Azalin

What's true is that when he can't answer something, he just says anything. You see, winning an argument isn't about making your point, it's about not running out of things to say.

That won't happen until people realize consensus doesn't provide full or proper definition.

Yeah, that made sense.

Just answer the question.

That addresses nothing about the Republicans' supposed dysfunction. It's just a lame opinion regarding Walker.

I'll just sick Buzz Aldrin on him.

Quit dancing, you chud. You wanted Chef to explain why the dems are dysfunctional, and I did it for him. Now either address it, or take your version of Romper Room elswehere.

I would as wtf you're taking about, but you couldn't answer that either.

ah, that famous leftist compassion in action.

I'd like to take dibs on being one of the US delegates, and in the spirit of our founders, I would propose we give Poland a voice at the table as well, so that Gatorman can participate too.

The only thing the Democrats passed while in the majority was something they had to pass before they could know what was in it. Everything else put forward by the left since then was done by presidential fiat, not through actually legislating.

Gee, I haven't seen this cut & pasted anywhere for months. It sure is witty.

This

RIP. You're now free to explore the stars.

I knew this was going to be about weed.

Not to mention the smaller ISPs still trying establish themselves. You know they've had lawyers working on this for some time now. Google has been laying fiber all over south Austin. As I understand it, ever since their recent foray into building their own network and getting into the ISP business, they've changed their stance on NN and no longer support it like they once did.

If that is indeed the case, then what makes you think that Net Neutrality will provide you any new ones?

They're not all the same, but they're all forms of access. If your beef is that one form of access is better than another, then no regulation will make any of these technologies any better. No regulation is going to introduce new ISPs in your area to give you more choice. That happens in the market, not by federal proclamation.

They're having a big day today, aren't they? I wonder how this will effect those of us wishing to purchase rounds for our AR15s online?

Most areas of the US with any significant population at all has cable TV, land lines, and wireless 4G/4GLTE, all of which provide access.

Monopolies? Plural? Really?

This is exactly right.

One minute you're saying that ISPs don't provide content, then when I explain that they most certainly do, you reply with 'Big deal. How are they any different than any other content provider?'. That kind of dancing back & forth makes it appear as if you're defending government imposition on what I suspect is a partisan, or at least philosophically biased, position. This whole back & forth between content providers, ISPs, and public demand has been going on since the inception of the internet, and all issues have been resolved through the market and advances in technology brought about by market demand. There is absolutely no reason for the feds to insinuate themselves into a regulatory role in any of this. No reason whatsoever. Bingo.

The fact that you understand little of this issue isn't so easily masked by your smarmy reply. You're right, it is moot now. You may now sleep better at night knowing that your government has imposed itself once again into your life.

Yes. Only three people.