christine wrote:

Hey guys....so I was watching (god forbid I do this willingly) Fox news (go ahead, laugh) and that crybaby Glen Beck brought up Net Neutrality and how its taking away certain freedoms of speech and so on.

Well I already know that side of the story, but I really want to know the reason behind this stuff like Free Press act or whatever it is. Why is it justified?

Here's what I was reading:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/th … -one-page/

I honestly stopped reading there.

Glenn Beck...what a waste of oxygen. 
His arguments center around the fact that Fox News correspondents know NOTHING about what the bill actually calls for.  I thought we had another thread discussing this somewhere....
But as for the opposing side and the positive arguments for the bill, what we have are the basic standards of national security being applied to the biggest worldwide connection system ever conceived.  It connects every country to each other and is the root for almost everything we do anymore. 
Allow the ACLU to explain what this argument is about:

//The creation and dynamic growth of the Internet is in part the result of strong Net Neutrality protection. All of that changed in 2005, when the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) suddenly repealed longstanding Internet non-discrimination principles with the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. Since then, the keys to the Internet have been turned over to a handful of profit-driven telecoms and cable companies. Immediate restoration of well-established Net Neutrality principles is necessary to protect freedom and innovation on the Internet. //

That was from September 2006 and can be seen here:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/interne … rality-pro

Read the rest of that article and it shows in great detail as to why net neutrality is a necessary function for the safety of the internet for all users. 

It makes me wonder what exactly conservatwits like those on Fox find so appealing about abuse of capitalism and the screwing over of the people they claim to represent.  Granted, most people that think Fox is credible tend to have as many functioning brain cells as teeth in their head and thus can be swayed by such idiocy and thinly veiled abuse that can only be passed over them by throwing smear campaigns out to the other side.  You may consider what I just said a smear, but I challenge you to show the demographic of Fox news vs. that of an actual news station.  They're not news....all of the people that you think about when you think Fox news(and Fox actually admitted this in an open newsletter after Obama attacked them for being such idiots) are not their news team...they're simply journalists and hosts, no better than the morons on The View or any other mindless midday talk show drivel....and let's face it, their actual "news" team isn't much better. 
Don't believe me?  Watch, primarily 3:35-6:30:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o … -fox-sake-

Anyways, the principle of net neutrality is to protect the people, protect government property that could be stolen via the medium of the internet, stop the monopolization and practical rape of consumers by corporations, and to make it a more stable system without the constant problems of those between the consumer and the C.E.O.

I explained what the issue was about with the link from the ACLU.  Allow me to repost it:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/interne … rality-pro

You don't take hearsay as correct data.  Only from the verified source on the subject.  The ACLU deals with the civil rights of people...they are not leaning towards any party initially thus their statements deal solely with the rights of people through our constitution and basic human principles.
Websites referenced to by incompetent pundits or from far wing group need not be taken seriously as they are almost always full of crap...yet sadly, we deal with those most often because the loudest are always the ones that get noticed first.

As for the terms, it's on that website in the very next phrase than the paragraph that I quoted in my last page.  Net neutrality gives equal opportunity to the consumers and offers a better safety network without monopolization and domination from the private ISPs and cable/telecoms companies.  With net neutrality, we eliminate the unlawful filtering of websites by providers, we protect systems better through a more universal systematic access, and the consumers get more choice as to what they get, as it was before we switched over to the current system, as is explained in the link.
The problem is that people cling so fast to the ideals of capitalism while they shun anything that some pundit retard labels as "socialist" while ignoring the fact that most of our systems are socialist by the standard they go by and most people never bother mentioning them.  The problem is that people think socialism is communism, while anybody from an EU country or Canada or Japan will tell you how stupid we are for refusing to let go of strict capitalistic standards. 
Because of what you're being exposed to, you're only getting the loud ones...not the intellectuals, not the people who actually designed the plan, and not the people who have actually considered possible alternatives.  This is the problem with politics and media...they run by popularity, not rightness and progress.  People are f*****g stupid, as George Carlin would put it....ironically I have to censor that. *sigh*

As for the medicare thing....next to nobody understands it.  People claim what they want without understanding the basics of distribution of funds, the actual gain in expendable capital for the citizens, and the benefits of a system based on need-to-treat systems instead of pay-to-need-to-treat as we are now.  I challenge you to find a person who live in a country where they have a longstanding system like what we're attempting at and ask them how stupid America has been over the last year.
And if it comes down to abortion...so what?  Influencing basic procedures for the wibbling of moral pleas from the public is silly.  If most people knew anything about basic practices, we wouldn't have these arguments and I wouldn't nearly wreck my car when I go blind with hatred when some jackass conservatwit comes on the radio and says that "The health care bill is a 2000 page roadmap leading to a government take over and socialization of our health care system" while talking to the ignorant public that know NOTHING about it.