On Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:02:32 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
For that matter, I don't consider MSNBC to be really extremist either. Wrong
on a lot of important issues, but I wouldn't say extremist. Speaking of MSNBC,
did you see what happened on that great news organization with their anchor
and the shot down plane?
<I have yet to see any internet company controlling what you can access.>
Maybe you weren't looking when many of the major ISPs decided they were
going to drop their Usenet servers and it was tough nougies if you didn't
like it. Yes, you could go elsewhere but it's clear a lot of people never
sought out the alternatives. Many of the newsgroups I posted to withered
and died after ISPs terminated Usenet service. And if that's not a
pertinent enough example for you, there's this:
<Comcast for months has denied blocking BitTorrent traffic, but new tests
show that it takes aggressive filtering steps that AT&T, Time Warner Cable,
and Cablevision do not.>
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:48:42 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
I think your association of cause and effect is dubious. IMO, newsgroups are
less popular because they are old means of communicating, sharing, etc and
today people are gravitating to other methods, eg twitter, facebook, etc.
And as you freely admit, you can go elsewhere, with some choices being free,
so I don't see it as such a big deal. What's worse? That or having some
govt agency decide what they have to carry and what they don't? What's next?
Telling cable companies that they have to carry Home Shopping Network and
And if that's not a
As usual, if you dig a bit deeper, what actually is going on is a bit more
complicated. It looks like what Comcast was trying to do was limit BitTorrent
traffic. They may have either intentionally or unintentionally actually blocked
some of it. If they outright blocked it, I agree there should be rules against
doing that. But if they are trying to allocate their bandwith in some
reasonable way so that Bittorrent, which is essentially a haven for illegal
pirates and which sucks up a lot of bandwith, doesn't consume more than a reasonable share, then that seems legitimate to me.
How any sane Republican thinks Rush is helping the cause is beyond me. His
Sarah Fluke character assassination backfired badly on him and now she's
running for office.
Lately he's claiming that somehow, the Ukraine shoot-down was rigged by
Obama to provide "cover" from the US border controversy.
<<"I don't want to appear to be callous here, folks," he continued. "But you
talk about an opportunity to abandon the bad Obama news at the border!" . .
. "It's really eerie, why would it be shot down?" he asked. "Over Ukraine,
it was shot down by a missile. This would lead one to believe that it is not
It's pretty clear to me that repeated exposure to Rush can rot your mind.
It's certainly rotted his.
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:11:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Liar, liar, pants on fire. How about showing what he really said, in
context, and include the fact that his comments were made as the event
RUSH: Holy cow, folks. Have you seen the news? A Malaysian Airlines flig
ht has been shot down by a missile over Ukraine, at least according to an a
dvisory to Ukraine's interior ministry. The Interfax News Agency -- which
has nothing to do with fax machines. It's what the Soviets used to call the
ir news agency, Interfax. You didn't know that, did you?
Anyway, it's a Malaysian Airlines jet. You know, I've got the British Open
on to the top monitor. I haven't had CNN on all day. What do you bet the
y have broomed everything and are covering wall-to-wall the Malaysian Airli
nes flight shot down by a missile?
I mean, you talk about... I don't want to appear to be callous here, folks,
but you talk about an opportunity to abandon the Obama news at the border?
And, no, I'm not suggesting anything other than how the media operates.
Anyway, it's eerie. It is really eerie. A Malaysian airliner. It was on
the way to Kuala Lumpur. Why would it be shot down? Over Ukraine? It was
shot down by a missile. This would lead one to believe that it is not an ac
cident. It carried 295 people, and obviously there are no survivors. "
It's obvious that Rush was only saying that this story would give the
lamestream media the opportunity to take attention off Obama;s failures
at the border. He wasn't suggesting that Obama shot it down, But, as
it's turned out, it's actually put even more focus on Obama's failure as a
| <I have yet to see any internet company controlling what you can access.>
| Maybe you weren't looking when many of the major ISPs decided they were
| going to drop their Usenet servers and it was tough nougies if you didn't
| like it. Yes, you could go elsewhere but it's clear a lot of people never
| sought out the alternatives.
Perhaps a better example is AOL. They never actually
blocked anyone, as far as I know, but they did their
best to hide the fact that there was an Internet outside
of AOL, and their strategy worked well. A number of companies
would *love* to recapture the walled garden approach, either
through restricted devices (phones and tablets) or by
eliminating all options for Net neutrality.
This kind of thing is usually not done forcefully. Microsoft
doesn't stop anyone from blocking tracking cookies as
they travel online. Microsoft just hides the cookie settings
behind a button marked "Advanced" and 99% of people
never find it. Similarly, Mozilla now hides cookie and history
settings unless one chooses to "use custom settings" under
the privacy tab. No one has to be spied on as they travel online,
but most people are just in no position to figure that out, so
in the absence of regulation, spying is the norm. Apple doesn't
stop you from putting whatever app you like on their iPhone.
It's just that anything you don't buy at the Apple Store won't
install. It's very unlikely that ISPs would ever block websites.
(At least not starting out. They might just "drop support" later
for "irrelevant" independent websites, as they drop Usenet support.)
But if they can "pull an AOL" they don't need to block anything.
The general public will end up in something like the Verizon
Shopping Mall without even realizing they're missing anything.
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:41:28 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
You'd have to be a real idiot not to know that there was an internet
outside of AOL. And apparently most people figured it out, because
AOL subscribers declined from a peak of 27 mil to 6 mil. That's how
well the AOL strategy worked. It failed on it's own. Good grief.
A number of companies
Strawman alert! From what I see the ISPs are concerned with how to
handle traffic that only a portion of their customer base use, but that
sucks up huge amounts of bandwith. That is very legitimate.
And of course most of those people don't know what cookies are and
don't care. I'm more concerned with the IRS targeting conservative
groups for political purposes, are you?
Similarly, Mozilla now hides cookie and history
Finally some truth.
Bad analogy. The ISP were hosting that usenet service themselves, on
their equipment, that they had to pay for. It was not an independent
Why is it that you libs always take something where 99.9% of it is
a spectacular success, focus on the .1% that isn't, come up with all
kinds of strawman scenarios, and argue for the govt to start running
things? And yet you ignore the massive govt failures, where they
proved they can't do the basic mission right, eg VA, Obmacare implementation,
Exactly. That's what my link said:
(except now that I am not coming from google they want me to create and
account and log in. Uh huh.) Anyway, the protests from radio astronomers
and ham radio operators surfaced as soon as the test sites were first
deployed. Things only got worse as the test projects ramped up the number
of participants. I remember it well because I was active in
Comp.Home.Automation (and it was active, too) when they first deployed BPL,
in Cinncinnati, if I recall correctly. X10 and other powerline automation
control users were afraid BPL would step on their powerline signals (oddly
enough, that *wasn't* one of its problems).
But these shortcomings were well known *way* before Michael Powell began
pushing the technology as valid "competition" to wired broadband.
It's about as dumb as Justice Kagan voting on a 35 foot abortion buffer rule
and obviously not knowing what 35 feet actually is. She thought the SC
courtroom was 35 feet wide.
<<There was considerable debate on that. Kagan thought the buffer zone was
about the size of the courtroom (actually, the courtroom is 82 feet by 91
And these are the people who are supposed to be able to decide complex
scientific and technical issues. Yeah.
Speaking as a lifelong fiscal-conservative-bordering-on-reactionary and
a Republican at heart (but registered independent), the most damning
statement about the Republican party I've heard is that it's agenda is
mainly determined by talk show hosts.
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:26:41 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Who exactly made this damning statement and what makes you think it's
true? If the Republican party agenda is determined by talk show hosts
like Rush who is the one who is being mentioned here, why is that Boehner
is Speaker of the House, when Rush and similar conservative talk show
hosts publicly disagree with him most of the time?
| >It's pretty clear to me that repeated exposure to Rush can rot your mind.
| >It's certainly rotted his.
| Speaking as a lifelong fiscal-conservative-bordering-on-reactionary and
| a Republican at heart (but registered independent), the most damning
| statement about the Republican party I've heard is that it's agenda is
| mainly determined by talk show hosts.
I think the reactionary element are only Republican by default.
They're not expressing an agenda so much as fear. Fear of change. Fear
of loss. Fear of issues that are not black/white. The Republican Party
used to be the pro-business party, but with a sense of social duty
and noblesse oblige. These days, noblesse oblige has been taken out
of the equation. To the extent that either party is noble, the Democrats
think we should legislate fairness and civility while the Republicans think
those things come from strong leaders. Both sides have valid points.
What do the "loudmouth factions" of the current Republican Party
stand for? They think one of the biggest problems in America today
is that Barak Obama is not actually an American. That's not a political
agenda. It's just red herring nonsense to avoid any reasonable
discussion of issues. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are *in lieu of* agenda.
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:14:02 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Really? Occupy Wall Street for example, is Republican? Code Pink?
How about the folks at college campuses who won't let anyone they
disagree with even speak on campus? Those are not reactionary?
Or how about say Roseanne Barr:
"I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pa
y back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in
a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amo
unt of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps
and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded."
So, she must be a Republican too. Go figure.
>They're not expressing an agenda so much as fear. Fear of change. Fear
Yes, I do admit I'm more fearful now than I was back in the days of
the Cold War. Fearful that we have a president who has totally abdicated
his oath of office and duties. He's shown he's incapable of securing the
border. He's shown that he's incapable of responding to the situation in
Iraq. He lets ISIS take and drive around in US tanks and does nothing.
He lets Putin make an ass of him in front of the world, invade sovereign
countries, and now shoot down civilian airlines. OBama's response, off
to another $32,000 a plate fund raiser and a weekend of playing golf.
"Vladymir, if you keep this up, there will be consequences....."
Good grief. Yet when we point this out, it's extremism? Bob Sheifer at
CBS who's a dinosaur said last week that he believes the world we're
currently in is more dangerous than the height of the Cold War. I agree.
And the ship is without a captain.
Fear of issues that are not black/white. The Republican Party
And the Democratic party of JFK used to be pro-business, pro strong
defense, pro America. JFK cut taxes, stood up to the Russians, and
he didn't go on an around the world apology tour. JFK wouldn't recognize
today's party. He's closer to Reagan than he would be to OBama. A
party that's so intolerant, they drove the guy who was their candidate
for VP a decade ago right out of the party.
These days, noblesse oblige has been taken out
Good grief. Republicans think fairness and civility come from strong
leaders? Who the hell ever said that?
Nonsense. Strawman detected. Strawman rejected. That was just a
small part of the opposition to OBama and I haven't heard it for many years
until just now, by you. It pretty much went away when Obama finally release
d his birth certificate. What I have heard in the last couple of years is:
America being flooded with illegals, border totally open
Why would anyone talk about birth certificates when we have so many
real crises that Obama is totally mishandling? Mishandling so badly
that even Democrats are openly calling him on it. The Republicans have
major policy differences with Obama and how he's handling all of the above.
Yet you libs prefer to just divert the conversation into the birth
certificate or "you don't like Obama because he's black" ditch, apparently
because you know you can't win on the issues.
That's not a political
Yes, I agree. Bringing up OBama's birth certificate is a red herring.
How about just one of OBama's real crises? Let's say the IRS. If you
Democrats are so much in favor of fairness, honesty, what do you say about
that? Simple question, are you in favor of appointing an independent
prosecutor? Yes or no. Or do you think that having a Democrat who donated
the maximum amount permitted to OBama and the Democrats the last several
years is the proper person to be leading the IRS investigation? You OK
with OBama declaring that there is not a smidgeon of evidence of wrongdoing
at the IRS? The same OBama who a year ago said he was outraged, wanted to
find out what really went on at IRS, but now proclaims that there is no
wrongdoing, *before* the DOJ investigation even began? No wrongdoing?
Just the fact that Lerner took the fifth shows that something wrong was
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.