|
D.N. Nation posted:"I'm clueless on the issue and Comcast rules! Go Comcast!" - Lisa Benson, intellectual Umm, but Obama supports net neutrality, and Obama is bad 
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Talking about how you can't stand talking about the color of that dress is still talking about the color of that dress. This is the best "don't think of elephants" thing I think I have ever seen on the internet. a former UKIP councillor posted:The only people I do have problems with are negroes. And I don’t know why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:(Why Marty Two Bulls might oppose weed being permitted on tribal lands) Thank you for this. It was interesting to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:It's actually a joke here, the guy on the right is the head of UKIP, which... well, I'll just share their latest headline I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Just in case you think Muir's fetish for shirtless tattooed Ted Cruz is unique. I mean, christamighty, they talk about how Democrats worship Obama as "The One," but I don't see anyone running around 'shopping Obama's head onto Wesley Snipes's body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Look at the background. Ooh, good catch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Zetsubou-san posted:Ooh, good catch. Was everyone's  literally because they didn't see the background? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Was everyone's I'm pretty certain is was the fact that he did a dress cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Just in case you think Muir's fetish for shirtless tattooed Ted Cruz is unique. You're right, but it surely doesn't hurt that Obama is a genuinely good lookin' guy, and Cruz resembles a particularly hateful lump of play-doh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What? You see, the internet is a series of queues...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
The Net Neutrality thing is peak Obama Derangement Syndrome. This is keeping the status quo! You can't get more conservative than that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
Tater Love 
|
I can't even envision what the GOP will be like when there is a Republican president again. Their identity has completely shifted over to being the party that opposes the president, so what will they do without that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
This might be the dumbest net neutrality analogy yet, and that's saying something! What exactly does Mike Lester think the internet is going to become now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I can't even envision what the GOP will be like when there is a Republican president again. Their identity has completely shifted over to being the party that opposes the president, so what will they do without that? Slavish adulation of the president and festering hatred of anyone who criticizes him. See also: January 2001-January 2009.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I can't even envision what the GOP will be like when there is a Republican president again. Their identity has completely shifted over to being the party that opposes the president, so what will they do without that? You know this, Bush wasn't that long ago. Anyone caught not respecting the office of the president will be put against the wall as un-American traitors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
This analogy makes so little sense I'm starting to wonder if I'm the one that's crazy, so nice job Lester I guess What right-wing blog mangled this issue so badly that this is his interpretation? I'm genuinely curious what kind of spin he managed to see to produce this cartoon in his mind
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:This might be the dumbest net neutrality analogy yet, and that's saying something! What exactly does Mike Lester think the internet is going to become now? I can only guess that he believes only one person at a time will be able to get on the internet and everything will be displayed in 600X800 resolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:You know this, Bush wasn't that long ago. Anyone caught not respecting the office of the president will be put against the wall as un-American traitors. If anything, the sudden about-face without a shred of self-awareness is the one thing we can absolutely count on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:You know this, Bush wasn't that long ago. Anyone caught not respecting the office of the president will be put against the wall as un-American traitors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Do American soldiers really defend American rights and freedoms? I suppose in a distant fashion they do, but no foreign power has seriously threatened American liberties since the War of 1812. Even the terrorists are really more about reducing America's foreign influence. The people who uphold America's freedoms today are the activists, who court no end of controversy. Nobody hates the military because they don't step on anybody's toes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What I mean is, the GOP seems to have changed and focused since then on this one thing, undoing anything the president tries to do. What will the tea party do, especially? Will they be rudderless? The GOP will absolute flop back to 100% support the president mode. The Tea Party specifically will largely depend on who gets put in. If it's a rather centrist e-GOP candidate, they'll grouse about capitulation and further alienate themselves from most Americans until they fragment and fade into the shadow. In the highly unlikely event of a Tea Party candidate they'll go into the same 100% support of the president as the GOP likely melding with the GOP entirely and softening their views a bit as their candidate makes actual political choices instead of just feeding the base. Either way dead Tea Party
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
quote:A strong contender for the worst net neutrality cartoon here Lester, seeing as it doesn't even touch on anything to do with net neutrality whatsoever. How hard would it be to have the FCC chairman tie down a Comcast rep to some train tracks with ropes called Net Neutrality and then have Obama twirling his moustache while driving the train of government regulation towards him as innocent Americans watch and lady liberty cries? Maybe put a sarcastic quip in the corner that says "More like Internot"  Spoeank posted:You see, the internet is a series of queues... I like you and want to be your friend. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Slavish adulation of the president and festering hatred of anyone who criticizes him. See also: January 2001-January 2009. Who was President during that time, I can't remember? Probably a democrat. And to add, they will blame all problems on Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Do American soldiers really defend American rights and freedoms? I suppose in a distant fashion they do, but no foreign power has seriously threatened American liberties since the War of 1812. Even the terrorists are really more about reducing America's foreign influence. The people who uphold America's freedoms today are the activists, who court no end of controversy. Nobody hates the military because they don't step on anybody's toes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:Who was President during that time, I can't remember? Probably a democrat. And to add, they will blame all problems on Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:It was Obama. We have always I think our last five presidents have been Obama, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, and Eisenhower, right? I certainly can't think of any others in that timespan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
This is literally what Net Neutrality is preventing telecoms from doing you stupid gently caress holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Jesus fire-pissing Christ. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:This is literally what Net Neutrality is preventing telecoms from doing you stupid gently caress holy poo poo If Net Neutrality really is a good thing then why does Obama support it? Checkmate, lib. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
By the way, how did the Q&A with Mike Lester go? Has it even happened yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I think our last five presidents have been Obama, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, and Eisenhower, right? I certainly can't think of any others in that timespan. In that case, we should give this Jeb Bush fella a chance! It'd be nice to have an outsider as president for once!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:If Net Neutrality really is a good thing then why does Obama support it? Checkmate, lib. "In a rather odd event, President Barack Obama made the public declaration that he is morally opposed to shooting oneself in the head. Suicide rates sky rocket in southern states."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
beepsandboops posted:By the way, how did the Q&A with Mike Lester go? Has it even happened yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
RIP Spock, died of horrible melting face syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
As far as I can tell there are basically three ways conservatives criticize net neutrality. 1. Saying telcos should be able to screw you over if they want. ~*Free Market Magic*~ will fix everything! 2. Claiming it's a slippery slope 3. Completely misrepresenting what net neutrality means. Not sure if Lester is going for #2 or #3, but given that it's Lester I'm guessing #3, the dumber option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:"In a rather odd event, President Barack Obama made the public declaration that he is morally opposed to shooting oneself in the head. Suicide rates sky rocket in southern states." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
But this is literally how internet packets work*? Maybe Lester's gotten Net Neutrality confused with the now-defunct "Fairness Doctrine"? *sorta
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:1. Saying telcos should be able to screw you over if they want. ~*Free Market Magic*~ will fix everything! This argument really gets to me because the bandwidth industry's model, where you have a choice of one and exactly one provider depending on where you live, actually undermines capitalism. They're literally a cartel, in that they have agreed not to compete with each other. They actually need more regulation in order for the invisible hand to have any effect on them at all. A good capitalist should be clamoring for antitrust action against them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:14
|
|