Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas in response to net neutrality

Jul 13, 2017 4:02 PM

OfficialExpert

Views

86674

Likes

956

Dislikes

68

Dear Corey:

Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. It's good to hear from you, as always.  

As you may know, on April 26, 2017, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Pai announced his intention to repeal the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. This plan would eliminate Obama-era rules that reclassified Internet service providers (ISPs)—including mobile broadband providers—as “common carriers," a term originally used in the Communications Act of 1934.  Since 2005, ISPs were classified as “internet service providers” and regulated under Title I of the Communications Act. The reclassification changed their regulatory treatment and imposed much of the same regulation facing landline telephone companies even though the two are vastly different. The Order gave the FCC authority to regulate more companies’ practices, charges, and services. 

The so-called “net neutrality” is based on the principle that ISPs and governments should treat all data on the internet equally.  However, prior to the recent FCC rule-change, the U.S. already enjoyed some degree of net neutrality.  In fact, in January 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed federal rules requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally on the grounds that the FCC exceeded its authority to regulate how broadband ISPs manage network traffic.  Yet the FCC’s 2015 Order granted the Commission authority to impose these stringent regulations as requested by President Obama in November 2014.    

I understand the concerns about some internet service providers’ actions and restrictions on access to online content. In fact, I recently cosponsored the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which was introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). This Act would immediately nullify the FCC’s Open Internet Order and prohibit the FCC from issuing similar rules in the future unless authorized to do so by Congress. As Congress considers this and other measures related to the Open Internet Order and net neutrality, please rest assured that I will keep your concerns in mind. 

A well-functioning republic depends on active citizens to inform their elected representatives of issues of concern and to hold elected officials accountable. I’m grateful to hear from my fellow citizens on matters of public policy. These communications can be both insightful and useful as I work to represent you, and I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of your opinion.

I am truly honored to serve as your Senator; please know that your interests and affairs have my unceasing attention.  Always feel free to call my office at (202) 224-2353 or visit www.cotton.senate.gov.  

Sincerely,
 
Tom Cotton 
United States Senator

He's against it

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

TL;DR - Y'all are too stupid to understand what you want and need so I'll make these decisions based on the lobbyists who fund my relection

8 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 2

I read this as "Obama wanted net neutrality, but that's illegal. I'm supporting legislation to ensure your right to not get net neutrality!"

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Fuck this motherfucker

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

1: we need to change because Obama. 2: You need me to control you.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

He wants the internet free...from regulations against ISPs...

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

He's a member of the GOP. I know a lot of you think there's no difference but that indication tells you all you need to know on NNeutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

I understand your concerns about dingoes eating babies. In fact, I'm currently sponsoring a bill that would give babysitter classification

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

to all dingoes, and prohibit that classification from being revoked in the future. This should help keep dingoes from eating babies.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

From the way he's wording this, it seems like he's against net neutrality

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's not his wording, that's exactly what he said.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Translation: "I suck dicks for campaign contributions."

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Start a campaign of mailing breath mints to him and others. "To help get the taste of lobbyist dick out your mouth."

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Tl:Dr I am against it but here is a lot of political jargon to make it sound like I am for it

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

What a turd-tongued, arse-nuzzling, two-faced piece of work. You sure can pick 'em.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In the referred case, the court decided based on limitations of Title I, and basically invited FCC to reclassify under Title II.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

ISPs and governments should absolutely treat all data on the internet equally. i've seen this arrangement of words on a few of these. 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2/2 except they use it condescendingly like it's unimportant for all information to have equal opportunity to reach a consumer.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

So basically he tiptoed around saying "nyaha fuck you" with MUH OBAMER as a scapegoat. What a shitbag. Vote him out when you can, OP!

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's shithole representatives like this that makes over 80% of the country feel like they have no voice.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

You are wrong. Most of the country doesn't have a voice.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Perhaps you're right at that... I hope there is still a diplomatic way to get it back.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He starts sentences with "In fact..." and "Yet..." in the exact opposite way they should be used. Makes it harder to understand him.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Speech like this is exactly why politicians are hard to like. Say what you mean, fuck face

8 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 1

THe entire point is to make people think you are helping them even if you dont. Being open about it rarely yields good results.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's even worse if you read it in Cotton's voice

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Trump's a cunt but at least he's simple to understand so when he's inconsistent then it's easier to call him out on it.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Bullshit. Trump lies, tells alternative truths, leaves things unmentioned... Doing it in baby language is only the other extreme of it.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And that makes him any different from other politicians? The only difference is that he does it so obviously. Doesn't make him any better.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A lot of misdirection and babblespeak for : "The Cable Co's bought my vote for 70,025."

8 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 1

I was sorta shocked when that list came out. I knew they were for sale, I just didn't realize for how cheap. We should chip in & buy one.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why people don't. Maybe they're worried that ISP's will just pay even more?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which will ultimately come out our pockets anyways. That's why I'm fond of the Monopoly money ploy- to remind them of how cheap they are.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yay an Arkansas thread!

8 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 1

Great another thing to be ashamed of

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hooray Arkansas! but also fuck cotton and recaf.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

for the record: the hooray was because it's my state of Arkansas, not because of the voter information thing.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Like reading a fucking contract. You can't tell of its bad or Not! Dirt bag!

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

It's not that difficult to understand.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's bad. Dude basically says: The market will regulate itself, so we're repealing the regulations. P.S. Fuck you"

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course you can. He says a lot of words but the important part is that he doesnt support net neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Tom Cotton is one of the shittbaggiest of all the shitbags in Congress. I wouldn't have expected any less.

8 years ago | Likes 168 Dislikes 12

Came here to make a similar comment. Fuck Tom Cotton.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

I'll tell ya what, these days its a real contest of who's this biggest shitbag.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Agreed, thus the use of "one of" in my comment.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He's the one who made a statement that the US has an "under-incarceration problem". He's indeed a nasty piece of work

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

This is the shitbag who wrote a letter to the Ayatollah to try & torpedo America's nuclear negotiations. He should've been hanged for that.

8 years ago | Likes 53 Dislikes 5

This.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yeah he has his own special (needs) opinions about what is good for this country and he's almost universally wrong.

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 4

I got almost the exact same response from Senator Mike Lee of Utah. It's like they have a script or something

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The staffers who write these letters are trained to write in certain formats. not copy and paste but it does seem that way. I was a staffer

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So what exactly does a staffer do? All the info i have on it is from house of cards, which probably isnt a reliable source

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"thanks for your concern but I don't give a fuck about what you want. Here is a misguided explanation of what I'll do instead"

8 years ago | Likes 219 Dislikes 10

He can have this v

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ahh I ge- no nvrmind Wait yes, no *scratching head*

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

"Please excuse any typos. This is the exact wording Comcast has required me to use when addressing my constituents. God bless America."

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Best synopses ever.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I wonder how much money he is getting to act against net neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

And rest assured he'll continue to oppose campaign finance & disclosure laws, so we can all continue to wonder...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

According to theverge.com: $70,025 was donated to him from telecoms or telecom employees.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I am really disappointed in the Republican party.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 149 Dislikes 1

This is one of the best uses of this gif I have seen

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off for Cotton.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

2014- court rules FCC can't regulate ISP's. 2015- ISP's reclassified to allow FCC regulation. Now, GOP wants to repeal re-classification.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

(2) these kinds of sweeping changes that drastically affect the United States. Sure, it's alright when they agree with you, but 5 or 10...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(3) years down the line you have an FCC you don't agree with, all of a sudden shit hits the fan, and no one ever elected any of em.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

While I am pretty stringently pro-NN for this issue, I have to say I am not a fan of the FCC being an unelected position, capable of making

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Agree, that's a bit of a risk, but we have to weigh that against the certainty of what ISP's will do now if this is rolled back.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

IMO the best thing ISPs can do is stay the status quo. They're already raking in $$$ hand over fist. Why needlessly enrage your customers?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ISP's often operate as monopolies, so keeping customers happy takes a back seat to profit.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh I didn't say they were going to keep people *happy*, I just implied that they would do the bare minimum not to cause literal outrage.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(2) That's *if* NN is killed, of course. Anything that they do change will of course be marketed as customer friendly though.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can someone translate this into easy to read English?

8 years ago | Likes 127 Dislikes 1

There is case law saying the FCC, as created, doesn't have regulatory authority over ISPs like it does telecommunications.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Like, for example: Pro net-neutrality or "net-something-else that sounds neutrality-ish, but actually just lines his pockets"

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

"Fuck you".

8 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 0

obama bad. it's not important that all things on the internet be treated equally. government oversight is bad. condescending thankyoufuckoff

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sure, here you go: http://imgur.com/FU5earS

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He's against it. The bill in question allows ISPs to self-regulate: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993/text

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. Zero, divided by Zero is whatever you want it to be.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fuck you, give it to me, I'll take care of it. Shut up and sit down.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"I don't support net neutrality, and when I wave my wand and say the magic words, neither do you"

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's all bullshit.

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

Its all junk. A bunch of information, it sounds great, but he doesn't take a stand. Additional sources show he's against net neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"The present net neutrality rules are bad because they happened under Obama. I sponsored a shit bill that has a happy sounding name."

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

I feel like he dropped the O-bomb on purpose here.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

It's so dumb. A thing is not good or bad because of the administration it happened under or the party of the politician who sponsored it.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

8 years ago (deleted Jul 13, 2018 4:58 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Well we're gonna run out of politicians with that kind of thinking!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The FCC overstepped its authority, and the industry regulates itself just fine, thank you. We'll let congress decide in the future.

8 years ago | Likes 217 Dislikes 3

Oh look, a dumb person. Do you mean like how it regulated itself just fine when Comcast was throttling bittorent traffic?

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 43

okay guys stop downvoting the poor (wo)man, they've realized their mistake.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Appreciated but it's not a big deal. Points don't mean anything and, in retrospect, it was a pretty shit comment.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You're good people

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That is what the fucking lawyer said.

8 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 0

He's a Senator but you're right. Totally forgot I was looking at a reply, thought he was stating his own thoughts. Jumped the gun; sorry.

8 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 5

It's all good, you saw that you did and like a good person admitted to it. +1

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

"Oh look, a dumb person." :^)

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

"The people that paid me said it's bad so I want it to go away but everyone else loves it so I'm just going to pretend I'm fixing it."

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

To clarify, that was the translation and not my own personal views on the topic.

8 years ago | Likes 100 Dislikes 1

Whoops; sorry about my response. Overlooked that you were replying to someone asking for a translation. Should have read more carefully.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Thanks for the translation

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Maybe use quotes to clarify.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Would have loved to have enough space in the response field to say it. Twitter level text limits suck.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Am I an idiot? I can't figure out if he's for or against neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 780 Dislikes 8

If you can't figure it out, you don't understand net neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

How is it that you can't lie to a share holder but you can lie to your constituents. We pay these people and they do what they want.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Because we keep electing them.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Restoring Internet Freedom Act is a fancy way to say fuck your internet freedom....

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Puh, I thought it was me.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There's a solid chance he didn't even write the damn thing himself. A carefully crafted non-response from one of his "people."

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If by whisky...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He pulled the ol' bureau-ese double talk. If you question it, you're a simpleton because it was explained so clearly.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He is against the full use of Title II to enforce net neutrality. He may not be opposed to the general concept of net neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Normally these people prefer either a narrow classification under Title II or to use an Anti-Trust Law and the FTC.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Anyone that says they are for something but they just need to get rid of it first is not for it.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's a good politician. A Great Politician stays bought

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He's definitely not for the dismantling of anti-neutrality protections which could prevent non-neutral bias in repealing old regulations.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He is very much against it, but the only negative aspect mentioned relates to telephone company regulation without any explanation.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I got a similar email and can't tell for if he's for or against

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As far as I can tell he's for it in principle (likely because his constituents are) but against it in its current implementation.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nope, scratch that. He's for deregulation, therefore against it.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

You're not an idiot; he's a politician.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

There's not a single Republican that's for net neutrality. That should help clear it up some.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

And they'll stay that way until Comcast's check start bouncing, or someone writes them an even bigger check.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Thats how the deceptive motherfuckers talk

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

He's a Republican - that's all you need to know if you're wondering if he's pro-evil or not.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

it's worded in a way in which it's made uncertain, probably because he knows the general public doesn't correspond with his view

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Typical Polititian, say 1000 words, yet not say a single damn thing.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

they won't come out & say it, but republicans believe net neutrality is an attack on conservative speech. don't ask me why

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

If the phrase is prefaced by "so-called", you can be pretty sure he's not a fan.

8 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 1

Interpretting this email or not, look at his voting history to tell you instead. Yes politicians flip flop on it, but it's better than 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

taking their word at face value. Also he talks about cosponsoring Restoring Internet Freedom, which is decidedly anti-Net Neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well, he says he cosponsored a bill that would have ended net neutrality and prevented the FCC from restoring it. Sounds like against.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Against.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

He basically said, "thanks for your input, but I'm going with the people with money".

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

I hate to be that guy, but he is a Republican senator. He's against it.

8 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 8

His third sentence was about "eliminate Obama-era rules"

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

He is against it but knows that is unpopular so he worded it in the most confusing way possible. Politicians.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

It's what they do. Money walks bullshit talks.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

mrw http://imgur.com/KBBSC9H - for or against, if you aim to disguise your intentions in your speech, you're a twat

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It's corporate whore-ese. A regular hooker will get right down to what and how much. But a dollar dog? They have to keep up appearances.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Hes saying he for neutrality but current title 1 and 2 laws are outdated

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He is 100% against it while using idiotic doublespeak that makes it sound like his support of those bills is good for net neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

He's against met neutrality but is trying to make it sound like he's for it

8 years ago | Likes 107 Dislikes 2

Yes, I caught that. Am in government, see this doubletalk all the time.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Against. Here's the text of the bill in question: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993/text

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He's pro opinion neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yes.

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 3

He's against it because, as always, Tom Cotton is long necked dipshit. I appreciate him going to the "Obama did it!" well as illustration 1/

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

for something being bad. Shows just how disingenuous these sentient cum rags actually are.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It seems as though he is against it. He is for Congress having the control.

8 years ago | Likes 214 Dislikes 3

Well, how else is he going to keep making this much money from lobbyists?

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

That's what I read.

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

That's the worst part. "Don't worry, neither you nor the ISPs will have control. WE will." Oh good, I'm so comforted Mr. Cotton.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

He's forgainst it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZtRNi7mgGk

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I like that.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Title II rolling back is going back to where it was, which was a free internet, ripe for the fuckery of ISPs

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

He is against it. But he worded it in the cunty lawyer language.

8 years ago | Likes 189 Dislikes 9

I read that as "country lawyer" and thought of Dustin Hoffman in "Runaway Jury"

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The legal system and the justice system are two very different things. The former is won with money, is completely corrupt, and is >>

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

>> the most frequently used of the two in the US.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The legal system and the justice system are two very different things. The former is won with money and is the one we use in the US.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Oh, you mean "The Law"?

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 17

I like my term better.

8 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 4

As a lawyer, I do too.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I believe the correct term is "Legalese"

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which is exactly what he's going for.

8 years ago | Likes 789 Dislikes 8

Literally just made an account just so I could answer. What he's saying is that he doesn't believe in any regulation in favor of (1)

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Net neutrality, just with a lot of code words. The "Open Internet" bill he mentions is not really a form regulation, (2)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

it's actually a way to block any future regulations of the internet which should be, according to his letter "open". The logic here is (3)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Republican thinking 101: there is no need to impose rules and regulations on corporations, let them do their thing and they will (4)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Likely means he's been bought out already

8 years ago | Likes 127 Dislikes 2

Or just keeping in party lines, but since he co sponsored a bill, yea probably has some sort of incentive in it

8 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 0

Would you say he's being....neutral?

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No more like duplicitous

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I read the email three times. I can't either.

8 years ago | Likes 173 Dislikes 4

Here's the text of the bill in question: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993/text. He opposes Net Neutrality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Instead of monopoly money, you could mail him a roll of lifesavers. To help him get the taste of lobbyist dick out of his mouth.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Politicians all over the world have one thing in common; the inability to answer "yes" or "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question. Problem!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Read the bill he cosponsored. He is SO against NN.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He is protecting the free internet by prohibiting net neutrality is what he is saying...

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Free in the sense that big business will be free to screw over their customers at will.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Use Watson to analyse the text

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Mail him a stack of monopoly money and tell him to stop pretending. "This is all you really care about, so why even fake it?"

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

He's against it. RIFA's goal is to take away the FCC's authority. Rule of thumb:

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

If the response to a yes or no question is something other than yes or no, it's the answer that's morally wrong or a bad idea.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

"Did you kill this woman?" "Well, first you have to determine whether or not 'kill' is valid in the case of--" "Yeah, he did. Book him."

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Needs more upvotes for intense accuracy.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No not the wrong answer just the unpopular one

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1