For libtards, the law is an ass. Just like when I proved to Cactus Flower that President Trump has the undeniable authority per federal law to ban immigrants from certain countries if he believes it is in our country's best interests ...
Federal Immigration Law - Section 1182(f), Title 8, U.S. Code - states, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
... The LAW is irrefutable - period. The POTUS however HE may deem to be appropriate can for such a period as HE may deem necessary choose to suspend the entry of ALL aliens or ANY CLASS of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants. Cactus Flower threw a temper tantrum, and in essence, refused to even acknowledge the very existence of this law. Her position was to ignore this highly inconvenient (from her libtard point of view, anyway) and incontrovertible law in favor of allowing one backwater libtard in a black robe to unconstitutionally legislate from his bench. She had no problem, whatsoever, with one partisan attempting to overrule duly passed, bipartisan legislation that was signed into law by President Truman in 1952 ... simply because she has an infantile, irrational hatred for Republicans, in general, and President Trump, in particular, and because she somehow sees unfettered, mass migration of people from dangerous countries that hate the United States as a "win" for the libtard Democrat Party. So, how did Cactus Flower react to the unassailable FACT of this law? She closed her little eyes and plugged her little ears, and in a snit, she banned me from further postings on the ALEA Board ... because I had the AUDACITY to remind her of this law's existence and that it gave President Trump the lawful authority to regulate immigration however he sees fit.
Now, I digress through all of this because the following is yet another example of a libtard at MSNBC having an infantile meltdown over the existing laws that apply to the Internet ... because he wants to throw a conniption fit about the 2-year-old administrative (not legislative), so-called "net neutrality" rules being repealed, but the long-time existence of laws (legislative, not administrative) governing the potential abuses he is supposedly concerned about greatly help to render his arguments moot. So, what does this idiot do? Easy ... he adopts the same childish approach as Cactus Flower ... closes his little eyes, plugs his little ears with his fingers, and angrily says (over and over, again), "I can't hear you!" ROTFLMAO!
Well, the repeal of the so-called "net neutrality" rules that have only been in place for a measly two years is NOT going to cause the Internet, which its modern version has been around since the early 1990s, to explode. What is exploding are libtard heads because for the libtard troglodytes, "Government Control is GOOD! Capitalism and Individual Freedom are BAD!"
And, also as an aside, President Trump's immigration bans on certain countries that have a strong history of promoting terrorism are in place and are currently in operation.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/msnbc-anchor-loses-net-neutrality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/
MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi got absolutely destroyed during an interview Thursday with former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell about net neutrality.
Velshi got increasingly frustrated throughout the interview, even getting angry at his guest at one point for citing the laws that govern internet regulation.
McDowell kicked off the interview by explaining that net neutrality, which applies Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband internet networks, wasn't created until February of 2015.
He responded to Velshi's argument that repealing net neutrality might freeze out startups, reminding him that new tech companies like Facebook were created well before 2015.
"So, you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act," McDowell said. "Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February of 2015."
"What Title II [net neutrality] has done, in the wireless space anyway, is reduce investment in the past two years by 18 percent," he continued. "We need about $300 billion over the next decade to build out [5G] networks and every independent Wall Street analyst I've spoken with says ... the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty."
Velshi, watching his narrative slipping away right in front of his eyes, came up with a scenario where Facebook could subsidize faster internet speeds in exchange for preferential treatment, reducing competition in the overall marketplace.
"Section I and Section II of Sherman Act and Section III of Clayton Act ... you just triggered all three of those sections," McDowell smoothly responded. "That would be an anti-trust violation ... that was against the law before February 2015 and it will be against the laws of today."
Velshi chastised McDowell for "dropping a lot of legal names," asserting that the scenario he described "does happen."
"People bundle the services they own - why does AT&T offer DirecTV free as opposed to Verizon TV?" Velshi asked.
"You can bundle services, what you can't do is shut out other people," McDowell explained.
"Look, I just feel like we're having a really unfair conversation here, I'm trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences," Velshi whined. "And you're dropping a lot of legal-ese." {No, it is an unfair conversation, Velshi ... because you are a stone-cold moron and Mr. McDowell has all of the facts on his side.} 
"The legal-ese is the merits though, Ali," McDowell asserted. "That's what's at play here, and maybe you haven't read these laws."
"I'm very familiar with net neutrality," Velshi snarked back. "I'm really not that familiar with being condescended to." {Well, Velshi ... the laws Mr. McDowell was referring to ... that you obviously know absolutely NOTHING about ... are the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act ... NOT the administrative, so-called "net neutrality" rules. And, you need to be condescended to because you're acting like a petulant child.}
McDowell again reminded Velshi that the internet grew for 20 years before net neutrality and insisted that the aforementioned scenarios Velshi warned of are already considered illegal.
"You've come to this show ready for an argument that I'm not giving you!" Velshi explained when McDowell insisted consumers were not going to unprotected without net neutrality.
McDowell tried to repeat Velshi's argument back to him, stating, "okay so you're talking about consumers and entrepreneurs and discrimination of your own products, like a Comcast provider?"
"That's NOT what I'm telling you!" Velshi claimed, even though earlier in the interview he was talking about companies giving preferential treatment to their own products.
McDowell shook his head incredulously, as Velshi exclaimed that they would need to revisit their conversation at another time.
"I'm saying that if someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet ... because they got the money to buy better ... access," Velshi said, "then the incumbent is favored over the startup, that's the only point I wanted to make!"
"And that would be illegal, that's the point I'm making," McDowell responded. "It has been a for a long time and will be going forward, so it's good news."
"Sorry it's good news," he finished. "I know it's good clickbait to say the internet is being destroyed and it's not."
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence
| 
