Next Level BS #20: Alex Jones Gets It Wrong on Net Neutrality

a reply to: AvoidBadCompany

a reply to: Willtell


So now you are accusing him of being "just a Tea Party right wing nut"..

ok derogatory beyond belief. I am Tea Party too buddy, and you don't know what you are talking about. You are spewing the same tired old rhetoric of leftist ideology of Nancy Pelosi and those who are promoting armchair socialism from their lofty little entitlement place in Congress where they can just vote themselves a pay raise any time off the backs of the taxpayers and force legislation no matter what it does Constitutionally. Don't even tell me about the Tea Party because I know what's going on there first hand since 2008 when Americans woke up to a Presidential candidate spewing Marxist rhetoric and bringing it directly into the WH.
Smart people do know what is happening no matter how much you want to demonize them.
You wanna cross swords with me, wonderful, I'll go toe to toe with you on just about any issue. Remember Tea - Taxed Enough Already, that is what the original Boston Tea Party was about, and today we have more taxes than ever even before the Revolutionary War. A Progressive Income Tax system was part of the plan for communist takeover in the US and we have that now. And now guess what Obamacare is, a tax, a tax penalty for not purchasing something. Of course it's more complicated than that.
What will happen if this admin is allowed to force the Internet into a public utility matrix? Well, have a looksee at any utility bill you have and just see what gov fees and taxes are on there and you will see that it is just about more govt control and taxes. I truly believe that the whole "fast and slow lanes" is a ruse devised to trick people into believing if they just let govt control this thing everyone is going to have faster Internet and more freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth, as more govt always equals less freedom and liberty.
I happened on this interesting video from Campaign For Liberty (you know Ron Paul) and it has an interview with Katherine Albrecht the author of Spychips. She discusses Real ID and rfid and so on. I will post later but have to go to work now. Katherine also mentions "the Internet of things" related to rfid tagging of everything you ever bought....
One more thing, back when Congress passed the Patriot Act, I was working toward my degree and had to give a Power Point Presentation. I got express permission from my professor to do mine on the Patriot Act. This was before the T Party activism of 2009, long before. I embedded the TIA logo from the DARPA website on every page of my presentation. You know the one they have embedded here on the ATS website? Yah, that one. I was against excessive govt surveillance then, and I am still against it now.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: theNLBS

I posted this in another related thread also. I don't claim to be an expert on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but these are some things that came to mind:

I think we can agree that AJ's mindset about the government is that they don't necessarily do anything that benefits the public. Given Obama's pathological lying, what is his hidden agenda here? On paper, classifying "the internet" under Title 2 sounds good, but what is up his sleeve for Title 2? Is there a piece of legislation that will get porked onto another bill that will change Title 2, below the radar? Will ISPs be required to obtain a broadcast license, since they are essentially "transmitting a signal" that falls under Title 2 control? Will content then be subject to censorship under Title 5? Can members of the public lodge complaints where the FCC has the authority to suspend/revoke licenses and levy fines?

Why should we suddenly trust the Obama administration on this ONE thing? I'm not sure we should, frankly. The government doesn't do anything unless there are dollar signs in their eyes, or their corporate masters' eyes.

I'll add this: You might argue that the FCC maintains a relatively hands-off policy with regard to TV/cable content, but who controls those entities? The same six companies that control all media, who espouse the same principles as the administration - except they don't control the internet. How would you squelch alternative media? Classify it under Title 2 so the FCC can control content. THAT could be the end game, IMO.

I haven't logged on ATS in months mostly because people tend to skip over the nuggets like the one posted above. Replace Obama with corporatocracy and it really begins to shine.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I embedded the TIA logo from the DARPA website on every page of my presentation. You know the one they have embedded here on the ATS website? Yah, that one.

What? There's no such thing.

Good episode, way to call out the BS.

originally posted by: AvoidBadCompany
a reply to: Indigo5

No it doesn't.

There was no need to execute Alex over this and not give credit to his good works which by far outway his bad. This the op would have known.


It was a week attempt to discredit Alex.
You can't see that?

It wasn't an "attempt"? And facts "discredited" Alex, not the OP. The OP just pointed the flashlight. And Alex's "good works" get plenty of unencumbered praise around here, not sure why you think his BS should be praised as well?

No offense, but still a logic fail on your defense of Alex Jones.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I embedded the TIA logo from the DARPA website on every page of my presentation. You know the one they have embedded here on the ATS website? Yah, that one.

What? There's no such thing.

Oh yah I forgot, you guys changed all your icons and so I guess it's no longer there, but I know I saw it a number of months ago.
How coy of you though to forget the logo. Maybe this will jog your memory of your own layout

cseweb.ucsd.edu...


Maybe this will too www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That was my avatar, in jest, a long long time ago. (jeezuz)

And I think it was the icon for one of the boards… don't remember which.

Point being?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
What will happen if this admin is allowed to force the Internet into a public utility matrix?

Why all the hype about this admin? Classifying the Internet as a utility has been the long-standing desire of everyone on the supply-side (content) of the Internet industry for years (as I've said before… do you even bother to read anything that doesn't confirm your bias?). It's also the long-standing desire of those who operate the backbone.

Well, have a looksee at any utility bill you have and just see what gov fees and taxes are on there and you will see that it is just about more govt control and taxes.

No one has proposed that the 16% tax applied to telecom services, and goes into the Universal Service Fund, should be applied to Internet services. In fact, the proposals specifically state it won't.

I truly believe that the whole "fast and slow lanes" is a ruse devised to trick people into believing if they just let govt control this thing everyone is going to have faster Internet and more freedom.

Again, do you even bother to read, or even glance, at information that's contrary to your established bias? Or are you purposefully being obtuse in order to promote a specific agenda?

The FCC has been repeatedly very public about details of its slow/fast lane hybrid plan, that has the backing of all off-ramp ISP's.
This approach IS more government.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Well I found it in archived stuff but the link only comes up with the search engine, but there were several links with the logo.

And I think it was the icon for one of the boards

Yes, that's what I said, isn't it?

I'm pretty sure Skeptic that the logo itself was one of the topic icons because I remember seeing it.
And the point to the other member was that DARPA used the logo of the Illuminati eye overlooking the world for their TIA database they wanted to create which would have linked all the traffic, health, credit card, and other databases together, and it was stopped by Congress. Admiral Poindexter was pushing that at the time. The point being that government wants a giant surveillance society complete with rfid tagging, traffic cams, Read ID, etc, and as Katherine Albrecht stated, "the Internet of Things" all catalogued with rfid. To think that this administration wants anything less than complete govt control of the Internet and all these databases is naive inho.
But that's just me.
After all, isn't this the premium conspiracy site for these theories? Or is it just a place where people push for things like govt run Internet?
In any case, here's one of the threads where someone at least posted the logo www.abovetopsecret.com...
The logo is still embedded as an icon of the topic, but when you bring up the thread it changes to the current icon.

My point of this admin, is that it is every bit as Statist and surveillance oriented as anything in the Bush admin, and why would it be any different? It's the same people running it. The CFR and Elites are both R and D.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Again, do you even bother to read, or even glance, at information that's contrary to your established bias? Or are you purposefully being obtuse in order to promote a specific agenda?

ummm wow, what agenda might that be? How about the agenda of no data warehouses in Utah that track our children and their families cradle to grave(Common Core and there's plenty of info out there if you don't believe me), how about the agenda of no Patriot Act, which I thought that even liberals here do not want?
I dunno, you see me as the enemy somehow, I think we just disagree on what approach to take to keep the Internet free and unfettered, and that means less govt intrusion. That's how I see it.
You seem to view govt as the watchdog which will stop corporations like Comcast from having control, but I think the Draconian govt control will be much worse. Just how I see it.
All I am is a concerned citizen. I work in the private sector. I don't work for Comcast or Verizon. i believe in limited govt and I believe that the more govt gets involved in our lives the less freedom we have.
Just my opinion. If that is some kind of bad agenda.... oh well...

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

It's also the long-standing desire of those who operate the backbone.

So you are talking about AT&T and the govt and so forth? Oh that makes me feel so much better.

The Internet backbone may be defined by the principal data routes between large, strategically interconnected computer networks and core routers on the Internet. These data routes are hosted by commercial, government, academic and other high-capacity network centers

The largest providers, known as tier 1 providers, have such comprehensive networks that they never purchase transit agreements from other providers.[2] As of 2013 there are only seven tier 1 providers in the telecommunications industry. Current Tier 1 carriers include Level 3 Communications, TeliaSonera International Carrier, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T Corporation.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...


Anyway, obviously we disagree on this matter, and you are obviously much more connected and informed than I am so I am going to respectfully bow out of this discussion.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I think we just disagree on what approach to take to keep the Internet free and unfettered, and that means less govt intrusion. That's how I see it.

I still think you're purposefully not reading material that would contradict your bias.

Only two approaches will be, are being, considered. With "nothing" being a potential third. It's pointless to debate alternatives as it won't matter, and never will.

Tier II reclassification involves less government involvement.

The FCC's hybrid alternative requires exponentially more government involvement.

It's really that simple.

originally posted by: AvoidBadCompany
There was no need to execute Alex over this…

There was absolutely a need. This issue, net neutrality, is critically important to the future. Not just the future of the Internet, but the future. And jones purposefully altered the President's statement to fit his distortion of the facts.

It was a week attempt to discredit Alex.

The majority of comments here, on on YouTube, say otherwise.

The man (Alex Jones) has woken up millions of sheepoeole.

That has nothing to do with him being wrong about this.

Sure point out his mistakes if you must...

We did, with clarity and facts.

...but why not also thank him as well.

Because his actions in this video do not deserve thanks. We didn't attack or bash in the video, merely identified grossly misplaced hyperbole and distortion.

Ats should have a SurpressTheTruthOverLord co owner, but that would be more honesty than some could handle.

Being able to openly accept information that runs contrary to your bias is an example of honesty.

You're suggesting that, somehow, by highlight facts and accuracy, we are suppressing the truth?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

As I said Skeptic, I am bowing out of this discussion. It doesn't mean I am not going to look into it further. I don't want to make you mad at me. I respect your knowledge and expertise in IT. I am not for the FCC's hybrid any more than I am for anything else.
Best Regards

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

And jones purposefully altered the President's statement to fit his distortion of the facts.

Distortion...? A fluke doesn't change the story.

The majority of comments here, on on YouTube, say otherwise.

Yeah, and quite a lot of those comments are rambling on about simple typos being intentional zionist disinformation (come on, seriously?). Many of those people also holler that Alex Jones is Bill Hicks, a satanic jew, a reptilian, an alien, the list goes on and on... youtube commenters are not exactly a great source of information.

That has nothing to do with him being wrong about this.

Hold the phone--that's huge.

Again, it was a fluke being blown waaaay out of whack. Many conspirators--including Jones himself--are often accused of overlooking the bigger picture. But that's completely backwards. The enormous, ridiculous goal of everyone opposing the questionable elements in our current government is, weather you, I, or anyone else likes it or not, lead by Alex Jones. A grammatical flaw does not erase all of that. That matters more than anything.

We did, with clarity and facts.

Criticizing him for ranting and zeroing in on a single grammatical flaw is a loose collection of facts.

Because his actions in this video do not deserve thanks. We didn't attack or bash in the video, merely identified grossly misplaced hyperbole and distortion.

I won't say you should thank him...

But to say he doesn't deserve thanks? Or that he deserves the bashing he's getting from the alternative community that he and his people are, nowadays, paving the way for...? Conspiracies have never been so openly accepted in our society before now. Yes, there are still people calling us nutjobs, but we're more open now than we ever have been before. Again, that's ALL important.

Its helpful to offer critique, but it seems this whole issue focuses more on discrediting him completely or making him look like a psycho rather than simply identifying those flukes. There's a fine line, and I've seen people on ATS fly from one side to another with no discretion whatsoever. That, as well, is an important topic--because of these critiques, are we going to start slicing off different sections of the alternative community from one another like a fresh pizza? Just what we need. More division.

Bigger picture, guys; it doesn't matter if we all like each other. We're all on the same side, weather any of you like it or not. Bluntly put, it doesn't matter if you like it. The bigger picture matters more than your personal opinions and critiques. Period.

Being able to openly accept information that runs contrary to your bias is an example of honesty.

I'm not here to cast stones, but... you seem pretty bias yourself.

You're suggesting that, somehow, by highlight facts and accuracy, we are suppressing the truth?

I think this person may be referring to you (guys?) in a more general way. I've read quite a lot more threads than I've commented on. You particularly seem very hellbent against anything that goes against your bias as well. There are a lot of cold facts in your arguments, all of which I respect for what they are; facts. BUT, there are facts in the bigger picture as well, and you seem to focus mostly on small details. The bigger picture must NEVER be overlooked. It is a massive lumpsum of everything we're all striving for, fighting against, and everything in between.

You don't have to like Alex, no one does. But he's the tip of the spear. That's just the way it is. Calling his listeners "sheeple" is only going to deepen the division between all of us in the alternative community, and that's the last thing we need.

EDIT; I think I get it.

There was absolutely a need. This issue, net neutrality, is critically important to the future. Not just the future of the Internet, but the future.

Lumping Net Neutrality with the *utility* issue is what got you, right? That's an easy thing to hear the wrong way. I totally understand why it upset you. They're two different things.

He actually stated this on his show today. If he didn't have his mind wrapped around the difference during the show in the OP, he understands it now... for what its worth.

Peace

originally posted by: XxNightAngelusxX
Distortion...? A fluke doesn't change the story.

It's not a fluke. Calling it anything else is either being an apologist for deception, or a liar.

Jone's reading the President's words, and inserting "the new law" rather than, "a law", is parroting the right-sided talking points funding by the big ISP's like Comcast. Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and others have said that before Jones -- implying that net neutrality is new laws.

It's an obvious tactic, used by others, before Jones held up the transcript on camera, read it, paused before "a law", and said "the new laws" instead.

Lumping Net Neutrality with the *utility* issue is what got you, right?

I have no idea what you mean by that. They're the same.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I still think "fluke" fits that description.

Googling "Obama classifies internet as utility" gets me 0 results involving Net Neutrality. Sure they're related, but I'm not sure they're the same. Of course, I'm not an expert... Eh.

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Looks like we're using different browsers.

Still...

Seems like two things lumped together as one idea. Quite honestly, I don't care enough to break it down any further. I have a general idea of it, and that's good enough for me.