In a further blow to those pressing for the institution of controversial net neutrality rules, it emerged on Monday that the Gun Owners of America (GOA) has exited the Save the Internet coalition backed by pro-regulation liberal groups such as Free Press. [More]I can understand that--as the effort evolved, government empowerment dangers became more apparent.
I see some attacking GOA and Larry Pratt for this in a very ugly way--and viciously, ridiculing them for associating with "liberal" organizations in what they initially perceived to be a common effort.
This is hypocrisy.
The same crowd seemed to think it was OK for NRA to ally with the ACLU on "campaign finance reform" (as did I, incidentally), but then had no problem defending the Association's decision to endorse its principle architect, presumably because of all that "common ground" he shares with us.
And I've read all kinds of apologia for NRA allying itself with the Bradys on the "mental health" abomination.
You can make book the same crowd will be out there using the handy "single issue" talking point to tell us why an endorsement of one of the Republic's leading domestic enemies will be in all our best interests.
6 comments:
the scam that is net neutrality is perfectly at home with the mercantilist principles of chicago-school neoconservatives. i am pretty sure GOA doesn't belong with right-wing socialists like that, but the idea that they should be denigrated over this for associating with "liberals" on it is preposterous.
first of all, other groups backing this are not liberals, they're left-wing socialists, and just as conservative: their ideas of federal purview over yours. two kinds of conservatives arguing over which facets of life belong in the purview of government can call each other "liberal," even derogatorily, but that doesn't make it so. liberalism = free markets, period. zero tax, zero war. i don't care how many democrats think they're liberal, two plus two is still four.
second of all, those faux-liberals sometimes really are right about something, given that all left and right wingers accept the same (immoral, anti-christian) premises. imagine that! like the government employee who was asked whether he could name one single thing that the constitution prevents the federal government from getting involved in, is there one thing these critics can name that a "liberal" is right about? can they even name one liberal?
if anything, just be critical that they didn't look closer at the content of the policies. i won't ask anyone to take the libertarian position and ask why anyone is writing these policies in the first place. that would cause conniptions and strokes.
the idea behind net neutrality is that the people who sell you internet services will be forbidden from offering you more than one kind or quality of product. it's the exact same thing as single-payer, single-system health care. do you fit in the system? no? well maybe you deserve to die for not getting with the glorious leaders' program!
net neutrality is being sold as a way to prevent "evil corporations" (cue crowd full of rolling eyes) from depriving you of the internet peerage you are entitled to! of course. does any of this sound remotely familiar? like government-issue cars and bread? government cheese? the people's peerage! just how much like nazi germany does everyone really want to be?
why not try freedom?
the scam that is net neutrality is perfectly at home with the mercantilist principles of neoconservatives. i am pretty sure GOA doesn't belong with right-wing socialists like that, but the idea that they should be denigrated over this for associating with "liberals" on it is preposterous.
first of all, other groups backing this are not liberals, they're left-wing socialists, and just as conservative: their ideas of federal purview over yours. two kinds of conservatives arguing over which facets of life belong in the purview of government can call each other "liberal," even derogatorily, but that doesn't make it so. liberalism = free markets, period. zero tax, zero war. i don't care how many democrats think they're liberal, two plus two is still four.
second of all, those faux-liberals sometimes really are right about something, given that all left and right wingers accept the same (immoral, anti-christian) premises of statism, legalism, etc. imagine that! like the government employee who was asked whether he could name one single thing that the constitution prevents the federal government from getting involved in, is there one thing that GOA's critics can name that a "liberal" is right about? can they even name one liberal?
if anything, just be critical that they didn't look closer at the content of the policies. i won't ask anyone to take the libertarian position and ask why anyone is writing these policies in the first place. that would cause conniptions and strokes.
the idea behind net neutrality is that the people who sell you internet services will be forbidden from offering you more than one kind or quality of product. it's the exact same thing as single-payer, single-solution health care. do you fit in the system? no? well maybe you deserve to die for not getting with the glorious leaders' program!
net neutrality is being sold as a way to prevent "evil corporations" (cue crowd full of rolling eyes) from depriving you of the internet peerage you are entitled to! does any of this sound remotely familiar? like government-issue cars, bread, cheese? "the people's peerage!"
the scam that is net neutrality is perfectly at home with the mercantilist principles of neoconservatives. i am pretty sure GOA doesn't belong with right-wing socialists like that, but the idea that they should be denigrated over this for associating with "liberals" on it is preposterous.
first, other groups backing it are not liberals, they're just left-wing socialists. i don't care what they call themselves. second, those groups might accidentally be right about something someday. then what are you going to do? GOA's critics probably cannot name even one thing a "liberal" has gotten right. they probably cannot even name one honest-to-goodness liberal. pro tip: it won't be a kennedy.
if anything, just be critical that they didn't look closer at the content of the policies before picking a side in one of yet another pointless debates the fourth estate feeds you. i won't ask anyone to take the libertarian position and ask why anyone is writing and calling attention to these policies in the first place. that would cause conniptions and strokes.
now let's take on the subject itself, since this is even easier to dash to bits. the idea behind net neutrality is:
the people who sell you internet services will be forbidden from offering you more than one kind or quality of product.
it's the exact same thing as single-payer, single-solution health care. do you fit in the system? no? well maybe you deserve to die for not getting with the glorious leaders' program! (it's also the same thing as single-payer, single-solution defense. and how's that 18th century shit working out for y'all? seen manhattan from anywhere up high lately?)
net neutrality is being sold as a way to prevent "evil corporations" (cue crowd full of rolling eyes) from depriving you of the internet peerage you are entitled to! does any of this sound remotely familiar? like government-issue cars, bread, cheese?
"the people's peerage!"
Jon, I got like about six comments from you on this, all similar--some more abbreviated--don't know if the system was giving you problems posting or not. Anyway, I hope I picked the right one that says what you wanted to say.
This net neutrality thing is unfamiliar to me, but if commenter HiPlainsDrifter explains it correctly, this "neutrality" movement will be a Trojan Horse. Every bit as American as the US Park Police trying to shut up the kids singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in public in DC because the **Park Police's** policy is "to be content-neutral."
If the coalition was obviously stacked with those who favor government regulation of the Internet -- the same way congressional panels are stacked with anti-gunners -- GOA was right to bail. I trust their judgment a lot farther than I trust the NRA, which is approaching negative numbers.
Post a Comment