves that he never argues in good faith.

                  Never.

                2. You can’t possibly not understand this.

                  Only you would be so asinine as to compare violation of one person’s right to live by another person, with regulatory capture.

                  Show me the “victims” of bottle-necking by ISPs and what harm they’ve suffered, then you may actually have a point.

                  1. The victims are people who otherwise would have enjoyed a free Internet. Libertarians might understand it as a form of opportunity cost.

                    1. a free Internet.

                      ???

                3. Oh, wow, you went straight to the murder analogy.

                  Hey dingbat- you could make that argument against ANY law. You’re basically saying that no law should ever be repealed, no matter how stupid or pointless it is.

                  1. ‘Well, we can’t repeal Jim Crow! After all, if we repealed murder laws that would be terrible.’ – Tony circa 1963.

                  2. Not at all. The point is that you’re conflating. Whether a regulation is good or not is one question. How to prevent regulatory capture is another.

                    1. How to prevent regulatory capture is another.

                      And who, praytell, has captured the murder business since, according you, opposing regulation is the equivalent of opposing laws criminalizing homicide? Iggy Azalea?

                4. Aggression, violence, and harm are different from providing goods and services to people.

                  Besides, murder IS illegal, except for when the government does it. Click the Police Abuse tab and take a look at how well THAT monopoly has turned out.

        3. Oh, I see. So the corporations who are in bed with your beloved government are pure evil. But your beloved government who are in bed with the evil corporations are innocent saints and victims. Poor elected officials and bureaucrats who are getting rich from cronyism, poor babies.

          I’m a very principled man

          You aren’t a man and you have no principles. You are petulant child who is dumber than dirt.

        4. I’m a very principled man with an extensive education in the history of thought on principles.

          “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
          -Bertrand Russell

          1. Did I say I was cocksure? All of my principles are subject to revision with new evidence. How many here can say that?

            1. And yet you never get around to actually revising them.

              1. I do it almost daily. More than is healthy, probably. But it’s because I actually try to learn something new every day.

                1. OK, what was the last belief or principle you changed and what evidence led to it?

                  1. OK, what was the last belief or principle you changed and what evidence led to it?

                    Tony used to think it was okay to commit genocide if 51% of people voted for it, but now he’s grown and realizes that we should hold for at least a 55% majority, just to be on the safe side.

              2. Which would contrast to the approach taken by you guys, which is to learn something that reinforces your dogma every day.

                1. If you value the new so much, why would you lobby for more government, which prefers stasis?

                2. Go on, Tony. Provide us with a recent example.

                  Just one. Go.

                  1. All right, a relatively important recent example is a revision of the level of faith I place in the objectivity of Supreme Court justices.

                    1. That doesn’t sound like a change in beliefs or principles.

                    2. I didn’t mean that I radically alter them daily, just tweak. It was a revision to the depth of cynicism I thought the SC capable of, to the principle of having a certain amount of trust in the institution.

                    3. It was a revision to the depth of cynicism I thought the SC capable of, to the principle of having a certain amount of trust in the institution.

                      Such a revelation would cause any fair minded person to consider all of the decisions of the court in that case.

                      So, how many wrongly decided opinions do you agree with Tony?

                    4. So, how many wrongly decided opinions do you agree with Tony?

                      Tony|11.16.14 @ 6:59PM| block | mute | #

                      I don’t see why. A hypothetical government does have the choice to either kill the Jews or leave them in peace. Pray it does the latter.

                      The man is clearly a sociopath.

                    5. Indeed, but let me clarify: I didn’t think my pessimism could get much worse. The revision is in the level of pessimism I thought myself capable of.

                      Your question is either nonsense or in need of defining terms. By agree with do you mean I think they were legally sound? By wrongly do you mean something other than not legally sound?

                    6. I’m working with your definitions here, any lack of clarity is a result of your admitted lack of clarity in your initial statements

                      Tony|11.16.14 @ 7:05PM|#

                      Indeed, but let me clarify

                      As I said, your definitions are what we’re working with.

                    7. Ownage asshole, you are done, bitch.

                    8. If your principles change daily, I’m not sure you can call them principles.

                    9. That wasn’t an example.

                      Details, Tony. Details or GTFO.

                    10. All right, a relatively important recent example is a revision of the level of faith I place in the objectivity of Supreme Court justices.

                      Wait, your example of ‘changing a principle’ doesn’t actually involve changing your mind on single policy, but instead simply meant changing the LEVEL OF FAITH you place in the objectivity of the Supreme Court?

                      That’s not changing a principle, idiot. It’s slightly changing your view of a single institution.

                    11. That’s because you’re trying to define principles as dogmatic beliefs, and I don’t see any value in having those.

                    12. How about this:

                      It is impossible for a statement and its opposite to be true at the same time.

                      Can you agree with that? Or is it too dogmatic?

                    13. Can you agree with that?

                      Again, Tony never argues in good faith.

                      Never.

                    14. That’s because you’re trying to define principles as dogmatic beliefs, and I don’t see any value in having those.

                      Tony, you actually would be a good little Nazi. What you call ‘dogmatic belief’ I call ‘limiting principles.’ What they do is they limit how far we will go in our pursuit of what we want.

                      If you have no limiting principles, then you are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to supposed ‘higher goals.’ That’s how you end up with Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.

                      In either case, you would have been a useful idiot gleefully helping the Nazis and Bolsheviks gain power and then would have been shipped off to a forced labor camp or buried in a mass grave when your usefulness had waned.

                      Don’t mistake your sociopathic refusal to have any moral code for actual intelligence.

                    15. Tony, here’s how it works. I will not sleep with a married woman,no matter how hot or determined to sleep with me she is. I had it done to me, and I will not be that guy, period. Not if she is “separated”, or “in the middle of getting divorced”. That is a principle. Is it dogmatic? Yes. Is it wrong? I don’t think so. Will I change it? Never.

    3. I don’t get whoring for large corporations when they’re not paying you

      As there are large corporations on both sides of this looking to cash in, all your attempt at a cheap shot did was to illustrate how deeply ignorant you are on this subject.

      1. As there are large corporations on both sides of this looking to cash in, all your attempt at a cheap shot did was to illustrate how deeply ignorant you are on this subject.

        Clearly Visa, Ford, and Netflix (all of whom are pro-net neutrality) are just small startups with no power.

        Tony would never whore for a large corporation!

        1. If they paid me I would. That’s what whores do. Doing it for free is what suckers do.

          1. So, your principles are for sale. Nice.

    4. Yeah, but we do understand you whoring for big government when they are paying you, with our money, whore.

      1. I probably pay more income tax than you do and in all likelihood use fewer government services.

        1. You pay a lot more than him for things you don’t use. Genius.

        2. lmfao

    5. I don’t get whoring for large corporations when they’re not paying you.

      I don’t get whoring for big government when they’re not paying you.

  16. What are Glenn Greenwald and Mar Udall’s opinion on Net Neutrality. Giving the government more control over the internet won’t stop the NSA.

  17. TEAM Blue Rediscovers the Virtues of Negotiation

    CHUCK TODD:

    You know, Chris Matthews, if you’re the administration, you know, Sylvia Burwell admitted, they still haven’t marketed health care very well.

    CHRIS MATTHEWS:

    I agree with that. But I want to go back to the basis, the genesis of this bill. And it’s the same as the fight over immigration. As long as you have an intractable opposition, I mean, I was hoping we could get Orrin Hatch on this health care bill. I was hoping that Mike Enzi, these are all good people, they were negotiating. They all fell off because of fear of the tea party people. Same with immigration. Please God have a meeting between the president and the speaker in the House this week before this–

    (OVERTALK)

    CHUCK TODD:

    You think they need to meet before?

    CHRIS MATTHEWS:

    Meeting in public. I’d like it on television. What is your opposition to this immigration bill? Is it we don’t have enough enforcement? I’ll give you more enforcement. Is it hiring rules? We’re going to enforce them. I promise you we’re going to enforce them. What do you want? So you’re absolutely against any kind of amnesty for people who have been here 20, 30 years, absolutely against it?

    If the CBO scores this bill as taxes, it dies.

    TEAM Blue should never be assumed to be negotiating or acting in good faith.

    1. “Negotiation” means agreeing to whatever they want and promises they make are pie crusts.

  18. So for next week’s article I think Sheldon Richman should write about Libertarians are Communists, Social Conservatives, Progressives and Puritans. Libertarians support progress, don’t want to destroy society or communities and want to get rid of impure government policies so these terms fit.

  19. I just read an article about Net Neutrality and the top rated comment was ‘We need net neutrality! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE google John Oliver Net Neutrality.’

    I think it’s tremendous that progressives are now admitting they’re idiots who mindlessly listen to propaganda provided to them by comedians. This must have been what it was like in the last days of the Roman Empire when they started staging bigger and bigger spectacles at the Colosseum in order to keep the proletariat in line.

    1. Our comedians are smarter than your pundits.

      1. It might seem that they are if you are a small-minded individual that conflates smugness with wit and faux exasperation with edge.

      2. GO. FUCK. YOURSELF.

        1. There’s no reason to get that mad at Tony. He’s one of the least intelligent people our species has ever birthed, so he tries to make up for his feelings of inadequacy by stomping around and screaming into an uncaring void.

          He’s pitiful and we should feel sorry for someone that broken. He’s like Mary but he’s not insane and therefore has just enough self-awareness to really and truly hate himself.

          1. Telling him to fuck himself makes ME feel better.

            It’s the same reason I play video games and airsoft. It helps me vent steam.

            I’m the kind of person that has a very difficult time living day to day with the knowledge that there is an ever tightening circle of regulation and control bearing down on me moment by moment by moment and that one day it will finally descend and choke the life out of not just me but my family and friends and my home and town and state and country and there isn’t one goddamn thing I can do to stop the collapse of what I know used to be the greatest society ever to exist.

            *takes breath*

            So, in conclusion, Tony can go Fuck Itself.

          2. How liberal of you. People aren’t bad in their nature, they are victims. That’s a great start. You should know though that I feed on two things tonight: short rib with risotto and your insults.

            1. You should know though that I feed on two things tonight: short rib with risotto and your insults.

              Just a bit of honesty, saying things like that makes you sound like a psychotic ex. No one feeds on insults either, it’s a silly thing to say and it doesn’t even make very good banter.

              1. Knowing that your interlocutor has severe fundamental problems with premises and logic doesn’t lead to gaining confidence from his insults? I don’t mind insults, I just prefer them witty. Otherwise they feel like desperation.

                1. Knowing that your interlocutor has severe fundamental problems with premises and logic doesn’t lead to gaining confidence from his insults?

                  No, nor should it, the accuracy and validity of your argument is independent of your interlocutor.

                  Otherwise they feel like desperation.

                  That’s how your “I eat insults” reply comes off.

                2. Knowing that your interlocutor has severe fundamental problems with premises and logic doesn’t lead to gaining confidence from his insults? I don’t mind insults, I just prefer them witty. Otherwise they feel like desperation.

                  Except that I obliterated your arguments upthread and my insults are simply an addendum to the rational arguments I’ve already made.

                  Also, I think it’s hilarious that you think lacking any morals is a substitute for reason and logic. That’s basically what you’re doing. None of your arguments has been even tangentially related to reason or logic, you’ve simply declared yourself a moral and intellectual desert willing to jettison any value if it gets in your way.

                  Sociopathy is not a substitute for reason, Tony, no matter how a simpering nitwit like yourself might create rationalizations in order to claim otherwise.

                  1. For example, while I was posting links to actual evidence that people are happy with their internet service and that net neutrality is therefore a blatant power grab based on a non-existent problem, you were posting this:

                    Government’s going to have a monopoly on legitimate force before and after a net neutrality law is passed. Nothing’s getting any more power than it already has. There is no such thing as not making a policy choice here. Government either enforces or ignores net neutrality. Nether policy choice is an increase of power; it has the power to do either at any time.

                    My arguments were based on a rational perusal of actual polling data, whereas you made the ludicrous statement that government taking over the internet isn’t a power grab because theoretically they could take over the internet at any time. By your argument, the government outlawing free speech is also not a power grab since they could do so at any time.

                    Therefore, your desperate (to use a word you injected into this conversation) attempt to claim I’m not engaging in reason is simply pathetic. I looked at the evidence and explained the evidence, whereas you hurled out an argument so illogical and absurd no one other than a 15 year old cocaine addict could conceivably take it seriously.

            2. You should know though that I feed on two things tonight: short rib with risotto and your insults.

              I always pictured you as more a fava beans and chianti person.

      3. Yeah, I’m sure Jon Oliver is way smarter than some dunce like Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman.

        1. Considering that time and time again, on these boards, Tony has proven that he’s both a racist and an anti-Semite, I bet he actually believes that.

          1. Remember the time Ken got Tony to admit that he didn’t think Rosa Parks had a right to sit at the front of the bus?

            Good times.

            1. I do. It’s both simultaneously hilarious and terrifying when he lets his mask slip.

            2. I know you are not stupid enough not to understand a simple is/ought distinction.

      4. Our comedians are smarter than your pundits.

        That explains why John Stewart mindlessly trots out Democrat talking points and then gets bent over a table by reality at a later date. Because he’s so damned intellectual.

        1. Stewart is such a hack that he made Sean friggin’ Hannity likable for a moment

          “Jon’s problem is he has his head so far up [President Barack] Obama’s a*s he cannot see clearly,” Hannity said in a statement. “He is obviously better suited to reading his joke writers material, and making his clapping seal audience happy.”

          There isn’t more you can add to that.

    2. The Ghost Breakers has never been more relevant:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQWmMfjaXlc

    3. Well they’re starting to turn on Bill Maher after he said mean things about Muslims and nice things about Rand Paul so they need someone new to fill that void and Oliver is just smug enough to do it.

      I look forward to Colbert becoming even more unfunny when he has to drop the right-wing idiot caricature to replace Letterman.

  20. Harry Reid says 97% of Americans will pay less for health insurance because of Obamacare:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO0_NW8Lo_8

    He crams 4 lies into less than a minute.

    1. My own experience says otherwise.

    2. Well, Tony has revised his view on that… Oh, wait…

    3. I’d love to see what actual data were used to come up with those statements.
      I’m crawling out on a very short limb and calling BULLSHIT!

    1. HIH can he hope to square the claim that every feature of the bill was clearly debated when at the time Pelosi is stating ‘we have to pass it in order to see what’s in it!’?
      At least CNN is mentioning it, but you’d hope the reporter continued to ask, given the blatant lies in his comments.

  21. Maddow on the Keystone Pipeline:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSfgyKa4uYE

    her tears are so yummy!

    1. I love that Obama was supposed to be the greatest orator of our time, yet is constantly failing due to his inability to express himself.

      1. Well, with all the media against him, how can he get his message out?

    1. Dean is a classic opportunist. Democrats are remembering him as the guy who won them Congress in 2006 and now he’s jockeying to take advantage of that in wake of the drubbing they got this year.

      1. The major parties are such unbelievable cults of personality. Howard Dean won in 2006 because six years of Bush had royally pissed off a large portion of the electorate. People were becoming sick of Iraq and wanted a change.

        DWS is similarly not at fault for the fate of Democrats this election cycle, since a large portion of the problem was the unpopularity of Obama, the apathy of Democratic voters, and idiotic decisions by multiple incumbents, most obviously Mark Udall’s vagina based campaign. DWS did not control any of those circumstances.

        The fact that certain things are out of the control of the people at the top of the parties cannot be admitted, however, since it would mean that men are fallible and at the mercy of outside circumstances. If fate can destroy the plans of top men who run political parties, then it stands to reason that fate can likewise destroy the plans of the top men running a country. This can’t be admitted, since it would destroy their entire governing philosophy.

    1. Step back, Derp. Step back from the abyss!

      1. I stared into the abyss once. It ran away screaming for its mommy.

  22. “An antarctic fur seal sexually harasses a king penguin on Marion Island in Antarctica. South African researchers, Ryan Reisinger, William Haddah, Tristan Scott, Marth?n Bester and Nico de Bruyn have just released a report in research into this behaviour. This appears to be an emerging behaviour of antarctic fur seal males where they are having intercorse with the disobliging birds….

    “”In human terms, you would call it rape,” said [researcher Ryan] Reisinger….

    “The birds are injured in these encounters. In one incident, a seal attempted to copulate with a penguin, then ate it.”

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/the…..ving-badly

    1. Mother Nature is just one giant Cell Block D.

    2. Maybe that’s why Rico from the Madagascar Penguins is so messed up.

  23. To further expand on the point that net neutrality would be ‘fixing’ a problem Americans don’t even think exists, 76% of Americans rate their internet service as good or excellent.

    Stupid Americans! How can they like their internet service when progs assure me that internet service is terrible?

    1. I’m sure if we like it we’ll be able to keep it.

    2. When I was still in college and working for a small electronics start up company, the engineering guys put up a flowchart entitled ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’.

      It seems that in our march towards progress, you know, moving forward, we’ve forgotten such simple lessons.

  24. Hillary Clinton combines “you didn’t build that” with “trickle down economics”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k

    Fun fact: the phrase “trickle down” was coined by Democrat Will Rogers.

    1. Looks like she’s going to try to out dumb her competition, the White Squaw.

      1. The India’int.

    2. What drives me crazy is that they believe trickle down economics works, when it’s the government doing the spending

  25. DEA assholes decided to fuck with NFL medical staffs (staves?).

    Fuckers.

    1. Well, with crazed people voting to legalize dangerous substances like cannabis, the DEA needs something to do. Why do you hate jobs?

      1. Damn, you caught me. I also don’t believe that orphans should work in any sort of mining activity until after the age of five.

    2. Guess they want to push NFL players into doing heroin, just like they’ve done to the rest of the country by attacking painkillers.

  26. Well at least NBC and ABC admit someone named Jon Gruber exists (the Chron still hasn’t found it necessary to mention the name):
    NBC:
    “MATHEWS BURWELL: This law is a piece of legislation that’s about three fundamental things. And these are things that have bipartisan agreement. Affordability, access and quality. […bullshit…] And there are 8 million American seniors that benefited from that $11 billion. […not counting those paying for it…]There are so many parts of this law that target those three fundamental things.
    TODD: Is Mr. Gruber going to be welcomed back as a consultant?
    MATHEWS BURWELL: With regard to Mr. Gruber and his comments, I think I’ve been clear. That’s something we fundamentally disagree with.
    TODD: Madam Secretary, thanks for coming on “Meet the Press.””

    So, the Obo admin is gonna show HIM! He won’t be invited back!
    Since I don’t watch the Sunday talk fests, I gotta ask if the ‘press’ always tosses BP fastballs like that?

    1. The weirdest thing about her response is that she actually didn’t disavow him or say that they wouldn’t use him in the future.

      WTF??

      1. “WTF??”

        I’m pretty sure the word has gone out to every admin employee to say the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM about the guy, as the higher-ups comb through all the doc’s they have to find out what can be denied.
        And the “news outlets” are bending over backwards to give them every opportunity to do so. CNN was ‘busted’ for asking ‘biased’ questions by a lefty ass-licking org:
        “President Obama Tears Apart CNN’s Lazy and Biased Press Conference Question”
        http://www.politicususa.com/20…..stion.html

  27. Reporters concern-troll about how Republicans have to “show they can govern.”

    http://pressthink.org/2014/11/…..ying-that/

    1. Happily for the Rs it’s low bar.

    2. The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.? P.J. O’Rourke

  28. “After being presented with Glamour Magazine’s “Woman of the Year” award, Chelsea Clinton appeared with Yahoo Global News anchor Katie Couric earlier this week, where the former CBS Evening News anchor remarked that Clinton should also be honored as “Mom of the Year.””

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/11…..son-video/

    1. So did Couric clean her tongue after licking the floor on which the young Clinton walked?

      1. That’s not what she was licking…

        1. Oh snapper!

    2. Glamour and Yahoo. These two ladies are certainly at the pinnacle of their careers.

  29. Obama is an idiot, plain and simple.

    http://www.Safe-Anon.tk

  30. so all the dumbest shits on the board are for it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.