Trump threatens to target licenses of 'NBC and the Networks' after nuclear arsenal report

[Silver Pines]

MOD 1 deserves a medal for reading some of this crap.  He could have heard more sophisticated banter by going to the seediest bar in town at closing time and edging over to the drunk couple.

@Emjay

Why are you degrading yourself in this filthy dive, babe?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Asked a wrestler a bunch of insulting questions to elicit a violent response for the cameras. After he succeded in that and got knocked on his ass Stossel set about suing the wrestler in a multi million dollar frivolous lawsuit. He ended up getting $450K. Then when his career is in the shitter he re-brands himself as some sort of Libertarian crusader after being the ultra Left guy on 20/20 and sets about calling for tort reform because lawsuits like his one in the 80's are clogging the system.

He is a proven fraud. Feel free to cozy up to him all you like. I'm far more discerning.

Iirc didn't he just ask if wrestling was real?


Not assault worthy imo.

[Bigun]

Iirc didn't he just ask if wrestling was real?


Not assault worthy imo.

IIRC it was Gerardo  (Geary Rivers) who did that not John Stossel.

[txradioguy]

IIRC it was Gerardo  (Geary Rivers) who did that not John Stossel.

No it was Stossel and a wrestler by the name of Dave Schultz.  Happened back state at MSG in 1984.

[Bigun]

No it was Stossel and a wrestler by the name of Dave Schultz.  Happened back state at MSG in 1984.

I was not aware that Stossel had done the same thing Geraldo did previously and got the crap beat out of him for his efforts!

[Cyber Liberty]

I was not aware that Stossel had done the same thing Geraldo did previously and got the crap beat out of him for his efforts!

I didn't know Geraldo got beaten up.  The only injury I recall he got was when he got hit by a chair on his show, on camera, and got a broken nose.  But I had seen the video of Stossel before, and it was a "wrestler" who was peeved at a question about whether it was "real."  It was a pretty obvious assault and battery.

Apparently they really hate getting asked that, I had one almost take a swing at me for that reason at a TV station I worked at back in the 70's.  They were pretty obviously fakes back then.

[Bigun]

I didn't know Geraldo got beaten up.  The only injury I recall he got was when he got hit by a chair on his show, on camera, and got a broken nose.  But I had seen the video of Stossel before, and it was a "wrestler" who was peeved at a question about whether it was "real."  It was a pretty obvious assault and battery.

Apparently they really hate getting asked that, I had one almost take a swing at me for that reason at a TV station I worked at back in the 70's.  They were pretty obviously fakes back then.

My youngest son was really into wrestling when he was very young so I took him to an event here at the local fairgrounds and purposefully hung around in the parking lot until those guys who had seemingly been trying to kill each other a few minutes before began to come out laughing and joking with each other and getting into the same cars with each other!  I guess I ruined the illusion for him.

[txradioguy]

I was not aware that Stossel had done the same thing Geraldo did previously and got the crap beat out of him for his efforts!

Yeah the guy kept repeating something along the lines of "does that feel fake" as he was whacking Stossel upside the head.

I remember seeing it when it aired on 20/20 back in the day when Hugh Down and Barbara Walters were still hosting it.

[Bigun]

Yeah the guy kept repeating something along the lines of "does that feel fake" as he was whacking Stossel upside the head.

I remember seeing it when it aired on 20/20 back in the day when Hugh Down and Barbara Walters were still hosting it.

IIRC Geraldo's was when he had a late night show on TV. Long ago but can't put a year on it.

[txradioguy]

IIRC Geraldo's was when he had a late night show on TV. Long ago but can't put a year on it.

I've met him a couple times in person...once when his show was live at Ft. Hamilton and the next year at the Fox Studios.

He treated his staff like crap when the cameras were off.  As someone in the business I wasn't impressed.

Saw the Rev. Al during that time too when he used to be a guest on Jerry's show...tried to be nice and say hi to him...he's a bitter little troll too.

[Cyber Liberty]

Saw the Rev. Al during that time too when he used to be a guest on Jerry's show...tried to be nice and say hi to him...he's a bitter little troll too.

I've seen your picture, and we both know what lil' Al's problem was with you....

[txradioguy]

I've seen your picture, and we both know what lil' Al's problem was with you....

@Cyber Liberty

LOL!  Good point.

[ArneFufkin]

Yes thats worked so well these last few decades.

We all remember how Bush lost complete control of the "debate" around 2005 or so.  As did his father, before him.

Trump won't make that mistake.  His peculiar personality won't allow it.  And, it benefits him greatly because he always has the media/Democrat cabal off balance and reflexively striking out at every new perceived outrage.   He's rope-a-doping his political opposition, even if it's just his nature and if they don't know it yet.

[aligncare]

We all remember how Bush lost complete control of the "debate" around 2005 or so.  As did his father, before him.

Trump won't make that mistake.  His peculiar personality won't allow it.  And, it benefits him greatly because he always has the media/Democrat cabal off balance and reflexively striking out at every new perceived outrage.   He's rope-a-doping his political opposition, even if it's just his nature and if they don't know it yet.

Take this latest Trump scandal. Which scandal you ask? You know the one where yesterday Trump is taking swipes at Mitch McConnell early in the day and then later in the day has nothing but praise for Mitch McConnell and their relationship. See, Trump has no core principles! Say the NeverTrumpers.

How many times must I explain, Trump is always in negotiation mode. Think of it as good cop–bad cop. Trump always throws out some trash talk about a negotiating partner beforehand, putting them back on their heels. Then in meeting he comes in with a softer posture. There’s a method to Trump’s actions and until NeverTrump accepts that, they will always be in a perpetual state of outrage over Trump’s “lack of principles.”

It has nothing to do with his core principles, only that he intends to win the better deal for his demands.

[RoosGirl]

Take this latest Trump scandal. Which scandal you ask? You know the one where yesterday Trump is taking swipes at Mitch McConnell early in the day and then later in the day has nothing but praise for Mitch McConnell and their relationship. See, Trump has no core principles! Say the NeverTrumpers.

How many times must I explain, Trump is always in negotiation mode. Think of it as good cop–bad cop. Trump always throws out some trash talk about a negotiating partner beforehand, putting them back on their heels. Then in meeting he comes in with a softer posture. There’s a method to Trump’s actions and until NeverTrump accepts that, they will always be in a perpetual state of outrage over Trump’s “lack of principles.”

It has nothing to do with his core principles, only that he intends to win the better deal for his demands.

Anytime I've seen good cop/bad cop played it's by two different people, not one bi-polar person.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Take this latest Trump scandal. Which scandal you ask? You know the one where yesterday Trump is taking swipes at Mitch McConnell early in the day and then later in the day has nothing but praise for Mitch McConnell and their relationship. See, Trump has no core principles! Say the NeverTrumpers.

How many times must I explain, Trump is always in negotiation mode. Think of it as good cop–bad cop. Trump always throws out some trash talk about a negotiating partner beforehand, putting them back on their heels. Then in meeting he comes in with a softer posture. There’s a method to Trump’s actions and until NeverTrump accepts that, they will always be in a perpetual state of outrage over Trump’s “lack of principles.”

It has nothing to do with his core principles, only that he intends to win the better deal for his demands.

12 dimensional chess again...

 

[aligncare]

12 dimensional chess again...

 

No. Not chess, just negotiation skills. Some people like Trump excel at it. It’s the reason he’s been successful in business and in life: he hits what he aims for.

[Concerned]

No. Not chess, just negotiation skills. Some people like Trump excel at it. It’s the reason he’s been successful in business and in life: he hits what he aims for.

@aligncare

You keep saying this over and over again, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of President Trump's great negotiating skills being translated into him hitting what he's aiming for, particularly legislatively.  Although I didn't vote for Trump, I really thought (assumed, hoped, looked forward to) him bringing a fresh perspective, creative ideas, using his bully pulpit, and leveraging his self-touted negotiation skills on things like repeal and replace, tax reform, and selling the Constitutional Amendment he promised to propose on Term Limits.  Rather than working with the party he’s supposed to be leading, he’s fighting with them.  That doesn’t bode well for his legislative agenda IMO, and we’re already seeing evidence of that. 

What evidence are you seeing that President Trump has leveraged his self-described great negotiating skills to hit what he's aiming for (particularly legislatively)?  I was really looking forward to it, but I'm just not seeing some evidence that you apparently are seeing.

[txradioguy]

@aligncare

You keep saying this over and over again, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of President Trump's great negotiating skills being translated into him hitting what he's aiming for, particularly legislatively.  Although I didn't vote for Trump, I really thought (assumed, hoped, looked forward to) him bringing a fresh perspective, creative ideas, using his bully pulpit, and leveraging his self-touted negotiation skills on things like repeal and replace, tax reform, and selling the Constitutional Amendment he promised to propose on Term Limits.  Rather than working with the party he’s supposed to be leading, he’s fighting with them.  That doesn’t bode well for his legislative agenda IMO, and we’re already seeing evidence of that. 

What evidence are you seeing that President Trump has leveraged his self-described great negotiating skills to hit what he's aiming for (particularly legislatively)?  I was really looking forward to it, but I'm just not seeing some evidence that you apparently are seeing.

If this is his great negotiating skills on display...it's no wonder his companies have had to file for bankruptcy so many times.

[aligncare]

@aligncare

You keep saying this over and over again, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of President Trump's great negotiating skills being translated into him hitting what he's aiming for, particularly legislatively.  Although I didn't vote for Trump, I really thought (assumed, hoped, looked forward to) him bringing a fresh perspective, creative ideas, using his bully pulpit, and leveraging his self-touted negotiation skills on things like repeal and replace, tax reform, and selling the Constitutional Amendment he promised to propose on Term Limits.  Rather than working with the party he’s supposed to be leading, he’s fighting with them.  That doesn’t bode well for his legislative agenda IMO, and we’re already seeing evidence of that. 

What evidence are you seeing that President Trump has leveraged his self-described great negotiating skills to hit what he's aiming for (particularly legislatively)?  I was really looking forward to it, but I'm just not seeing some evidence that you apparently are seeing.

I keep saying it because it’s true. I’ve read dozens of articles about his life in business written prior to his running for president that detailed projects that were successfully completed because of his negotiating skills, back when no one was calling him racist, Nazi or misogynist.

As head of the Trump Corporation he was negotiating deals to build skyscrapers, golf resorts and hundreds of projects worldwide against stiff opposition from governments, environmentalists, and local civic groups, and he won most of those battles. He was also negotiating deals for himself with networks as a TV personality.

As to your point about legislative success, that’s a non sequitur. Trump is not the leader of the legislative branch and no one would want a president writing legislation. A president’s agenda is often stalled by congress and Trump’s agenda is no different, except that in his case this republican president has faced the stiffest opposition to his presidency since Ronald Reagan was nearly equally opposed by the media, the democrats and many in his own party.

But in his capacity as head of the executive branch Trump’s performance has been stellar. So, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the negotiating skills of a man who wrote the best seller the Art of the Deal, and proved himself in the business world.

[DiogenesLamp]

YouTube Admits Censoring Independent News Channels



https://youtu.be/xepABu61OU4

[DiogenesLamp]

12 dimensional chess again...

 

For some reason that D@mned fool just keeps on winning. 

[txradioguy]

But in his capacity as head of the executive branch Trump’s performance has been stellar.

Name one thing he's done so far that could be pointed to as "stellar".

So, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the negotiating skills of a man who wrote the best seller the Art of the Deal,

Except he didn't write it...he had a ghost writer by the name of Tony Schwartz write the book.

and proved himself in the business world.

Hmmmm

Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/#375fd4317ffa

[Concerned]

I keep saying it because it’s true. I’ve read dozens of articles about his life in business written prior to his running for president that detailed projects that were successfully completed because of his negotiating skills, back when no one was calling him racist, Nazi or misogynist.

As head of the Trump Corporation he was negotiating deals to build skyscrapers, golf resorts and hundreds of projects worldwide against stiff opposition from governments, environmentalists, and local civic groups, and he won most of those battles. He was also negotiating deals for himself with networks as a TV personality.

As to your point about legislative success, that’s a non sequitur. Trump is not the leader of the legislative branch and no one would want a president writing legislation. A president’s agenda is often stalled by congress and Trump’s agenda is no different, except that in his case this republican president has faced the stiffest opposition to his presidency since Ronald Reagan was nearly equally opposed by the media, the democrats and many in his own party.

But in his capacity as head of the executive branch Trump’s performance has been stellar. So, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the negotiating skills of a man who wrote the best seller the Art of the Deal, and proved himself in the business world.

So, no examples as President, of Trump using his great negotiating skills to achieve a goal. Got it!  Just as I thought.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story







“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.

Thank you very much, everybody.”


http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs

[Bigun]

Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story







“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.

Thank you very much, everybody.”


http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs

A disgrace of the first order!  NO doubt about it!

[Cyber Liberty]

Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story







“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.

Thank you very much, everybody.”


http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs

He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."

[DiogenesLamp]

He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."

And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all? 

[Cyber Liberty]

And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?

Of course not.  Look, I can see you're fixing to start shoving words in my mouth again, so drop it.

[RoosGirl]

He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."

Word.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course not.  Look, I can see you're fixing to start shoving words in my mouth again, so drop it.

But your proposal is to do nothing;  To keep the status quo of Liberal controlled censorship of stories. 


Do you have any proposals to do something? 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

[roamer_1]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

EXCELLENT.

 

[Bigun]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

Try this on for size!  How about we use currently existing anti-trust laws to break up the current media oligarcy?

[DiogenesLamp]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

People just cannot help but head straight for that groove,  as if no other solution than government bureaucrats censoring the media comes to mind. 

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

Because conservative media (what's that?)  is not totally getting censored right now. 

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. 

When the dominate way of reaching the public was a piece of paper,  freedom of the "press"  was essential.  It could also not be dominated by anyone.  Anyone with a "press" could print and distribute to all of the people as much as they like. 

But comparing a "press"  to a Trillion dollar infrastructure brain washing machine is just naive.   For one thing,  video works so much better to bypass the rational part of the mind,  where as printed word is more likely to engage cognitive facilities. 

For another,   the Video system reaches hundreds of millions of people each week,  but it's a monopoly (created by Government) to which conservatives don't have access.

A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

The internet is heading in the direction of being controlled too.   If you put all your eggs in that basket,  don't be surprised when they all get broken. 

[DiogenesLamp]

EXCELLENT.

 

Rah! Rah!  We are all against censorship and in favor of "freedom of the press".   


Unfortunately what we have now is Censorship and nothing equivalent to "freedom of the press." 


The  "press"  is entirely in the hands of one party control.   

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Try this on for size!  How about we use currently existing anti-trust laws to break up the current media oligarcy?

I'm glad you mentioned "oligarchy" and not "monopoly".  I'm not surprised given your posting history, but it's still nice to see folks identify the difference (especially on this thread).

That said, are they breaking any anti-trust laws today?  If so, yeah, enforce the law.

However, IMO, the situation is this.  There are a small(ish) number of media outlets that dominate the market, and they are pretty much all leftist.  We conservatives let them get that way (we were probably too busy with jobs and stuff).  But there's nothing, that I can see, stopping us from fixing the problem using only the free market.

[roamer_1]

Unfortunately what we have now is Censorship and nothing equivalent to "freedom of the press." 
The  "press"  is entirely in the hands of one party control.   

I will differ from you in this. The very fact that I post these words is proof enough that while censorship is active (and almost always is), it is not insurmountable.

[txradioguy]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

 

[DB]

Funny how some want more government to stop the abuse by government...

[DiogenesLamp]

I will differ from you in this. The very fact that I post these words is proof enough that while censorship is active (and almost always is), it is not insurmountable.

Perhaps 10 people will see your words today.  Perhaps 100 in a week.  Do you know how many people will hear George Stephanopolis tomorrow?  Perhaps 10 million. 


If you think this is how you influence the public,  you don't know how to play this game called "politics." 

You are a lightning bug to their lightning.  So long as you are content to stay a lightning bug,  they will always win.   

[roamer_1]

Perhaps 10 people will see your words today.  Perhaps 100 in a week.  Do you know how many people will hear George Stephanopolis tomorrow?  Perhaps 10 million. 

And 20m will hear Limbaugh. There is far, far more diversity in source and political alignment than there has ever been before.

The internet leveled the field and will continue to, as long as it remains free.

[Bigun]

I'm glad you mentioned "oligarchy" and not "monopoly".  I'm not surprised given your posting history, but it's still nice to see folks identify the difference (especially on this thread).

That said, are they breaking any anti-trust laws today?  If so, yeah, enforce the law.

However, IMO, the situation is this.  There are a small(ish) number of media outlets that dominate the market, and they are pretty much all leftist.  We conservatives let them get that way (we were probably too busy with jobs and stuff).  But there's nothing, that I can see, stopping us from fixing the problem using only the free market.

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

Thanks for the kind words!

I suppose it depends on who's looking whether or not any anti-trust laws are being broken.  If the oligarchy is carrying YOUR water why would you even look?

[Neverdul]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

 

[DiogenesLamp]

And 20m will hear Limbaugh.

The 20 million you don't need to reach.   Do you know where are the people whom you do need to reach? 


They are on television,  where you  aren't.    They are George Stephanopolis' sheep. 

[aligncare]

There are things that government in association with civic groups can do to address media bias that doesn’t involve abridging speech, pulling licenses or issuing draconian regulations.

Everything from buying commercial advertising time for the purpose of educating about the issue, to using already existing FCC requirements to air community public service announcements.

I’m sure there’s some middle ground somewhere.

[Sanguine]

The 20 million you don't need to reach.   Do you know where are the people whom you do need to reach? 


They are on television,  where you  aren't.    They are George Stephanopolis' sheep.

Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already. 

[Bigun]

Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.

I have heard Rush himself say MANY times that people listen to him because he validates what they already think and I would say that he is right about that!

[DiogenesLamp]

This gif is more appropriate to what you are doing.






  Think like a rational person,  not a seal.   Nobody is suggesting a government take over of media,  it's just that's what all of you people keep wanting to hear coming out of our mouths.   


No government control of the media.  Get it?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.

The people who need to hear our side,  and who need to hear news detrimental to the Democrats are the people who watch Television.   

What we have now is a system where the Democrats who run the networks routinely censor news that is damaging to Democrats.  (Like what is going on in Venezuela, for example.)   So long as we continue allowing Democrats to have total control of the network infrastructure,   they will continue censoring news that is damaging to Democrats,  and the public will therefore not be informed. 


We must break Democrat control of the network system.   We must gain at least equal access to the network system.   


I personally think that after 60 years of Democrat control of the Network system,  we ought to be entitled to 60 years of exclusive control ourselves,   but I will settle for ending absolute Democrat control over the system.