Comments on: THIEVES IN THE NIGHT

By: GladiaH

GladiaH — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:21:31 +0000

We all need to see the bigger picture also. The Illuminati, the Bildergerg Group, the Grove meetings all are these rich greedy fallen angel types who have elevated themselves to controllers of the world.
As previously and frequently pointed out they care mainly for profit and have no concern for the consequences of other inhabitants of this earth. What needs to be understood is that they run NATO and want wars forever-of course at the travail of the massses.
This is no minor group but with the giant bucks being approved overseas, including the percent that gets ‘lost’, I would say they are well on their way of grouping forces and influential figures. That includes those para-military guys who showed up at Katrina, as a patrol. Could that be a fore-boding of what the 800+ detention camps here in US might have in store. They are already staffed.
Where are our tax-payer & SSI funds going? Not to injured Vets, Border Protection, job provision, healthcare or improved infrastructure. Likely to the ‘enlightened’ few about to rule the masses, the Illuminati. Check you currency for Latin words meaning ‘New World Order’ just a few yrs ago.

By: Are we now ready for big business to manipulate the Internet and divert our surfing to suit their interests?

Mon, 07 May 2007 15:04:32 +0000

[...] Q:Act fast another slam of US rights see: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/20…; Not meant to be partisan. [...]

By: Net Neutrality already breached by ComCast

Net Neutrality already breached by ComCast — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:00:14 +0000

[...] I’ve found myself doing a lot of reading about this whole net neutrality thing. An article in Forbes, which was basically pro-neutrality, and also pointed out the “hands off the internet” quality of the brochure’s language, characterized Net Neutrality supporters as “A noisy coalition of mainly Democratic groups and Internet companies” which just plain isn’t true, since most of the Banking Industry is in support of Neutrality, as are most independent business people not to mention organizations on both the left and the right as anyone reading the list of Save the Internet supporters will readily see. I find myself reading articles from blogs that are definitely to the right of center as often as I am those left of center or middle of the road, blogs like The Doug Ross Journal and Right Wing Nuthouse, to name just a couple. Though it’s true that in the House and Senate this issue has split, for the most part, down party lines, this is very far from the truth when you look at who’s supporting Network Neutrality outside of Congress. I expect better from Forbes Magazine. [...]

By: Russ

Russ — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:13:38 +0000

Good for you, rightwingnuthouse for coming down on the side of us ordinary people who use the net. Those people who apparently think the free market is a governmental system, like democracy (which it is not) or a religion, or the answer to all economic problems, are misguided.

Capitalism needs regulation in order to work well and to benefit everyone, otherwise it is just teeth and claws in a free market jungle.

We need Congress to regulate the companies who would impose a fast lane and a slow lane on the net and give the fast lane to the boys with the big bucks and leave the rest of us in the dust. The internet playing field should be level for everyone.

By: Right Wing Nut House » NET NEUTRALITY: A REAL CONCERN OR LIBERAL SCHEMING?

Right Wing Nut House » NET NEUTRALITY: A REAL CONCERN OR LIBERAL SCHEMING? — Tue, 02 May 2006 16:59:11 +0000

[...] VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WHAT ATTITUDE PROBLEM? WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM NET NEUTRALITY: A REAL CONCERN OR LIBERAL SCHEMING? THE GATHERING STORM THE RANK IDIOCY OF TBOGG ISRAELIS BELIEVE IRAN CLOSER TO NUKES THAN PREVIOUSLYTHOUGHT MAN, IT’S A BITCH SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER…EVEN WHEN YOU’RE NOT THE MEMORY OF BILLY SOL WHAT’S WRONG WITH UNITED 93? JUST ASK DANA UNITED 93: A ROUND UP OF REVIEWS UNITED 93: A REVIEW RICKY’S FABLES THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN IS GOSS ZEROING IN ON VIPS? CHICAGO: THE ONLY NUCLEAR, SMOKING, AND FOIE GRAS FREE ZONE IN AMERICA THIEVES IN THE NIGHT FROM HERE ON OUT, THE AMNESTY PROGRAM IS A REPUBLICAN ISSUE CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: GUESS WHICH SIDE THE PRESS IS ON? CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: 3 SIDES OF THE SAME COIN CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE VIPS CONNECTION THE OTHER SHOE DROPS CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: TY COBB AIN’T NO BENCHWARMER CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE BIRD THAT ISN’T SINGING EAT YOUR HEART OUT CINDY SHEEHAN DEFEND DISSENT: PUNISH THE LEAKERS CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: McCARTHY AND THE DC REVOLVING DOOR CIA VS THE WHITE HOUSE: THE LONE PARTISAN? “24″ (56) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (80) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (66) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (20) Cindy Sheehan (12) Ethics (53) General (277) Government (34) History (51) IMMIGRATION REFORM (6) Iran (21) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (77) Middle East (24) Moonbats (46) NET NEUTRALITY (1) Open House (1) Politics (168) Science (14) Space (12) Supreme Court (19) War on Terror (105) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (42) WORLD POLITICS (39) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN [...]

By: Matt S

Matt S — Mon, 01 May 2006 01:02:36 +0000

Hey there directorblue, I understand all of that. I’m a web developer by day and I know I don’t want the FCC describing what protocols are allowed and which ones aren’t.

The current legislation (COPE) doesn’t not grant or take away neutrality. It does not empower the telcos with anything or take anything away. It does not address it pro or con. Educate yourself.

You’d be better served by forming your own opinion instead of repeating others. You should also realize that this is big corporations (telcos) vs. big corproations (content providers). It is not “of the people”, unless, again, you simply parrot others.

You don’t need to trust the telcos. Your supermarket can offer any product it wants, ditto the PC companies, ad infinitum, and these industries are serving consumers extremely well. The only place where customers are not served well are regulated utilities. That is exactly the model that the neutrality proponents are advocating.

Form your own opinion. The net has developed because of an absence of bureacratic involvement. I, for one, love that fact and would prefer that it continue.

Also, since I am ranting, go on record with your predictions and revisit them in five years. Are you predicting that, without neutrality, performance and variety of content on the web will be less than it is now? A lot of people predicited we’d run out of food in 1970, too.

By: directorblue

directorblue — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:56:33 +0000

Matt@22 - all you need do is take a look at the hardware that Cisco is pitching the carriers to see that the threat is real and ominous. That hardware appears suited to impede, filter, monitor, and other interfere with unapproved traffic.

What the telcos and cable companies have spent tens of millions of dollars on (the best Congress money can buy?) is to change from the current state of FCC-enforced neutrality to no neutrality.

This will result in three tiers of service:

1) Those content-providers (say, Google) who won’t pay extra tarriffs running super-slow or, perhaps, altogether blocked
2) Content-providers (say, Yahoo) who decide to pay the packet-protection money who run with some quality-of-service guaranteed
3) Applications created by the carriers (”AT&T’s SuperSearch!”) to compete with money-making applications that they feel they can cherry-pick.

I’d rather trust the inventors of the Internet (no, not Al Gore: Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf) on this one: and they are dead-set against the carriers’ odious plans. Or would you rather trust the telco lobbyists?

Go to Save The Internet now. And help… before it’s too late.

By: Wont Leve Naim

Wont Leve Naim — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:41:17 +0000

You guys have me in stitches. Everytime an issue is either allowed to come to the fore or is pushed to the fore it gums up the works, ties up the bain cells and covers something really bad.

Something smells really rotten…

By: Matt S

Matt S — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:54:32 +0000

The lefties are putting one over on you, guys. Come on, we are way too smart for this. The neutrality proponents are asking for more legislation on the ‘net. Even it’s well-intended, the result is an Internet with more gov’t involvement, not less.

Look, the idea that the big, bad corporations are out to get us is obviated when there is competition. Let’s let the market develop.

Or, put another way, neutrality legislation is a punishment in search of a crime. You don’t need to like the telcos. Just vote with your $$. It is 100x better than asking the FCC to figure out what’s right.

Think about their approach to “decency”, then apply it to private bits on private networks. That’s “neutrality”. You don’t want it.

More here: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/net_neutrality_and_municipal_wifi/

By: robinson

robinson — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:03:55 +0000

A profound blog on this topic can be found at http://www.safesearching.com/alyssamilano/blog/