I’m afraid I’m gonna have to stretch fair use pretty badly once again here, but it’s just too hilarious a self-beclowning not to.
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.
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.”
Assholes like this ignorant putz simply don’t know what they’re talking about, on this or anything else. All they know is they never saw a government takeover they didn’t fully support. Which tells you all you’ll ever need to know about “net neutrality,” and about them. This part is especially delicious:
“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.”
“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.”
Asshole says, condescendingly. As for that risible “legalese” codswallop, umm, well, you see…you’re talking about a FUCKING LAW here, Einstein; it ain’t just “the merits,” it is the ENTIRETY of the subject at hand. I’m guessing dipshit here just learned himself a new word this past week and tried it out prematurely in his eagerness to impress his fellow PMSNBC mouthbreathers, before he’d had a chance to get the meaning entirely straight.
Yeah, we really need to have the internet—or anything at all—in the clutches of wet-brained muttonheads like this doofus. Sheesh.
Be sure to read all of it, though; I didn’t do too badly with the fair use thing after all, there’s plenty more, and it’s all sidesplitting, right to the very end. Doesn’t hurt any that it’s a former FCC commish handling the beat-down duties, either. One would have to assume right out of the gate that the guy knows whereof he speaks just a LEETLE bit—certainly a damned sight more so than any PMSNBC clown ever will, anyway.
I swear, Velshi ought not to be allowed on the teewee at all without a bulbous red nose and a frightwig on. But then, you could say the same for the entire barnyard of PMSNBC subgenii, from Rachel Madcow on down.
Update! Schlichter wins the Innarnets:
I don't worry about net neutrality because I already died when Trump pulled out of the Paris accords and because of tax reform.
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 15, 2017