Whatever Fox's talking points are, Tranpa is sure to follow.

Yes, he will justify it as him being an 'American dream success story.' And part of that privilege is the right to have access to faster speed internet of he can afford it.

Which would be hilarious since is business is selling a video streaming service to white trash

and losing money...

he is rich compared to average Joe

• but he is not rich compared to what he will be "fighting against" (corporations) if this get passed.

He is rich compared to Brother Joe.

he had to (kind of) work for it though.

Yea, that's work I wouldn't mind doing.

I won't hear them because I refuse to watch any show where I have to see his ghoulish face.

This is an issue that should not be partisan, but yet, that fucking idiot, once again makes it a right vs left issue. It's common fucking sense. Keep the internet available to everyone without favoring the wealthy. I can't wait till he dies. Anyone who sides with monopolies versus the people need to die.

I say we should've busted up these digital media companies along time ago, but what do I know I get the paper. Boom

Get fucked commie

funny thing is, if this shit gets passed, is that cumpound media is already on the list to be throttled back to middle ages.

not even those 4 truckers will be able to access his rants.

For the past couple of years I've tried to figure out why anyone would deem this acceptable. Cable companies are notorious for price gouging due to monopolization, and more notorious for their shitty customer service. Who in their fucking right mind would want to give them more control with regard to accessing content on the internet and the speed in which they can access it?

Sure, politicians who receive donations from cable companies would be for this, I get that. But a non-political person who relies on internet speed for his business, is for it?

It makes zero fucking sense for him to support this other than Anthony is a piece of shit, fuck face and just because dismantling net neutrality falls in the "R" column, he thinks it's the right thing to do. He's a little fucking fanboy for the Republican Party. Such a faggot.

most people do not understand what this is all about - and thats where media corporations jump in and "explain" to people that this is good ... because business or whatever.

Anth, watches FOX 24/7 and thinks he is getting Fair and Balanced News.

The Republican's spin is, the big bad government should not be regulating the internet, but rather the cable companies. The fact is, the government wants to keep it UNREGULATED and the cable companies want to REGULATE it. The Republicans are outright fucking lying to the public, as is Anthony to his 8 subscribers. I really hope Anthony dies before the summer.

To be honest I just think they should be able to do whatever they want considering they're the provider that invested the money to lay the line to get you connected to the internet. If I made a toll bridge going to an island I should be able to set the rules of my bridge and how much I can charge without government getting involved. I understand that they don't "own the internet" But they own the only thing that grants you access to it so it really is up to their discretion. I know it's not personally advantageous to me for net neutrality rules to go away it's just how I feel in principle.

Do you think they, the cable companies, should have the right to decide what content you can view on the internet, because that's a large part of it. For example, if your ISP is Comcast, who owns several media outlets, they would have the ability to restrict you from viewing their competitors pages/ads, like Fox News. As a free society, we should be able to freely see the content that we decide we want to see.

Devil's advocate (BUT DON'T TOUUUUCH) argument:

But you can make the argument that in a "free society", private companies shouldn't be forced to provide content that they don't want to.

Freedom goes both ways, unless you're arguing that individuals should have freedoms, but companies shouldn't. I think that's ideologically inconsistent, yes?

The cable companies aren't providing the content, as you state. Rather, they provide the infrastructure to accessing it. I just thought of an analogy. Our interstate system allows us freely to travel the country. You can take the interstate to go to church, the movies, a whorehouse in Vegas, a Klan rally in Mississippi, a cancer benefit in Dayton, Ohio. The government funded interstates provide the infrastructure for you to access these places, regardless of what these places are. If a company theoretically bought our interstate, and lets say they are very religious company, then should they have the right to tell you where you can travel to? Like say, Las Vegas, where I'm sure the drugs, alcohol and prostitution go against their teachings. Do they have a right to close down roads that lead to such places? What if a very liberal company bought the roads leading to the creation museum, and said, nope, no one can travel on this road because we as a company don't agree with the idea of creationism. It's silly, just like this analogy.

We all pay for the building and upkeep of highways, that's why everyone should have access to them.

If Comcast builds and maintains the infrastructure that delivers their service to my house, then there should be no laws forcing them to provide, or not provide, any sort of content.

However I'm pretty sure that the internet and telecommunication infrastructure in the US is partly subsidized by tax payers, so that's why I am personally for net neutrality, because it's not fair that these companies should benefit from the use of tax money and not work with us, so to speak.

However I remain unconvinced that people have an inherent right to net neutrality. That's where I disagree with most other net neutrality proponents. I don't feel that I have the right to force a private company to do shit for me.

"If Comcast builds and maintains, with no government subsidy, the infrastructure that delivers their service to my house, then there should be no laws forcing them to provide, or not provide, any sort of content."

Ok. The day they do that, they can start imposing their rules. Never going to happen.

Yes, they should be able to throddle your service speed, block sites or fuck their customers however they want because they contributed the capital to create a framework to give us access to the internet. You choose to keep paying them for their service. I know their are no alternatives to acquire internet access, and the companies are shitheads, but that's just how the world works.

He doesn't care as long as he can get his fix of constant, 24/7 tranny porn.

It's a reasonable demand

Indeed, such a show DOES exist. And it's heard by literally dozens of people all over the world!

You are looking for the show 'Opie radio and the zoo crew". He's got a team of wild, yet informed co hosts to inform while entertain.

He thinks this is the time to shore up your collection of physical media at DEEPDISCOUNT.COM. Let me tell you, the deals are off the chain!

Whatever he reads on Fox News and parrots back like the guinea parrot he is.