"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Tosk wrote:
In article 062e94b3-e6ac-4a33-9609-f42cc3e510d0@
31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqS...layer_embedded
Uh...uh, uh..um...uh..uh,uh....

Ignorant, arrogant prick.. Too bad we can't do something about voter
fraud in those states, the guy should stick to bad stand up...

al franken and jesse ventura. Two of minnysoda's finest sons.


If you don't like who was elected, vote in the next election. That's how
it
works.

Not when you have literally hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes
cast or created after the fact...


Ohhh... you're talking about Florida in 2000! You're right! Yet, we waited,
and now Obama's in the Whitehouse. The plurality that voted him in must be
wrong.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:31:23 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:19:19 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:35:13 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:23:01 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:04:26 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:47:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:36:10 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:33:42 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped

That woman looked like she was experiencing the onset of an anal
outburst.

I love Al and I love Alan Grayson. What's with Dems named Al?

I love Al Gore too, apart from how he runs campaigns.


How is it possible for a person to "love" any politician? (It seems
to be a sickening fetish similar to necrophilia.)

Love doesn't exist on your end of the political spectrum, unless you
count money.

You consider that a reasonable declaration? On a primal, nascent
level, I suspect that you don't really know what "love" is. You and
most others in this NG don't display "love" in any sense of the word.

What do you find wrong with it? Even "compassionate conservatives"
send fellow citizens to war based on known false information.

The only love the conservative movement displays is tough love, as in
"pull yourself up by your bootstraps cause there ain't nobody who
gives a **** once you're born."

I'm sure there's so much love to spread around on Sundays and then
Monday it's back to screwing others for your own.

Didn't you say you were in the insurance business?

I'm in the IT business, too. I also volunteer to help special-needs
persons - this, without compensation, reward, or to assauge any
speculated, deep-seated feelings of guilt. I have and do assist
persons that most other people would avoid by walking on the other
side of the street. (Do you do the same?) I'll return to a question
I have asked of you before, which you failed to answer in any
reasonable manner. Who are you to judge another? (And I'll wager
that I'm compensated annually less than you are. I'll also wager that
my income stream is less than yours.)

Good for you!!!

Weren't we talking about love and party affiliation?

Are you a compassionate conservative and did you support GW Bush's
pre-emptive war of choice?

What percentage of the folks who "avoid" your friends do you suppose
are Republicans? I'd expect it to be larger by at least the weight of
a six pack or two.

How much "love" do you have, jps? Do you volunteer your time for the
unfortunate, the dispossessed, the disaffected, the pariah of our
society? Or do you defer to "government" to do your lovin' for ya?
Let's see the love, dude!

Changing the subject. I'd be pleased to discuss my efforts towards
the benefits of mankind but you haven't favored me with any real
answers yet.

So why should I invest in your inquiry when you haven't invested in
mine?

This is how it normally goes with you.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:21:19 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/22/09 8:12 PM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

"John wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:53:34 -0700,
wrote:


Senator Al makes the whole room split their guts!!!

Damn its great to have a comedian in the Senate...

Only a liberal could make such a statement.


Here he is again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84Q6...eature=related

What an ignorant ****...

Yes, you are.

The Freak is calling Franken an ignorant ****.

Franken has more synapses in the dead skin cells under his
fingernails...


Franken is a pretty smart guy. He's probably one of the smartest
if
not
the

Contrary to public belief the Internet is private in the US of A. Other
than some military nets I am not sure if the government still has a,
what they call, publicly owned Internet. ICANN/IANA just gave up
control.

It's Obama's fault! I know. We can institute illegal wiretaps. Oh wait...

Yeah, sucks that they saved all those American lives... And it really
doesn't count if you change the rules to make it illegal after the fact.


What American lies? Please show the stats.

Dick Cheney's got the stats. They're safely stashed in his man sized
butt.

We should The Freak in to retrieve them.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:56:22 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


Card check? No idea what you're talking about. You claimed net
neutrality was a censorship doctrine. It isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:10:48 -0400, Tosk wrote:


puleeeeaaseeee. He was and is a joke... Kinda' like calling the pending
censorship doctrine, the "fairness" doctrine...

Fairness Doctrine or net neutrality? The Fairness Doctrine has been dead
for quite a while. However, the FCC is now considering rules to insure
net neutrality.

What is net neutrality? Did you forget that you entered into a contract
with your ISP? If you don't like what one offers you can excercise your
right to choose a different ISP. Or, you can negotiate with your ISP to
provide you with better quality service.



The ISP really isn't the issue. They're a dime a dozen. The issue is the
broadband providers. There are just a few of those. They're mostly
backbones, such as MCI, Spring, UUNET...

MCI no longer exists, see Verizon.

Sprin(g)t no longer exists, see AT&T.

UUNET no longer exists, see Verizon.

Besides UUNet never owned the long lines, the had modems at the POPs.

The misnomer of public and private traffic on the Internet blurs the
fact that it was all privately owned.

Try again.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:56:22 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


Card check? No idea what you're talking about. You claimed net
neutrality was a censorship doctrine. It isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check


Hmm... well, I don't know enough about the issue to comment. If management
is doing a good job, seems to me you don't need a union. That was why they
formed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:10:48 -0400, Tosk wrote:


puleeeeaaseeee. He was and is a joke... Kinda' like calling the
pending
censorship doctrine, the "fairness" doctrine...

Fairness Doctrine or net neutrality? The Fairness Doctrine has been
dead
for quite a while. However, the FCC is now considering rules to
insure
net neutrality.

What is net neutrality? Did you forget that you entered into a contract
with your ISP? If you don't like what one offers you can excercise your
right to choose a different ISP. Or, you can negotiate with your ISP to
provide you with better quality service.



The ISP really isn't the issue. They're a dime a dozen. The issue is the
broadband providers. There are just a few of those. They're mostly
backbones, such as MCI, Spring, UUNET...

MCI no longer exists, see Verizon.

Sprin(g)t no longer exists, see AT&T.

UUNET no longer exists, see Verizon.

Besides UUNet never owned the long lines, the had modems at the POPs.

The misnomer of public and private traffic on the Internet blurs the
fact that it was all privately owned.

Try again.


Whatever... it's still the broadband providers not the ISP. Net neutrality
is about not censoring content. So, what point are you trying to make? The
previous poster seemed to think NN was a bad thing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:56:22 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


Card check? No idea what you're talking about. You claimed net
neutrality was a censorship doctrine. It isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check


Hmm... well, I don't know enough about the issue to comment. If management
is doing a good job, seems to me you don't need a union. That was why they
formed.

The union doesn't care if management is good or bad, the union is
looking for more members paying dues. With union membership dwindling
they are looking for more income and more muscle with which to lobby
Congress.

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:10:48 -0400, Tosk wrote:


puleeeeaaseeee. He was and is a joke... Kinda' like calling the
pending
censorship doctrine, the "fairness" doctrine...

Fairness Doctrine or net neutrality? The Fairness Doctrine has been
dead
for quite a while. However, the FCC is now considering rules to
insure
net neutrality.

What is net neutrality? Did you forget that you entered into a contract
with your ISP? If you don't like what one offers you can excercise your
right to choose a different ISP. Or, you can negotiate with your ISP to
provide you with better quality service.



The ISP really isn't the issue. They're a dime a dozen. The issue is the
broadband providers. There are just a few of those. They're mostly
backbones, such as MCI, Spring, UUNET...

MCI no longer exists, see Verizon.

Sprin(g)t no longer exists, see AT&T.

UUNET no longer exists, see Verizon.

Besides UUNet never owned the long lines, the had modems at the POPs.

The misnomer of public and private traffic on the Internet blurs the
fact that it was all privately owned.

Try again.


Whatever... it's still the broadband providers not the ISP. Net neutrality

Did you agree to terms and conditions when you obtained your Internet
connection? You entered into a private contract, at least in the US for
now. If you don't like the terms and conditions then don't pay for the
service.

Access to the Internet is not a right.

Buy a newspaper or a magazine.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:42:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:56:22 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


Card check? No idea what you're talking about. You claimed net
neutrality was a censorship doctrine. It isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check


Hmm... well, I don't know enough about the issue to comment. If management
is doing a good job, seems to me you don't need a union. That was why they
formed.

The union doesn't care if management is good or bad, the union is
looking for more members paying dues. With union membership dwindling
they are looking for more income and more muscle with which to lobby
Congress.

If workers feel like they're being treated fairly, there's no need for
a union to protect workers.

Doesn't this match well with you "free market" lovers?