Matthew, Very interesting. I'm just not seeing an intellectually coherent reason to oppose net neutrality. Yes, I think that ISPs stand to gain income by monetizing content. I just don't think that I am paying them to influence what I look at. I pay them to give me access to the internets, period.

Any change is change they are forcing on me. I think net neutrality is a good idea in this case.

Show the evidence that this is the case and i'll change my mind.

That's not net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should not determine what content people have access to.

The fairness doctrine is a positive enforcement of speech. The net neutrality principle simply mandates that people should have access to the information they want, without interference. I think conservatives are wrong on this one. This is a product of adherence to doctrines rather than reason.

I don't know the details of the bill, but I do know that companies are every bit as capable of regulating our lives as the government. Information access should be up to the people. It shouldn't be insidiously forced upon them.

Ha ha ha. Nooo comment. Funny how long it took me to catch it though. ;-)

What Gary says that the purpose of the gunsight - which is to kill people - is irrelevant. His political dogma is relevant. Don't you rubes understand?

That carpet is actually his mode of transportation.

I would think the accuracy of the sights and the killing of my comrades more offensive than the detailing near the serial number.

That's because it's a strategically important locale. They aren't stealing oil.

This point has been made many times here, but I'll say it again: you are positing the completely nonsensical claim that comprehensive profiling practices entail that no other security procedure will be used.

Stop skewering straw men.