"Net Neutrality" is democrat-speak for government control of the Internet.

[Anonymous]

"Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
Control".

The much vaunted Obama Net Neutrality is based on 1930's
telecommunications law. It's all "control". Read it.

""For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce
in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so
far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid,
efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio
communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable
charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the
purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by
centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several
agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to
interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication,
there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal
Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as
hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the
provisions of this Act.""

The Obama implementation is pure bullshit and vapor legislation,
just like most of his presiduncey.

"Net Neutrality" means compliance control by the government and
surrendering freedom of choice and freedom of purchase options.

In order to ensure "Net Neutrality" there would be a need for
massive bureaucratic quagmires and policy makers, auditors,
compliance officers, and more impowerment of the federal
government.

It's pure socialism and nothing else.

It has nothing to do with "Internet freedom", competition and
lower prices.

What it does mean is an oppressive AT&T type of environment
where they hand over your personal information to federal
agencies without search warrants.

[Alan Baker]

You're utterly high.

[Siri Cruise]

> > "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> > Control".

Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government which
is ultimately responsible to the people.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[chrisv]

Siri Cruise wrote:

>> some dizum coward wrote:
>>>
>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
>>> Control".

Shove your right-wing propaganda up your ass, coward.

>Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
>done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government which
>is ultimately responsible to the people.

One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
bribery of our public officials...

--
'once more : nearly all the OSS application SW which runs on Linux
runs on Windows too. And a lot more exists for Windows only. Which is
more freedom? less or more "free" SW?' - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 3:42:26 AM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > > "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> > > Control".
>
> Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government which
> is ultimately responsible to the people.

Not any longer.

Do you see what has been happening in the Congress?

Did you see the outright criminal acts performed by the Obama Justice Department?

Did you know that Congress is exempt from some laws that would jail you or me?

Do you wonder why a Congressional seat can be for life?

Lots and lots of abuses by OUR government.

The freaks in office, are taking with both hands for themselves and their friends and benefactors, at our expense.

And this is from the Congress, down to State, city, town and village government.

And Obama was going to give us hope and change. BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA.

[michae...@gmail.com]

Awwww..Shitstain Baker, the foreigner, doesn't agree with you.

Think IT's begging for your attention?

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 1:42 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
>>> Control".
>
> Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government which
> is ultimately responsible to the people.
>

"responsible to the people"???

Since WHEN?

Did you mean to say "responsive"?

No...that's not true either...

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 6:29 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> You can choose to have
>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government which
>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
> bribery of our public officials...

Ya think???

Let the Clinton Foundation run it, eh leftard?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p03qg7$iqt$2...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
wrote:

> On 12/4/2017 1:42 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> >>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> >>> Control".
> >
> > Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to
> > have
> > done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
> > which
> > is ultimately responsible to the people.
> >
>
> "responsible to the people"???
>
> Since WHEN?

I vote. When you don't, you're agreeing with me.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <92ja2dt4727ts5qan...@4ax.com>,

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> >> some dizum coward wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> >>> Control".
>
> Shove your right-wing propaganda up your ass, coward.
>
> >Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
> >done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
> >which
> >is ultimately responsible to the people.
>
> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
> bribery of our public officials...

Elect different legislators. Run for office yourself. Support investigative
journalism.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p03qi2$iqt$2...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
wrote:

That's not part of the government. Move network rule making out of government,
and it can end up in the Clinton Foundation. Or Google. Or ATT. Or GNU. Or
Comcast....

Which do you think you would have more influence over?

[Chris Ahlstrom]

jigglin' jackalope wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Nah, they proved they can't maintain a secure server, eh trolltard?

--
Q: What's the difference between the 1950's and the 1980's?
A: In the 80's, a man walks into a drugstore and states loudly, "I'd
like some condoms," and then, leaning over the counter, whispers,
"and some cigarettes."

[chrisv]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> chrisv wrote:

>>
>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>
>>>Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
>>>done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
>>>which
>>>is ultimately responsible to the people.
>>
>> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
>> bribery of our public officials...
>
>Elect different legislators. Run for office yourself. Support investigative
>journalism.

The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.

--
"Trump is a freemason... the same as our founding fathers. Are you
trying to say that our founding fathers are bad?" - some stupid POS
that calls itself "GreyCloud"

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
> The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.

That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p056tf$ig6$1...@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,

Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

> On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
> > The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>
> That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.

Every voter in the same constituency has an equal vote on a secret ballot. It's
up to voters to make smart votes. Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
influence them.

[chrisv]

Grant Taylor wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>
>That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.

No shit.

--
"It has been shown time and time again that consumers dont want/need
Linux." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[chrisv]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> > The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.
>
>Every voter in the same constituency has an equal vote on a secret ballot. It's
>up to voters to make smart votes. Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
>influence them.

For starters, look up "gerrymandering".

Most people underestimate how filthy, and selfish, most politicians
are. Even if they are decent and selfless, they are, generally,
forced to hew the party line.

--
"Oh, look: a claim from chrisv that there's only 500 supercomputers
in the world." - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

[Lauer's Sex Toy World]

On 12/4/2017 10:42 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
> influence them.

http://heavy.com/news/2012/10/democrats-in-arkansas-tried-to-buy-votes-with-booze/

Have an apathetic electorate? One solution, VODKA FOR VOTES! The plan
was to influence and an election in eastern Arkansas by having the
voters, well, under the influence. The former Democratic Rep. Hudson
Hallum who’s awaiting sentencing in the scandal, said today:

I guess I always knew all along it was wrong, but I really didn’t think
it was that big a deal, I always heard … that’s what everybody did.”

Hallum, along with three other members of his staff, pleaded guilty on
federal charges of conspiracy to commit election during the election
that put him in office in 2011. In total, nine members of the local
Democratic party have been charged in relation to the scheme.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09/02/fbi-nabs-texas-democrats-accused-of-using-cocaine-to-buy-votes-142843

The FBI is accusing Texas Democrats of using cocaine to buy votes and
it’s all coming out in court.

Political chicanery and vote-buying in Texas are as old as the state
itself, and the latest episode to come to light features purchasing
votes with cocaine, marijuana, money, cigarettes and beer, an on-going
FBI investigationhas uncovered.

Veronica Saldivar and Belinda Solis, known as politiqueras, paid
campaign workers, were each given $25 worth of cocaine, the campaign
manager admitted, and told to buy votes with them. Their bond was set at
$10,000 and if convicted, each could face five years in prison and a
$10,000 fine.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 10:01 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <p03qi2$iqt$2...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2017 6:29 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> You can choose to have
>>>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
>>>> which
>>>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
>>> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
>>> bribery of our public officials...
>>
>> Ya think???
>>
>> Let the Clinton Foundation run it, eh leftard?
>
> That's not part of the government.

May as well have been.

> Move network rule making out of government,
> and it can end up in the Clinton Foundation. Or Google. Or ATT. Or GNU. Or
> Comcast....

Brilliant - corporate governance, how statist of you...

> Which do you think you would have more influence over?

None of the above!

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 9:57 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <92ja2dt4727ts5qan...@4ax.com>,
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>
>>>> some dizum coward wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
>>>>> Control".
>>
>> Shove your right-wing propaganda up your ass, coward.
>>
>>> Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
>>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
>>> which
>>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
>>
>> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
>> bribery of our public officials...
>
> Elect different legislators. Run for office yourself. Support investigative
> journalism.
>

Support fake news?

Why?

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 9:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <p03qg7$iqt$2...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2017 1:42 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
>>>>> Control".
>>>
>>> Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to
>>> have
>>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
>>> which
>>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
>>>
>>
>> "responsible to the people"???
>>
>> Since WHEN?
>
> I vote.

So???

> When you don't, you're agreeing with me.

I don't live in your state or locality, what you vote there is nothing I
can agree or not agree with.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to have
>>>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
>>>> which
>>>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
>>>
>>> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
>>> bribery of our public officials...
>>
>> Elect different legislators. Run for office yourself. Support investigative
>> journalism.
>
> The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>

money talks.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/4/2017 9:19 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>
> That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.
>
>
>

Why would it be regardless?

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/5/2017 6:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>> Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.
>>
>> Every voter in the same constituency has an equal vote on a secret ballot. It's
>> up to voters to make smart votes. Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
>> influence them.
>
> For starters, look up "gerrymandering".
>
> Most people underestimate how filthy, and selfish, most politicians
> are. Even if they are decent and selfless, they are, generally,
> forced to hew the party line.
>

Yep.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p06i07$jbf$5...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
wrote:

Don't listen.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p06hto$jbf$3...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
wrote:

> Support fake news?

One of those I see.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/5/2017 9:47 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <p06i07$jbf$5...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess what. Someone sets the rules and enforces them. You can choose to
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the
>>>>>> government
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
>>>>> bribery of our public officials...
>>>>
>>>> Elect different legislators. Run for office yourself. Support
>>>> investigative
>>>> journalism.
>>>
>>> The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>>>
>> money talks.
>
> Don't listen.
>

I'm not a corrupted pol.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/5/2017 9:48 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <p06hto$jbf$3...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
> wrote:
>
>> Support fake news?
>
> One of those I see.
>

I see a lot of fake news too.

Like on ABC:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/brian-ross-suspended-abc.html

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> Control".

Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an attempt
to manage and control. :)


--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/5/2017 10:03 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer.  What it really means is "Net
>> Control".
>
> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an attempt
> to manage and control. :)
>
>

Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!

[Wolf K]

Without the State, you'd be dead. Because, as one of the first political
scientists pointed out, "The natural state of man is to live lives that
are nasty, brutish, and short."

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"Wanted. Schrödinger’s Cat. Dead and Alive."

[Chris Ahlstrom]

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>> Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> > The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.
>>
>>Every voter in the same constituency has an equal vote on a secret ballot. It's
>>up to voters to make smart votes. Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
>>influence them.
>
> For starters, look up "gerrymandering".

REDMAP
REDMAP
REDMAP

> Most people underestimate how filthy, and selfish, most politicians
> are. Even if they are decent and selfless, they are, generally,
> forced to hew the party line.

There's something about politics that attracts narcissists, and turns
regular people into the thing we despise.

--
You have a reputation for being thoroughly reliable and trustworthy.
A pity that it's totally undeserved.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Lauer's Sex Toy World wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 12/4/2017 10:42 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
>> influence them.
>
> http://heavy.com/news/2012/10/democrats-in-arkansas-tried-to-buy-votes-with-booze/
>
> Have an apathetic electorate? One solution, VODKA FOR VOTES! The plan
> was to influence and an election in eastern Arkansas by having the
> voters, well, under the influence. The former Democratic Rep. Hudson
> Hallum who’s awaiting sentencing in the scandal, said today:

They stole the idea from Chicago. Skim through Mike Royko's book,
"BOSS".

--
Love is in the offing. Be affectionate to one who adores you.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 12/6/2017 3:06 AM, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>
>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an attempt
>> to manage and control. :)
>
> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!

Have you ever heard of "positive non-intervention"? :)

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/5/2017 1:26 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2017-12-05 14:06, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>> On 12/5/2017 10:03 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer.  What it really means is "Net
>>>> Control".
>>>
>>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an
>>> attempt to manage and control. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!
>
> Without the State, you'd be dead.

With the state I'll still be dead.

And U 2!

> Because, as one of the first political
> scientists pointed out, "The natural state of man is to live lives that
> are nasty, brutish, and short."

The state changed no human nature.

Just look at the Clintons!

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/5/2017 4:09 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Most people underestimate how filthy, and selfish, most politicians
>> are. Even if they are decent and selfless, they are, generally,
>> forced to hew the party line.
> There's something about politics that attracts narcissists, and turns
> regular people into the thing we despise.
>
> --

It's called...control!

[Lauer's Sex Toy World]

Excellent citation.

He used to refer to booze as "skull knock"...lol...

Now we know why Chi-can't-go is such a drunken murderous mess.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/6/2017 9:35 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 12/6/2017 3:06 AM, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>>
>>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an attempt
>>> to manage and control. :)
>>
>> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!
>
> Have you ever heard of "positive non-intervention"? :)
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_non-interventionism

Positive non-interventionism was the economic policy of Hong Kong; this
policy can be traced back to the time when Hong Kong was under British
rule. It was first officially implemented in 1971 by Financial Secretary
of Hong Kong John Cowperthwaite, who observed that the economy was doing
well in the absence of government intervention but it was important to
create the regulatory and physical infrastructure to facilitate
market-based decision making. The policy was continued by subsequent
Financial Secretaries, including Sir Philip Haddon-Cave. Economist
Milton Friedman has cited it as a fairly comprehensive implementation of
laissez-faire policy, although Haddon-Cave has stated that the
description of Hong Kong as a laissez-faire society was "frequent but
inadequate".[1]

First-hand explanation[edit]
According to Cowperthwaite:

In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen,
exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often
mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a
government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.[2]

According to Haddon-Cave:

positive non-interventionism involves taking the view that it is
normally futile and damaging to the growth rate of an economy,
particularly an open economy, for the Government to attempt to plan the
allocation of resources available to the private sector and to frustrate
the operation of market forces

Haddon-Cave goes on to say that the "positive" part means the government
carefully considers each possible intervention to determine "where the
advantage" lies, and, although usually it will come to the conclusion
that the intervention is harmful, sometimes it will decide to intervene.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1rKmZ0xLKw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnjWxP93i-A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbjNg2U8m8k


Does not look positive or non-interventionist.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

jigglin' jackalope wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 12/5/2017 1:26 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 2017-12-05 14:06, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>> On 12/5/2017 10:03 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>> On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer.  What it really means is "Net
>>>>> Control".
>>>>
>>>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an
>>>> attempt to manage and control. :)
>>>
>>> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!
>>
>> Without the State, you'd be dead.
>
> With the state I'll still be dead.
>
> And U 2!

He means you'd be dead a lot quicker.

>> Because, as one of the first political
>> scientists pointed out, "The natural state of man is to live lives that
>> are nasty, brutish, and short."
>
> The state changed no human nature.
>
> Just look at the Clintons!

Just look at the Trumps!

--
Try to get all of your posthumous medals in advance.

[Bob F]

http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/what-net-neutrality-means-for-you/

[Bob F]

On 12/6/2017 2:51 PM, Bob F wrote:
> http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/what-net-neutrality-means-for-you/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/05/what-the-repeal-of-net-neutrality-will-mean-for-the-average-internet-user/#625805b02be1

[Wolf K]

Melania even launched a suit against the Daily Mail:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/melania-trump-refiles-150-million-libel-lawsuit-daily-mail
(and many other reports. If you doubt it, go looking for the court
records, they're public documents).

It seems that Melania feels that the "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to
make millions derives from her husband's political success, but could be
compromised if people get sniffy about her pre-Trump career.

Profiting from politics is as old as the Republic. Some cynics have
argued that "representative government" was deliberately chosen over
"responsible government" to give lunching at the public trough a veneer
of legitimacy. In any case, separating the head of government (the
executive) from the legislature guaranteed that neither have any
responsibility to the people.

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."

[Doomsdrzej]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:51:32 -0800, Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/what-net-neutrality-means-for-you/

Mostly bullshit. Liberals and their rags, like Fortune, love to scare
the masses into going with their agenda but the reality is that
companies will likely offer more rather than less and for a _better_
price than they do know. When you allow a market to decide for itself,
it means that customers will choose the service which offers them a
better service for less money. If one decides that it wants to close
certain services to the user unless they pay more, the customer has
the right to cancel his subscription and go with the service that
offers him unrestricted access at no additional cost. Regardless of
what one believes, there is _always_ an alternative unless you live in
a rural community where getting an Internet service in general is
difficult.

Slower speeds? Bullshit. The only way this could happen is if all
service colluded together to do such a thing which cannot legally
happen anyway. They will all compete to provide the best service and
that includes competing on the speed offered.

Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
service for LESS and undercut everyone else.

What they don't mention is that WITH net neutrality, there should be
no one "authority" controlling the information. Meanwhile, the United
Nations is currently doing so and allowing companies like Google to
censor whatever they want if it contradicts their narrative.
Neutrality means that _no one_ controls the Internet, not that the
corrupt UN does.

It's funny that they mention Canada as having net neutrality as if we
essentially have better products here. In reality, not only do
Canadians pay more, they do so for slower speeds. That extends to cell
phone service as well.

Do the right thing and boycott all liberal media from your lives. All
they EVER do is lie.

[Mayayana]

"Doomsdrzej" <d...@do.om> wrote

| Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
| service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
|

What competition? I have a service I like. My
other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid.
I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for
highspeed Internet. Some have none. My brother
in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only
option was dish, which failed on cloudy days.

Even with competition, this is a classic case
of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and
a Walgreens in your town you could say there's
competition, but they're both national chains,
carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty
much the same prices. There's a difference
between competition and collusion. The latter
is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate,
illegal price fixing, but the result is the same.

The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
That the people renting you the wire should only
be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
online that's a separate issue.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/6/2017 2:05 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> jigglin' jackalope wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 12/5/2017 1:26 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-05 14:06, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>>> On 12/5/2017 10:03 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer.  What it really means is "Net
>>>>>> Control".
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an
>>>>> attempt to manage and control. :)
>>>>
>>>> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!
>>>
>>> Without the State, you'd be dead.
>>
>> With the state I'll still be dead.
>>
>> And U 2!
>
> He means you'd be dead a lot quicker.

Quicker than WHO?

You?

>>> Because, as one of the first political
>>> scientists pointed out, "The natural state of man is to live lives that
>>> are nasty, brutish, and short."
>>
>> The state changed no human nature.
>>
>> Just look at the Clintons!
>
> Just look at the Trumps!
>

I have - solid family there.

No Foundation SCAM to enrich their tainted young.

[jigglin' jackalope]

GOOD for HER!

[jigglin' jackalope]

AMEN!!!!!

[Wolf K]

On 2017-12-07 10:24, Doomsdrzej wrote:
[...]

> Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
> service for LESS and undercut everyone else.

[...]

Competition always results in the concentration of economic power, which
results in the elimination of competition, unless the government uses
its power to prevent concentration of economic power.

"In a monetised economy, my spending is your income, and your spending
is my income. Everything else is psychology." That includes
superstitions and ideologies, both of which damage economic functioning
because basing economic choices on them will not produce the
expected/desired results.

The most pernicious economic superstition is that money is wealth. All
ideologies are wrong about government intervention.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/7/2017 9:26 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> All ideologies are wrong about government intervention.

That is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing a Cuntnadian has said this
week...maybe...

[Wolf K]

On 2017-12-07 10:24, Doomsdrzej wrote:
[...]

> It's funny that they mention Canada as having net neutrality as if we
> essentially have better products here. In reality, not only do
> Canadians pay more, they do so for slower speeds. That extends to cell
> phone service as well.

[...]

Canada does not have net neutrality. Read all the 'orrible details here
(well, most of them):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Canada

The CRTC has tried to tweak the rules so as to prevent the most
egregious effects of private 'net control, but I would rate their
attempts as failures.

The biggies are Bell, Rogers, and Telus. For some strange reason, they
all offer the same crappy services at the same extortionate rates. The
also have very, very effective lobbyists at all levels of government.
There are dozens of small and medium-sized players, all trying
desperately to make a dent, but by and large that's been a failure, too.

[chrisv]

Mayayana wrote:

> "Slimer" wrote

>
>| Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
>| service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
>|
>
> What competition? I have a service I like. My
>other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid.
>I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for
>highspeed Internet.

Exactly. Slime's right-wing propaganda is failing him, again.

>Some have none. My brother
>in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only
>option was dish, which failed on cloudy days.
>
> Even with competition, this is a classic case
>of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and
>a Walgreens in your town you could say there's
>competition, but they're both national chains,
>carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty
>much the same prices. There's a difference
>between competition and collusion. The latter
>is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate,
>illegal price fixing, but the result is the same.
>
> The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
>to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
>the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
>That the people renting you the wire should only
>be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
>If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
>online that's a separate issue.

Good post!

--
"COLA losers like chrisv detest success of any kind. It's as simple
as that." - Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[Wolf K]

I see you are a an exceptionally well-versed student of politics.

[Paul]

Wolf K wrote:

> There are dozens of small and medium-sized players, all trying
> desperately to make a dent, but by and large that's been a failure, too.

I don't agree with that. I'm using a reseller
and am happy with what I got.

Let's compare and contrast.

Bell Offerings (I won't bother with the astronomy class ones)

3Mbps/0.68Mbps (ADSL eqpt needed) 20GB monthly cap $30

25Mbps/10Mbps (VDSL eqpt needed) 350GB monthly cap $75

Reseller plans - I threw in the $52 top plan for contrast.

15Mbps/1Mbps (ADSL eqpt)
15Mbps/10Mbps (VDSL eqpt, maybe ~$2 per month more)

200GB monthly cap $30.95 (+$5 for dry loop)
400GB monthly cap $35.95
Unlimited $40.95

Unlimited Usage between 2am and 8am

50Mbps/10Mbps (VDSL eqpt) Unlimited BW $52

Now one person using my plan, put his movie downloads
on automation, and only downloaded movies between 2am
and 8am. He was able to download 1TB of material
in a one month billing cycle, using a cheap plan,
all because of the unlimited usage in the wee hours.
So 15Mbps times six hours a night, all month, gets
close to 1TB.

You can see a slight improvement in pricing there.

The top plan of the reseller (50Mbps Unlimited), is
still cheaper than the $75 plan.

Even if a 15Mbps plan isn't all that fast, it's
still a pretty good deal. The same reseller, also
has cable (DOCSYS) options (if you're already a cable
TV customer, that might be a more attractive option).

Bell will also have triple-play plans, which will
attract some people (IPTV,data,phone). The reseller
doesn't have any TV option that I know of. It would
probably be too hard to negotiate with weasels,
for the IPTV media rights.

Paul

[Doomsdrzej]

I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.

[Doomsdrzej]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:26:50 -0500, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>On 2017-12-07 10:24, Doomsdrzej wrote:
>[...]
>> Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
>> service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
>[...]
>
>Competition always results in the concentration of economic power, which
>results in the elimination of competition, unless the government uses
>its power to prevent concentration of economic power.

Did I say otherwise? I can't help but notice that you snipped what I
wrote in a vain effort to hide the fact that I mentioned the
illegality of any kind of concentration of power.

>"In a monetised economy, my spending is your income, and your spending
>is my income. Everything else is psychology." That includes
>superstitions and ideologies, both of which damage economic functioning
>because basing economic choices on them will not produce the
>expected/desired results.
>
>The most pernicious economic superstition is that money is wealth. All
>ideologies are wrong about government intervention.

...

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/7/2017 9:45 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2017-12-07 11:39, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>> On 12/7/2017 9:26 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> All ideologies are wrong about government intervention.
>>
>> That is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing a Cuntnadian has said this
>> week...maybe...
>
> I see you are a an exceptionally well-versed student of politics.
>

The qualifier of "all" is an immediate kick out.

[Wolf K]

On 2017-12-07 12:10, Doomsdrzej wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:26:50 -0500, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-07 10:24, Doomsdrzej wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
>>> service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
>> [...]
>>
>> Competition always results in the concentration of economic power, which
>> results in the elimination of competition, unless the government uses
>> its power to prevent concentration of economic power.
>
> Did I say otherwise? I can't help but notice that you snipped what I
> wrote in a vain effort to hide the fact that I mentioned the
> illegality of any kind of concentration of power.

So how will you prevent it, since you apparently have some kind of
animus against "government control"? To counteract private concentration
of power requires a pretty powerful government. Which by your argument
would make the government illegal. But enforcing sanctions against
illegal actions is one of the two primary functions of government. So by
being powerful enough to do fulfill that function, it would have to
illegally concentrate power for itself.

See, that's the problem with reality. It ain't logical.

Read Machiavelli. He's the first, and IMO still the best, political
scientist.

>> "In a monetised economy, my spending is your income, and your spending
>> is my income. Everything else is psychology." That includes
>> superstitions and ideologies, both of which damage economic functioning
>> because basing economic choices on them will not produce the
>> expected/desired results.
>>
>> The most pernicious economic superstition is that money is wealth. All
>> ideologies are wrong about government intervention.
>
> ...
>

[Wolf K]

I'm somewhat surprised at your comment. Obviously, we don't have the
same concept of "ideology"? What do you think the word means?

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/7/2017 2:08 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2017-12-07 13:57, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>> On 12/7/2017 9:45 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-07 11:39, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2017 9:26 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>>>> All ideologies are wrong about government intervention.
>>>>
>>>> That is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing a Cuntnadian has said
>>>> this week...maybe...
>>>
>>> I see you are a an exceptionally well-versed student of politics.
>>>
>> The qualifier of "all" is an immediate kick out.
>
> I'm somewhat surprised at your comment.

Why?

> Obviously, we don't have the
> same concept of "ideology"?

I do not reject "all ideologies" regarding government control.

> What do you think the word means?

All means the entire spectrum of ideologies, even yours.

I tend to a more libertarian view of government control.

[Wolf K]

You still haven't said what you mean by an ideology. What I mean is a
belief system that describes how the world should work, not how it
actually works. The more rigidly held, the less likely that the
ideologue will adapt to reality. Quite the opposite: Ideologues tend to
try to make the world fit their ideology, which always leads to
totalitarianism, and often to bloodshed.

I know X is an ideologue when they explicitly or implicitly counsel
murder of their opponents.

The ideologies of the left and the right meet in totalitarian dictatorships.

Fundamentalist religions are also ideologies.

A good study of ideology is The True Believer (Erich Hoffer) See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

I've come across quite a few Libertarian ideologues. They are marked by
a strange blindness to psychology, made even stranger by the fact that
they are generally above average in intelligence.

[Bob F]

On 12/7/2017 9:08 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:

> I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
> that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
> organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
> the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
>

LOL!

[Mayayana]

"Doomsdrzej" <d...@do.om> wrote

| > The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
| >to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
| >the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
| >That the people renting you the wire should only
| >be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
| >If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
| >online that's a separate issue.
|
| I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.

Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
a record of that.

Google and Facebook... Yes, they control a lot.
But only if you let them. You don't have to use
either site. I've never used FB. I block their spyware
bugs on websites. And I rarely use Google. I also
block their spyware bugs.

Net neutrality allows you to decide where you can
go online. Without it, you might have Internet service
from, say, Comcast, and they might contract with
Google for search. Comcast would then sell you out
to Google for datamining in exchange for a fee. And
you'd have no say in the matter.

Google is doing something like that now. They pay
Apple alone $3B/year for default search status on
iDevices:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html

They pay Mozilla for the same thing on Firefox. I've
seen estimates that Google may be spending as much
as $19B/year for such payoffs! To make sure you never
get around to trying another search engine and to make
sure they can spy on all your activities. But there's
still one big difference: You don't have to use any of
those Google plants. You can change your default search
engine, or have no default. (Personally I disable auto-
search altogether in the browser and just visit duckduckgo.)
Without Net neutrality there's a very good chance that
you'll lose that choice, for the simple reason that your
ISP can make money that way.

[Ara]

In article <p0bpmu$2rm$4...@news.mixmin.net>

jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill> wrote:
>
> > Do the right thing and boycott all liberal media from your lives. All
> > they EVER do is lie.
> >
>
> AMEN!!!!!

Troll.

[Doomsdrzej]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:57:17 -0500, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Doomsdrzej" <d...@do.om> wrote
>
>| > The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
>| >to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
>| >the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
>| >That the people renting you the wire should only
>| >be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
>| >If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
>| >online that's a separate issue.
>|
>| I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
>| that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
>| organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
>| the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
>than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
>of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
>a record of that.

I did and there are.
<http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet>

Ignoring the rest of your post.

[Mayayana]

"Doomsdrzej" <d...@do.om> wrote

| >| I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| >| that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| >| organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| >| the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
| >
| > Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| >than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| >of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| >a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
<http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet>
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.

| Ignoring the rest of your post.

Any reason for that? You don't like new information?
You don't like your beliefs complicated by details? The rest
of my post was just explaining the details of how you
can protect your privacy and freedom online. You said
that was what you were interested in. You're afraid
you'll lose your freedom to Google and Facebook. I'm
telling you how not to let that happen.

So it seems you actually don't care about online
freedom. What do you care about? The luscious pleasure
of righteous indignation? Watch out. The people telling
you what to be mad about are not trying to help.
They're just plutocrats who put greed before humanity.
They know that they need to inflame popular opinion
with one hand if they want to get away with stealing
your money with the other hand. You're being played.

I suppose you haven't actually looked at the current
tax bill either. But you're probably for it, right? You
want the gov't to stop wasting money to do things
like helping paraplegics with medicaid and providing
health care to the elderly who've paid for that healthcare
through SS taxes? Did you know that's exactly what Paul
Ryan says he wants to cut once he cuts taxes for the
rich? Read the paper. Read your own right-wing media.
People like Ryan are not even hiding their lies. They
know they can just throw out trigger phrases like "fake
news", "liberal media", and "government waste", and
millions of people will believe whatever follows.

[Wolf K]

It appears that Doomsday is one of those people who have great skill and
knowledge in some things, as shown by his useful _technical_ posts. It's
when he goes outside that domain that his analytical powers desert him.

[chrisv]

Mayayana wrote:

> Doomsdrzej (AKA "Slimer") wrote:
>>
>> Ignoring the rest of your post.
>
> Any reason for that? You don't like new information?
> You don't like your beliefs complicated by details?

Have you ever known a right-wing propagandist wanting to hear the
unbiased truth? He kill-files people for the "crime" of being
"liberal".

--
"I hate practising Muslims." - "Slimer"

[Mayayana]

"Wolf K" <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote

|
| It appears that Doomsday is one of those people who have great skill and
| knowledge in some things, as shown by his useful _technical_ posts. It's
| when he goes outside that domain that his analytical powers desert him.
|

I figured it's useful to air out this topic since
it came up. Net neutrality is a critical issue and
few people seem to understand it. Though I'm
not sure any explanations will get past the
disinformation from the Rush Limbaughs of the
world. I'm only hoping that the discussion might
inform a few people who didn't know about the
issue at all.

[Doomsdrzej]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Doomsdrzej" <d...@do.om> wrote
>
>| >| I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
>| >| that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
>| >| organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
>| >| the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
>| >
>| > Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
>| >than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
>| >of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
>| >a record of that.
>|
>| I did and there are.
>|
><http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet>
>|
>
> Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
>is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
>book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
>not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
>over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
>*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
>block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
>to give them control.

I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED
gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the
Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily
Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely
removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than
something like 164.68.32.1.

Ignoring the rest of your posrt again.

[Mayayana]

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| > Any reason for that? You don't like new information?
| > You don't like your beliefs complicated by details?
|
| Have you ever known a right-wing propagandist wanting to hear the
| unbiased truth? He kill-files people for the "crime" of being
| "liberal".
|

I figured everyone deserves respectful discussion.
And I have a lot of sympathy for some right-wing
issues. But in general I post with the view that it's
a group discussion that will live online. Some things
are worth trying to clarify. Some posts are just
convenient excuses to do that. For example, there's
a compulsive arguer in the Mac and photo groups
who spews derision and misinformation. But he provides
wonderful opportunities to set the record straight
on a variety of topics that he can't help arguing about. :)

[Wolf K]

And abolishing net neutrality will change this? How?

Actually, the Daily Stormer's website is easily accessible, if you know how.

Its use of "education of the masses" is a giveaway. It's a favourite
phrase of totalitarian ideologues, whether of the right or the left. I
don't know if it was coined by Lenin, but he liked to use it, as did
Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others. "The masses" are us ordinary
people who are apparently too stupid to understand the Truth. If the
purveyors of the Truth get hold of government, they attempt to "educate
the masses". These attempts always result in violence, and usually in
murder. See Pol Pot for the most recent example.

> Ignoring the rest of your post again.

In case it contain facts your knwo, deep down, you can't ignore.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/7/2017 7:02 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2017-12-07 19:00, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>> On 12/7/2017 2:08 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-07 13:57, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2017 9:45 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-12-07 11:39, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2017 9:26 AM, Wolf K wrote:
>>>>>>> All ideologies are wrong about government intervention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing a Cuntnadian has said
>>>>>> this week...maybe...
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you are a an exceptionally well-versed student of politics.
>>>>>
>>>> The qualifier of "all" is an immediate kick out.
>>>
>>> I'm somewhat surprised at your comment.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> Obviously, we don't have the same concept of "ideology"?
>>
>> I do not reject "all ideologies" regarding government control.
>>
>>> What do you think the word means?
>>
>> All means the entire spectrum of ideologies, even yours.
>>
>> I tend to a more libertarian view of government control.
>
> You still haven't said what you mean by an ideology.

Not really my definitive to parse - as that was YOUR statement.

> What I mean is a
> belief system that describes how the world should work, not how it
> actually works.

Can we go to a standard definition?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology

a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual,
group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a
sociopolitical program

> The more rigidly held, the less likely that the
> ideologue will adapt to reality. Quite the opposite: Ideologues tend to
> try to make the world fit their ideology, which always leads to
> totalitarianism, and often to bloodshed.

This is indelibly true.

> I know X is an ideologue when they explicitly or implicitly counsel
> murder of their opponents.

Yes.

> The ideologies of the left and the right meet in totalitarian
> dictatorships.

They can and oft time do, but need not.

> Fundamentalist religions are also ideologies.

Of course.

> A good study of ideology is The True Believer (Erich Hoffer) See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

A favorite of mine too!

> I've come across quite a few Libertarian ideologues. They are marked by
> a strange blindness to psychology, made even stranger by the fact that
> they are generally above average in intelligence.

Yes, sadly libertarianism depends on the least likely of human qualities
- benign non-interventionism.

And that generally leads to excesses of behavior which may promote or
lead to fascism as a palliative outcome.

Does that jibe with your thinking more closely?

[Alan Baker]

As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech".

No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his
or her speech.

[Doomsdrzej]

It's not that I killfile liberal posts for "the crime of being
liberal," I do no such thing. However, I do tend to ignore people who
think that rags like the Washington Post, ABC News, MSNBC and CNN have
any credibility left. I used to have _some_ sympathy for liberals
which can be proven by the fact that on a political spectrum, I'm dead
centre (according to a multitude of tests), but I have lost all desire
to communicate with people who spew stupid shit like "Russian
collusion" or "Obama was responsible for the current economic boom" or
"net neutrality is a good thing." I don't want to argue with such
clueless imbeciles who end up citing some liberal Jew who works for
any of the aforementioned rags as "proof" that any of those three
statements is accurate.

[Doomsdrzej]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:00:18 -0500, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

It is with Tor or now as a result of the fact that Anglin keeps
finding ways to get a domain name despite the UN and its numbskulls'
best efforts.

[Doomsdrzej]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:17:57 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

How are the UN and the domain name providers _helping_ him spread his
message by accepting his money for a product or service? If a black
baker prepared a cake for a KKK member, would he be aiding the KKK
member in spreading his message?

Stop being an idiot, Baked Anus.

[Alan Baker]

The UN is not involved in even the slightest way. Until you can
acknowledge that truth, you're just a kook.

If a baker of any colour was asked to bake a cake and put a message on
it that he or she found offensive, he or she would be free to decline.

You have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not ever compel anyone
else to help you disseminate that speech. When you pay someone to be
your DNS provider, they are free to decide if they want your custom or not.

[Wolf K]

On 2017-12-08 11:16, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>
> Does that jibe with your thinking more closely?

Yes

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/8/2017 1:38 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2017-12-08 11:16, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>
>> Does that jibe with your thinking more closely?
>
> Yes
>

Fair enough then, thanks for listening.

[mo...@microsoft.com]

On 07 Dec 2017, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca> posted some
news:o5cWB.7097$JM4....@fx07.iad:

> On 2017-12-06 16:05, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> jigglin' jackalope wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>> royalties:
>>
>>> On 12/5/2017 1:26 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>>>> On 2017-12-05 14:06, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
>>>>> On 12/5/2017 10:03 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer.  What it really means is "Net
>>>>>>> Control".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an
>>>>>> attempt to manage and control. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!
>>>>
>>>> Without the State, you'd be dead.
>>>
>>> With the state I'll still be dead.
>>>
>>> And U 2!
>>
>> He means you'd be dead a lot quicker.
>>
>>>> Because, as one of the first political
>>>> scientists pointed out, "The natural state of man is to live lives
>>>> that are nasty, brutish, and short."
>>>
>>> The state changed no human nature.
>>>
>>> Just look at the Clintons!
>>
>> Just look at the Trumps!
>
> Melania even launched a suit against the Daily Mail:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/melania-trump-refiles-1
> 50-million-libel-lawsuit-daily-mail (and many other reports. If you
> doubt it, go looking for the court records, they're public documents).
>
> It seems that Melania feels that the "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity
> to make millions derives from her husband's political success, but
> could be compromised if people get sniffy about her pre-Trump career.

That's not why she filed and you know it.

You want to explain Nancy Pelosi's astronomical rise in personal wealth to
multi-million$$$ on a government salary of $174,000 a year?

How about Maxine Waters? Same circumstance.

The Trumps were already rich. They didn't need to engage in leftwing
style chicanery to get more money on the cheap.

He's donating his presidential paycheck to charity.

I didn't see Obama doing that.

I did See Anthony Weiner going to jail and Ed Murrary step down for
sucking on black boy dicks.

You lefties might want to check yourselves before you start throwing
stones.

Look at what dummyrat brainiacs started when they went after Roy Moore.

It's going to cost them way more long term. See ya Al Franken.

> Profiting from politics is as old as the Republic. Some cynics have
> argued that "representative government" was deliberately chosen over
> "responsible government" to give lunching at the public trough a
> veneer of legitimacy. In any case, separating the head of government
> (the executive) from the legislature guaranteed that neither have any
> responsibility to the people.

In particular democrats who seem to feel the law is for everyone else to
follow, but not for them.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <j36d2d1c3bfqps5fn...@4ax.com>
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> > Grant Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/04/2017 11:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
> >> > The deck is *heavily* stacked in favor of the incumbents.
> >>
> >> That doesn't mean that it is correct or what's best for the masses.
> >
> >Every voter in the same constituency has an equal vote on a secret ballot. It's
> >up to voters to make smart votes. Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
> >influence them.
>
> For starters, look up "gerrymandering".
>
> Most people underestimate how filthy, and selfish, most politicians
> are. Even if they are decent and selfless, they are, generally,
> forced to hew the party line.

See Hillary Clinton drones.

> --
> "Oh, look: a claim from chrisv that there's only 500 supercomputers
> in the world." - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <p06hoo$jbf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
Lauer's Sex Toy World <I.sc...@em.all> wrote:

>
> On 12/4/2017 10:42 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > Nothing forces a voter; they choose what will
> > influence them.
>

> http://heavy.com/news/2012/10/democrats-in-arkansas-tried-to-buy-votes-with-booze/
>
> Have an apathetic electorate? One solution, VODKA FOR VOTES! The plan
> was to influence and an election in eastern Arkansas by having the
> voters, well, under the influence. The former Democratic Rep. Hudson
> Hallum who’s awaiting sentencing in the scandal, said today:
>
> I guess I always knew all along it was wrong, but I really didn’t think
> it was that big a deal, I always heard … that’s what everybody did.”
>
> Hallum, along with three other members of his staff, pleaded guilty on
> federal charges of conspiracy to commit election during the election
> that put him in office in 2011. In total, nine members of the local
> Democratic party have been charged in relation to the scheme.
>
> http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09/02/fbi-nabs-texas-democrats-accused-of-using-cocaine-to-buy-votes-142843
>
> The FBI is accusing Texas Democrats of using cocaine to buy votes and
> it’s all coming out in court.
>
> Political chicanery and vote-buying in Texas are as old as the state
> itself, and the latest episode to come to light features purchasing
> votes with cocaine, marijuana, money, cigarettes and beer, an on-going
> FBI investigationhas uncovered.

Oh? Just Texas?

A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign
workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with
packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could
pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.

Alderwoman Leslie Hairston, whose Fifth Ward covered Chicago’s
South Shore and Hyde Park neighborhoods, was a good machine
politician. Though she herself was not up for reelection, she
too worried about turnout. To encourage voters, she offered
residents in her ward a chance to participate in a raffle for
gift cards from Walgreens, Starbucks, Potbelly, and other
places. Raffle “tickets” would be given out free to anyone who
voted in November. Hairston posted the raffle offer on Facebook
and other social media.

Illinois’s tight laws don’t seem to reduce reports of fraud any
more than in Louisiana, New York, and other states where elected
officials face jail time for abusing the public trust. Quinn,
who lost his reelection bid, became the fourth consecutive
governor to face a federal investigation for corruption.

A political scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago
concluded, “The Chicago metropolitan region has been the most
corrupt area in the country since 1976,” in an obdurate race to
the bottom with Louisiana’s record. According to that 2012
study, Illinois is the third-most corrupt state in the union,
after New York and California.

In addition, four consecutive corrupt governors and nearly one-
third of Chicago’s one hundred alderpersons since 1973 have been
convicted of corruption, mostly involving bribes to influence
government decisions or for personal financial benefit. Yet
corruption is not a one-party party: the Republicans dominating
the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Mississippi have
had the highest number of corruption cases in the country in the
last four decades, when states are ranked by convictions of
public officials per capita. In contrast, Oregon, Washington
State, and Utah are the least corrupt.

Yeah, Washginton state is not corrupt. They just elect homo
pedo fags to public office.

> Veronica Saldivar and Belinda Solis, known as politiqueras, paid
> campaign workers, were each given $25 worth of cocaine, the campaign
> manager admitted, and told to buy votes with them. Their bond was set at
> $10,000 and if convicted, each could face five years in prison and a
> $10,000 fine.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <XnsA8459B55...@0.0.0.1>

"mo...@microsoft.com" <mo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> On 07 Dec 2017, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca> posted some
> news:o5cWB.7097$JM4....@fx07.iad:
>
> > On 2017-12-06 16:05, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >> jigglin' jackalope wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
> >> royalties:
> >>
> >>> On 12/5/2017 1:26 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> >>>> On 2017-12-05 14:06, jigglin' jackalope wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/5/2017 10:03 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/4/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:

> >>>>>>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net

> >>>>>>> Control".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Whatever action we are trying to take will always end up as an
> >>>>>> attempt to manage and control. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spoken like a tried and true statist whore!
> >>>>
> >>>> Without the State, you'd be dead.
> >>>
> >>> With the state I'll still be dead.
> >>>
> >>> And U 2!
> >>
> >> He means you'd be dead a lot quicker.
> >>
> >>>> Because, as one of the first political
> >>>> scientists pointed out, "The natural state of man is to live lives
> >>>> that are nasty, brutish, and short."
> >>>
> >>> The state changed no human nature.
> >>>
> >>> Just look at the Clintons!
> >>
> >> Just look at the Trumps!
> >
> > Melania even launched a suit against the Daily Mail:
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/melania-trump-refiles-1
> > 50-million-libel-lawsuit-daily-mail (and many other reports. If you
> > doubt it, go looking for the court records, they're public documents).
> >
> > It seems that Melania feels that the "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity
> > to make millions derives from her husband's political success, but
> > could be compromised if people get sniffy about her pre-Trump career.
>
> That's not why she filed and you know it.
>
> You want to explain Nancy

Deflection noted.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <182cfcd64f458715...@dizum.com>,

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:

> A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign
> workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with
> packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could
> pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.

I didn't know Gore was campaigning for Clinton after 1997.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <p0bpmu$2rm$4...@news.mixmin.net>
jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill> wrote:
>

> On 12/7/2017 8:24 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:51:32 -0800, Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/what-net-neutrality-means-for-you/
> >
> > Mostly bullshit. Liberals and their rags, like Fortune, love to scare
> > the masses into going with their agenda but the reality is that
> > companies will likely offer more rather than less and for a _better_
> > price than they do know. When you allow a market to decide for itself,
> > it means that customers will choose the service which offers them a
> > better service for less money. If one decides that it wants to close
> > certain services to the user unless they pay more, the customer has
> > the right to cancel his subscription and go with the service that
> > offers him unrestricted access at no additional cost. Regardless of
> > what one believes, there is _always_ an alternative unless you live in
> > a rural community where getting an Internet service in general is
> > difficult.
> >
> > Slower speeds? Bullshit. The only way this could happen is if all
> > service colluded together to do such a thing which cannot legally
> > happen anyway. They will all compete to provide the best service and
> > that includes competing on the speed offered.
> >
> > Higher prices? Bullshit. Competition also includes offering a better
> > service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
> >
> > What they don't mention is that WITH net neutrality, there should be
> > no one "authority" controlling the information. Meanwhile, the United
> > Nations is currently doing so and allowing companies like Google to
> > censor whatever they want if it contradicts their narrative.
> > Neutrality means that _no one_ controls the Internet, not that the
> > corrupt UN does.
> >
> > It's funny that they mention Canada as having net neutrality as if we
> > essentially have better products here. In reality, not only do
> > Canadians pay more, they do so for slower speeds. That extends to cell
> > phone service as well.

> >
> > Do the right thing and boycott all liberal media from your lives. All
> > they EVER do is lie.
> >
>
> AMEN!!!!!

IAWTP!!

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <p06hst$jbf$2...@news.mixmin.net>
jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill> wrote:
>
> On 12/4/2017 10:01 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <p03qi2$iqt$2...@news.mixmin.net>, jigglin' jackalope <w...@road.kill>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/4/2017 6:29 AM, chrisv wrote:
> >>>> You can choose to have
> >>>> done by a business that is not answerable to the public, or the government
> >>>> which
> >>>> is ultimately responsible to the people.
> >>> One would hope, anyway. But then there's the massive corporate
> >>> bribery of our public officials...
> >>
> >> Ya think???
> >>
> >> Let the Clinton Foundation run it, eh leftard?
> >
> > That's not part of the government.
>
> May as well have been.
>
> > Move network rule making out of government,
> > and it can end up in the Clinton Foundation. Or Google. Or ATT. Or GNU. Or
> > Comcast....
>
> Brilliant - corporate governance, how statist of you...
>
> > Which do you think you would have more influence over?
>
> None of the above!

Clinton Rule #1 - Give us money.
Clinton Rule #2 - Give us more money.
Clinton Rule #3 - Influence threshold starts here. But give us
more money first.

[Wolf K]

On 2017-12-08 20:47, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <182cfcd64f458715...@dizum.com>,
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>> A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign
>> workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with
>> packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could
>> pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.
>
> I didn't know Gore was campaigning for Clinton after 1997.
>

There's no law against helping people exercise their right to vote, is
there?

[Franken~Groper]

On 12/8/2017 6:47 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <182cfcd64f458715...@dizum.com>,
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>> A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign
>> workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with
>> packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could
>> pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.
>
> I didn't know Gore was campaigning for Clinton after 1997.
>

http://heavy.com/news/2012/10/democrats-in-arkansas-tried-to-buy-votes-with-booze/

Have an apathetic electorate? One solution, VODKA FOR VOTES! The plan
was to influence and an election in eastern Arkansas by having the
voters, well, under the influence. The former Democratic Rep. Hudson
Hallum who’s awaiting sentencing in the scandal, said today:

I guess I always knew all along it was wrong, but I really didn’t think
it was that big a deal, I always heard … that’s what everybody did.”

Hallum, along with three other members of his staff, pleaded guilty on
federal charges of conspiracy to commit election during the election
that put him in office in 2011. In total, nine members of the local
Democratic party have been charged in relation to the scheme.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09/02/fbi-nabs-texas-democrats-accused-of-using-cocaine-to-buy-votes-142843

The FBI is accusing Texas Democrats of using cocaine to buy votes and
it’s all coming out in court.

Political chicanery and vote-buying in Texas are as old as the state
itself, and the latest episode to come to light features purchasing
votes with cocaine, marijuana, money, cigarettes and beer, an on-going
FBI investigationhas uncovered.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/9/2017 7:28 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2017-12-08 20:47, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <182cfcd64f458715...@dizum.com>,
>>   Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign
>>> workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with
>>> packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could
>>> pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.
>>
>> I didn't know Gore was campaigning for Clinton after 1997.
>>
>
> There's no law against helping people exercise their right to vote, is
> there?
>

With...bribery?

Ekshually there is:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vote-buying/

Vote Buying Law and Legal Definition

Any reward given to a person for voting in a particular way or for not
voting can be called vote buying. Vote buying is a corrupt election
practice. A vote buying bribe is that having a monetary value. The
practice of vote buying is banned in United States. Vote buying is a
threat to the conduct of fair elections. In the U.S. vote buying is an
offence when a person knowingly or willfully gives false information or
conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his
false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay
or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall
be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both. This provision shall only by applicable to general, special, or
primary elections (42 USCS § 1973i(c)).

[Wolf K]

Yabbut:
a) How you gonna prove it if both the gift-giver and the recipient
simply claim that they had no intention influencing or being influenced?
b) They offered to drive the voter to the booth, that's surely legal.
b) Since the vote is secret, how can you prove that the, er, gift had
any effect at all?
c) If I were offered my preferred stimulant, I'd take it, but I'd vote
the way I wanted.

If the above is an accurate summary of the law, IMO the law has huge
holes in it. The simplest way to evade it is to do what they they did in
Milwaukee: offer the voter a ride to the poll, and give them some
refreshment, but without any explicit request to vote any particular
way. If anything, remind the voter that they are free to vote as they
wish. I suppose the voters receiving such largesse from a civic-minded
benefactor could decide to vote for their party, but as long as there
was no actually request to do so, there's no case.

In short, anyone who puts the expected voting behaviour on record is a fool.

Back in 1919, Samuel P. Orth wrote The Boss and the Machine. A somewhat
pedestrian read, but worth it for insight into the role of political
parties in US politics. See my review:
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.ca/2017/01/polituical-corruption-as-american-and.htm

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 4/12/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> Control".

History must be neutral in order to store EVERYTHING! :)

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[jigglin' jackalope]

That's why prosecutions are rare, of course.

You perhaps remember ACORN?

> b) They offered to drive the voter to the booth, that's surely legal.

Yep.

> b) Since the vote is secret, how can you prove that the, er, gift had
> any effect at all?

Testimony, number of other folks bribed, etc.

> c) If I were offered my preferred stimulant, I'd take it, but I'd vote
> the way I wanted.

I don't take offers from strangers, especially of stimulants.

And never where a debt is implied.

> If the above is an accurate summary of the law, IMO the law has huge
> holes in it. The simplest way to evade it is to do what they they did in
> Milwaukee: offer the voter a ride to the poll, and give them some
> refreshment, but without any explicit request to vote any particular
> way. If anything, remind the voter that they are free to vote as they
> wish.

Yep.

> I suppose the voters receiving such largesse from a civic-minded
> benefactor could decide to vote for their party, but as long as there
> was no actually request to do so, there's no case.
>
> In short, anyone who puts the expected voting behaviour on record is a
> fool.

A world of fools, yes.

> Back in 1919, Samuel P. Orth wrote The Boss and the Machine. A somewhat
> pedestrian read, but worth it for insight into the role of political
> parties in US politics. See my review:
> https://kirkwood40.blogspot.ca/2017/01/polituical-corruption-as-american-and.htm
>
>

???

"Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

[jigglin' jackalope]

On 12/9/2017 10:27 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 4/12/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer.  What it really means is "Net
>> Control".
>
> History must be neutral in order to store EVERYTHING! :)
>

Luck with that!

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <kPUWB.25850$m13....@fx26.iad>

The recipient doesn't even have to vote. All they have to do is
agree to accespt the gift under the conditions given.

Then we nail both their asses for conspiracy to commit voter
fraud, and perjury for lying like three-year-olds.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <p0h1uh$av3$1...@news.mixmin.net>

Madonna offers blowjob to those who vote for Hillary Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1RMUyCkLQ


Raeman Muzik
10 months ago
When she offered the blowjob people massively voted for Trump.?
REPLY
12


Hanzzy
Hanzzy
1 year ago
...definitely voting for Trump now.?
REPLY
70


Michelle Stewart
Michelle Stewart
6 months ago
fuck you. you will ruin this society...Oh wait you already have?
REPLY
1


Cat Kin
Cat Kin
3 months ago
they are all controlled by the banks . Wake up! Madonna is also
a transsexual.?
REPLY


the modfather
the modfather
3 months ago
Banks dont need to control people, you're so stupid you control
yourself?
REPLY


Hide replies
Lauri Tikkanen
Lauri Tikkanen
1 year ago
No thank you! :)?
REPLY
46


UtdMan4eva
UtdMan4eva
1 year ago
lol...Trump will defiantly win now :-)?
REPLY
20


View reply
Nicholas Gabriel
Nicholas Gabriel
1 year ago
good job she turned all those men to vote against h clinton.?
REPLY
29


Ricardo Peres
Ricardo Peres
1 year ago
Trump just harnessed a few more million votes with this one....?

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <p0h6e1$v3r$4...@toylet.eternal-september.org>

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/12/2017 1:25 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> > "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. What it really means is "Net
> > Control".
>
> History must be neutral in order to store EVERYTHING! :)

The Internet must be optimal so I can get my pr0n! ;)

[Frank Burns]

In article <pqSWB.20404$Fl7....@fx29.iad>

Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2017-12-08 20:47, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <182cfcd64f458715...@dizum.com>,
> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign
> >> workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with
> >> packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could
> >> pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.
> >
> > I didn't know Gore was campaigning for Clinton after 1997.
> >
>
> There's no law against helping people exercise their right to vote, is
> there?

Only if you help them vote more than once for the same candidate.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

That's why it's just an ideology. No leader wanna have his/her dirty
secrets be recorded in history! :)

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 10/12/2017 10:25 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>> History must be neutral in order to store EVERYTHING! :)
>
> The Internet must be optimal so I can get my pr0n! ;)

What are your favorite hot chicks? Indians? Arabians? :)

[Doomsdrzej]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:19:53 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/12/2017 10:25 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>> History must be neutral in order to store EVERYTHING! :)
>>
>> The Internet must be optimal so I can get my pr0n! ;)
>
>What are your favorite hot chicks? Indians? Arabians? :)

I wouldn't mind the European refugee invasion if the only people
coming in were Muslim women. Converting those to the one true faith
would be easy and they'd be glad to be courted by real men for once in
their lives.