NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been a couple of threads devoted to the debate over Net Neutrality in the US around here, and as users, we understand the need to keep providers from being able to control access to bandwidth, etc.

Alas, the lead Republican Senator in this debate, Ted Stevens of Alaska, probably best known for earmarking over $200 million for two bridges to nowhere in his home state, knows only the color of the money the telecommunications industry contributes to his campaigns. One thing is for certain--he doesn't understand the internet (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1512499). The following is a transcript of his statements trying to explain his vote on the Net Neutrality vote in his Senate committee. Audio is available at the link above. It won't help you understand him any better.

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [...]

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

[...]

Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.

Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.

It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.

The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that hits you and me.I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.

Hope he's on a committee related to defence or technology. That would be classic! Even better, Intelligence!

I haven't seen many Senators or Representatives who have even faintly impressed me with their intelligence or knowledge.

It's pretty apparent to me from a long time back that most of them are dependent on their staffers to maintain their respiration, let alone engage in conscious thought.

I had my fill back during the Assault Weapons Ban parade of halfwits - it was pretty clear to me that a lot of people wouldn't know how to define an "assault weapon". Which is why the law had absolutely zero effect.

And firearms are simpler than "the Internet".

What's with the monkey-typed transcript? :confused:

In any case, this guy isn't someone should be drafting laws that have anything to do with the internet..

Gosh, I haven't had problems having "an internet" delivered to me.

I must have better tubes.

And did he say "douche" telecom on the audio clip?

Hilarious :D

Let's see if we can get one of them to ban water.

Letter writing campaign anybody?

A "series of tubes"? Methinks he's been watching to many 60's era sci-fi movies.

Ted Stevens. Wasnt he the guy that got all uppity when someone asked if they could use some of the funds for the bridge to no where for Katrina relief? I like guy, he's the best example for what the congress is really like.

For fucks sake, people like that DONT get elected... I dont know how they get into a position of power but it sure the hell aint the legal way. we need to clean house. and put some real leaders in washington. Im sure people have been saying that for years but we really REALLY NEED too.

For fucks sake, people like that DONT get elected... I dont know how they get into a position of power but it sure the hell aint the legal way. we need to clean house. and put some real leaders in washington. Im sure people have been saying that for years but we really REALLY NEED too.

Something tells me that you're not going to find people who know everything about everything.

A "series of tubes"? Methinks he's been watching to many 60's era sci-fi movies.

Hah.. come to think of it, it did sound like the guy was imagining a pneumatic tube mail system.. :p Wow.

You know you're out of touch with the modern world when someone says "internet" and you think:

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/whi_images_new/700099990121/9999002767-m.jpg

http://zapatopi.net/inteli-tube/oldtubes.jpg

I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.

Gee, thanks, Nazz. It's going to take all day to reassemble my brain after it exploded. And while it's true the Constitution says each state gets two Senators, it says nothing about them having to be sentient beings. They just have to get elected.

And these are the people debating/voting on net neutrality.

Congress is, in the words of Jon Stewart, "full of insane jackasses."

And these are the people debating/voting on net neutrality.

Congress is, in the words of Jon Stewart, "full of insane jackasses."

These are, by and large, the same idiots who defined an "assault weapon" as something with a bayonet lug (a small bump of metal), a flash hider that is screwed on (but not pinned on - that's ok), and/or a folding stock.

There have been a couple of threads devoted to the debate over Net Neutrality in the US around here, and as users, we understand the need to keep providers from being able to control access to bandwidth, etc.

Alas, the lead Republican Senator in this debate, Ted Stevens of Alaska, probably best known for earmarking over $200 million for two bridges to nowhere in his home state, knows only the color of the money the telecommunications industry contributes to his campaigns. One thing is for certain--he doesn't understand the internet (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1512499). The following is a transcript of his statements trying to explain his vote on the Net Neutrality vote in his Senate committee. Audio is available at the link above. It won't help you understand him any better.

I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.


He needs badly to be nuetered...he must not be allowed to breed !

its a question of National security .

You forgot to highlight "it's a series of tubes." He probably thinks computers are still made from vacuum tubes.

Someone should suggest to him that shaking his laptop or heating it in the microwave will help the tubes deliver his internet faster.

This is the same guy who tried to block wind power off the coast of Massachussetts as a favor to Ted Kennedy despite the very real possibility of blackouts by 2008, so I'm not surprised. If you're going to take a stand, at least be informed about the issue...

You forgot to highlight "it's a series of tubes." He probably thinks computers are still made from vacuum tubes.
That's what I have you guys for--to pick up my slack. :p

Something tells me that you're not going to find people who know everything about everything.
Well, if your politicians are anything like ours (and, based upon the transcript, it seems they are) then it would be quite nice to find one that knew anything about anything.

I'm reading this, and I can honestly say this guy sounds like a fucking idiot! I've never heard such mangled syntax and blatant grammatical errors from a native speaker of English...

Something tells me that you're not going to find people who know everything about everything.
But is hoping for ppl who know a little about something too much too ask for?

Someone should suggest to him that shaking his laptop or heating it in the microwave will help the tubes deliver his internet faster.

My tower won't fit in the microwave. :( Can I just romove the mother board and heat it?

But is hoping for ppl who know a little about something too much too ask for?

The game seems to be made for people who are good at getting elected, and not much else.

These are, by and large, the same idiots who defined an "assault weapon" as something with a bayonet lug (a small bump of metal), a flash hider that is screwed on (but not pinned on - that's ok), and/or a folding stock.

THERES MORE TO AMERICA THAN GUNS DK.

Something tells me that you're not going to find people who know everything about everything.

No, but if a Senator is going to decide the fate of something such as, you know, the internet, Id be a little more secure knowing that said Senator KNOWS WHAT THE INTERNET IS.

THERES MORE TO AMERICA THAN GUNS DK.

YES I KNOW, BUT IT'S MY EXAMPLE. sheesh.

YES I KNOW, BUT IT'S MY EXAMPLE. sheesh.

And I am saying please, PLEASE try different examples.

THERES MORE TO AMERICA THAN GUNS DK.


yep ...Hot dogs and beer and the freedom to be an idiot and still be elected .

And I am saying please, PLEASE try different examples.

It's more exciting than rehashing sulfur dioxide trading permit schemes, and how idiotic they have turned out to be.

I believe that the only way to get more intelligent and educated people in office would be to establish some minimum requirements in the Constitution - say, a test. But many would say that confining the office to say, technocrats who understand a fair number of highly technical subjects, would be discriminatory.

It would leave out most of the people currently in office.

I'm reading this, and I can honestly say this guy sounds like a fucking idiot! I've never heard such mangled syntax and blatant grammatical errors from a native speaker of English...
I have--he's the POTUS.

What's really going on here is Stevens doesn't know anything about the internet, but he has to act like he does because he's been asked to justify his vote. He's arrogant enough to think that if he "explains" it to the audience, that they'll buy it--the end result is that he looks like a moron. Unfortunately, that doesn't really matter when you have the kind of pull Stevens has.

I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.
That's a puzzle that could apply to about any pol, talking about any technical subject. That's why we have so few good solutions to problems and so many solutions that are only more money, spent in the same pointless way. They understand more money. They don't understand smarter effort.

THERES MORE TO AMERICA THAN GUNS DK.



No, but if a Senator is going to decide the fate of something such as, you know, the internet, Id be a little more secure knowing that said Senator KNOWS WHAT THE INTERNET IS.

He should ask the former Vice President what the internet is. He should know as he invented it. :D

I believe that the only way to get more intelligent and educated people in office would be to establish some minimum requirements in the Constitution - say, a test. But many would say that confining the office to say, technocrats who understand a fair number of highly technical subjects, would be discriminatory.

You dont need to be a technocrat to understand the fundamental purpose of the internet. Im no mechanic, but I at least know how a car works.

It would leave out most of the people currently in office.

Well, *I* wont complain...

He should ask the former Vice President what the internet is. He should know as he invented it. :D

I HATE when people say this...

I HATE when people say this...
Well, he did say it.

I won't go into his agricultural heritage, which apparently involved clearing 40 acres with only a mule and an axe.

I HATE when people say this...

I didn't say it, AL did. I just repeated what he said. :fluffle:

Well, he did say it.

I won't go into his agricultural heritage, which apparently involved clearing 40 acres with only a mule and an axe.

What he really said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

What morons think he said due to smear campaigns: "I invented the internet."

What he really said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

What morons think he said due to smear campaigns: "I invented the internet."

Voting for it isn't the same thing as "taking the initiative".

It was a stupid thing to say. About as stupid as this:

"I'll tell you something else he taught me. He taught me how to clean out hog waste with a shovel and a hose. He taught me how to clear land with a single-bladed ax. He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules. He taught me how to take up hay all day long in the hot sun and then, after a dinner break, go over and help the neighbors take up hay before the rain came and spoiled it on the ground."

I personally know his high school friend, Dick Danzeisen, who said that Gore went to St. Albans and took his meals at the Cosmos Club - he never worked a day in his life.

Then there was Love Story. Gore once claimed the two characters in the movie Love Story were based on his wife Tipper and himself. The author said, "News to me," and Gore backed off.

Voting for it isn't the same thing as "taking the initiative".

It was a stupid thing to say.

We arent arguing about whether it was smart or stupid to say. He didnt say what you or alot of others think he said. Period.

We arent arguing about whether it was smart or stupid to say. He didnt say what you or alot of others think he said. Period.

I'm convinced that most of our Senators and Representatives are equally moronic, despite being touted by their respective parties as "intelligent" or "well-spoken".

Well, if I could tell whoppers on national television and have the majority of reporters cover my asinine remarks as somehow "brilliant" or "highly intellectual" then I could be a Senator, too.

I'm convinced that most of our Senators and Representatives are equally moronic, despite being touted by their respective parties as "intelligent" or "well-spoken".

Well, if I could tell whoppers on national television and have the majority of reporters cover my asinine remarks as somehow "brilliant" or "highly intellectual" then I could be a Senator, too.

He did quite a bit to ensure the implementation of the internet. Thats all he claimed to do, not "invent" the whole friggin thing.

Anyone who watches the Daily Show regularly is more than familiar with what an idiot the "honorable" Senator Ted Stevens is. For those who don't watch the show, here are some clips that shed just a bit of light on the matter:

Who the F**k is Ted Stevens? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn51uT4a-IU&search=ted%20stevens%20daily)

Coot-Off! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3GV7Vv79no&search=ted%20stevens%20daily)

(Daily Show rocks.)

He did quite a bit to ensure the implementation of the internet. Thats all he claimed to do, not "invent" the whole friggin thing.

Considering that ARPANET existed long before he was in office, I can't see how much "implementation" he could have been involved in.

Voting for it isn't the same thing as "taking the initiative".
*snip*

Sorry, but in fact, it is the same when you're talking about what a pollitician can do to help technology develop. Without leading the committee that funded the conversion of ARPANET from defense to civilian use, you'd have no internet. Would another in Gore's place have cast the same vote? Possibly, but "another" wasn't there, Gore was. Thing is, Gore himself has explained how that concept was inflated and distorted by the media (*cough*foxnews*cough*) several times. For someone who complains about how the media is liberal and how his favorite right-wing boys are slandered and misquoted, you're sure short on slack for the politicians you don't like. A bit disingenuous, I fear.

As for claiming to be Erich Segal's inspiration for Love Story, well, that's just a combination of wishful thinking and horseshit. Two things every politician has in abundance. Were all politicians castigated or sensured for such blatant exaggerations, there'd be no politicians in jail. I think that a quasi-romantic tribute to his harridan wife in the form of a tall tale is Perjury 10, if we graded perjury the way we do murder (why we don't I can't understand -- think of the taxpayer dollars saved without Ken Starr investigating what would have been a charge of Perjury 8 at best). Saying Nigeria was involved with WMD when the proof was manufactured, thereby getting us into Iraq on completely false pretenses? That's Perjury 1.

Are politicians lying cocksuckers? Yes. Even the ones I sometimes agree with? Hell yes. I'll gladly tar my own "side" with the same brush because it's intellectually fair to do so. Hell, I even think Bush doesn't deserve some of the more acrid shit he gets (like cartoonist Ted Rall dressing him in a Generalissimo outfit and making him look feral and unshaven -- that's uncalled for), but they all need to be taken to task when they're caught talkin' shit.

TED STEVENS is a PREMIERE shit-talker and pork-banker whose undeserved influence is ridiculous. This Internet Neutrality crap is just one more example. I mean, he could be bothered to even ask a page or a staffer what the Internet actually IS? That kind of intellectual sloth would get you fired at any university, but he gets to laugh it off and go on happily building bridges nobody asked for.

Fuck Ted Stevens.

Sorry, but in fact, it is the same when you're talking about what a pollitician can do to help technology develop. Without leading the committee that funded the conversion of ARPANET from defense to civilian use, you'd have no internet. Would another in Gore's place have cast the same vote? Possibly, but "another" wasn't there, Gore was. Thing is, Gore himself has explained how that concept was inflated and distorted by the media (*cough*foxnews*cough*) several times. For someone who complains about how the media is liberal and how his favorite right-wing boys are slandered and misquoted, you're sure short on slack for the politicians you don't like. A bit disingenuous, I fear.

As for claiming to be Erich Segal's inspiration for Love Story, well, that's just a combination of wishful thinking and horseshit. Two things every politician has in abundance. Were all politicians castigated or sensured for such blatant exaggerations, there'd be no politicians in jail. I think that a quasi-romantic tribute to his harridan wife in the form of a tall tale is Perjury 10, if we graded perjury the way we do murder (why we don't I can't understand -- think of the taxpayer dollars saved without Ken Starr investigating what would have been a charge of Perjury 8 at best). Saying Nigeria was involved with WMD when the proof was manufactured, thereby getting us into Iraq on completely false pretenses? That's Perjury 1.

Are politicians lying cocksuckers? Yes. Even the ones I sometimes agree with? Hell yes. I'll gladly tar my own "side" with the same brush because it's intellectually fair to do so. Hell, I even think Bush doesn't deserve some of the more acrid shit he gets (like cartoonist Ted Rall dressing him in a Generalissimo outfit and making him look feral and unshaven -- that's uncalled for), but they all need to be taken to task when they're caught talkin' shit.

TED STEVENS is a PREMIERE shit-talker and pork-banker whose undeserved influence is ridiculous. This Internet Neutrality crap is just one more example. I mean, he could be bothered to even ask a page or a staffer what the Internet actually IS? That kind of intellectual sloth would get you fired at any university, but he gets to laugh it off and go on happily building bridges nobody asked for.

Fuck Ted Stevens.

I cant stand Al Gore personally but the man has an intellect . Contrast him with the moron in the OP and you have a junebug brain vs. Einstein .

Would another in Gore's place have cast the same vote? Possibly, but "another" wasn't there, Gore was. Thing is, Gore himself has explained how that concept was inflated and distorted by the media (*cough*foxnews*cough*) several times. For someone who complains about how the media is liberal and how his favorite right-wing boys are slandered and misquoted, you're sure short on slack for the politicians you don't like. A bit disingenuous, I fear.

Something tells me you aren't reading my posts - I find that they are all full of shit, and I am just pointing out that Democrats are just as stupid in this regard as Republicans.

Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein can't be bothered to find out a lot of facts as well, and sound just as stupid as Ted here - shall we recount their whoppers as well?

I bet there aren't more than a handful (less than five) Senators who can give a cogent answer on the Internet and Internet neutrality - and that's even if they get briefed by a staffer.

Gentlemen (and ladies). Pols say a lot of stupid things. Some of them are really smart in their area of expertise, others are about as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Pols are known to speak in homilies. They engage in endless, windy debate and when the time comes to actually solve a problem they tend to create the most unworkable monstrosities and legislate them. The other school of thought is to "knee-jerk" legislate. Take a highly emotional and controversial issue, pick the side the party is most comfortable with and write a law with no regard as to the actual consequences of the law.

Examples: The amendment against flag desecration. The Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal Marriage Amendment.

These three examples best personify the principle of sowing controversy. They make out the problem that the law/amendment purports to solve to be so pernicious that immediate action must be taken.

I doubt there are more than 100 cases of flag burning a year inside the US. In order to get a reaction a person who burns a flag in protest needs an audience, preferably a major audience to make their point. So, aside from the proper disposal method for a worn-out flag (burning), you are talking about making an amendment to the Constitution to deal with a minor, self-correcting problem.

Ted Stevens is following in the hallowed footsteps of Strom Thurmond who was 100 and a mental vegetable when he left the Senate. I cannot tell you the number of times I saw that man asleep during a crucial debate. He is related in kind to Jesse Helms, who after retiring was put into a convalescent home as he was suffering from dementia.

It is clear some sort of term limits are crucially important to regain control of Congress back into the hands of the people. I have a long list of Democrats and Republicans both who would be the first to go.

Don't forget the idiot Arlen Specter. Mr. Magic Bullet himself.

Listening to Supreme Court confirmation hearings, I can't help but think that every person on the committee was a blathering idiot.

Something tells me you aren't reading my posts - I find that they are all full of shit, and I am just pointing out that Democrats are just as stupid in this regard as Republicans.

Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein can't be bothered to find out a lot of facts as well, and sound just as stupid as Ted here - shall we recount their whoppers as well?

I bet there aren't more than a handful (less than five) Senators who can give a cogent answer on the Internet and Internet neutrality - and that's even if they get briefed by a staffer.


Its Ironic but they ...Democrats could actually call Al Gore and get a damm good briefing..if they could stay awake .

Who would the republicans ask ? I would call Bill Gates if I were involved...even if he himself didnt want to I am sure he could provide me with a good phone number..WTF is wrong with the idiots we elect ? They have access to information..the right and the best info..but they are so damned dumb as dirt . BOTH sides .....In business you make stupid or misleading presentations you get fired or you go out of business fast...we should demand the same of the business of GOVERNMENT..if we do not its our own fucking fault .

Throw the bums out...get new ones .

Aw, didja have to mention flag burning?

Also, my apologies to DK. I'm just sick to the teeth of the repetition-of-crap factor that seems to be the only way politicians can make points anymore. Case in point, keep calling the estate tax the "death tax" long enough, and the name sticks, and people who'll NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT (i.e. damn near everyone) begin thinking it's something they should be against. On the libesal side, it's the constant yammering about global warming.

Speaking of which, as long as I'm scattershooting, what happened to the electric car? It's 4x more efficient at transmitting energy into movement than hydrogen, and we won't need a special new infrastructure to use it. WTF?

Aw, didja have to mention flag burning?

Also, my apologies to DK. I'm just sick to the teeth of the repetition-of-crap factor that seems to be the only way politicians can make points anymore. Case in point, keep calling the estate tax the "death tax" long enough, and the name sticks, and people who'll NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT (i.e. damn near everyone) begin thinking it's something they should be against. On the libesal side, it's the constant yammering about global warming.

Speaking of which, as long as I'm scattershooting, what happened to the electric car? It's 4x more efficient at transmitting energy into movement than hydrogen, and we won't need a special new infrastructure to use it. WTF?


The problem with electric cars is that they need to be recharged. We barely have the generating capacity to run the country as it is, not if you add millions of cars recharging every night.

Hydrogen is not really a fuel - it is an energy storage medium if used in a fuel cell.

We would need to build several hundred nuclear power plants just to recharge the electric cars or crack hydrogen out of water. Or many times that in terms of solar cells, since they are not suited to providing the huge amounts of current that will be needed on demand.

And the whole "biofuels" thing is bullshit, because we can't grow enough corn (even if we stop eating it) to make enough ethanol to cover more than a small percentage of our gasoline demand. I think that's just something thought up by GM so they can stay lazy and make the same kinds of cars.

I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.
He is definitely Presidential material. Bush's replacement has been found!! :rolleyes:

Aw, didja have to mention flag burning?

Also, my apologies to DK. I'm just sick to the teeth of the repetition-of-crap factor that seems to be the only way politicians can make points anymore. Case in point, keep calling the estate tax the "death tax" long enough, and the name sticks, and people who'll NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT (i.e. damn near everyone) begin thinking it's something they should be against. On the libesal side, it's the constant yammering about global warming.

Speaking of which, as long as I'm scattershooting, what happened to the electric car? It's 4x more efficient at transmitting energy into movement than hydrogen, and we won't need a special new infrastructure to use it. WTF?

I mentioned it as a more recent example. Certainly the estate tax matter is great big McGuffin. The only true beneficiaries of repealing the estate tax make enough money to buy and sell several third world countries at once.

The problem with political debate these days is that the parties think (with no small amount of justification) that people are slow-witted and gullible. In general they are sadly correct. Until the mass of voters in the country get mad enough to do something about it, there will be no greater power in politics than that of the incumbency.

The people of Alaska think Ted Stevens is the cat's meow because he brings home the bacon in terms of money and local projects. That is how a Strom Thurmond, who by his last term was drooling in his oatmeal and snoozing on the Senate floor gets reelected time after time. Common sense says Thurmond should have packed it in three terms before he did, but he didn't and the voters of South Carolina did not feel that dropping Strom like a hot rock would be a good idea. Same goes for the good people of West Virginia and Robert Byrd. Thank goodness he still has an energetic mind because he will absolutely walk into his next six year term, albeit with two canes and slowly.

George Allen of Virginia is another mealy mouthed moron and he is as much of a public nitwit as Bush.

I believe that the only way to get more intelligent and educated people in office would be to establish some minimum requirements in the Constitution - say, a test. But many would say that confining the office to say, technocrats who understand a fair number of highly technical subjects, would be discriminatory.

Or go back to the old "you have to pass this test to be able to vote" thing. If politicians knew they had to persuade a cadre of voters who could identify fallacious logic, we might get less stupid politicians. Maybe.

Or go back to the old "you have to pass this test to be able to vote" thing. If politicians knew they had to persuade a cadre of voters who could identify fallacious logic, we might get less stupid politicians. Maybe.

Ah, but that sort of thing is considered "racist".

Ah, but that sort of thing is considered "racist".

Because "educated" is a race now? This country is doomed... :p

Because "educated" is a race now? This country is doomed... :p


Yes, it was defined as such by the people who gave us the Civil Rights Movement.

http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm

Yes, it was defined as such by the people who gave us the Civil Rights Movement.

http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm

Ah, that mess. Still paying the penalty for slavery and stupidity, we are. It's a shame.

My tower won't fit in the microwave. :( Can I just romove the mother board and heat it?
Naw, in that case submersing it your bathtub for several hours will work just as well. The soapy suds wash all the viagra, sex and Nigerian internets out of the tubes, allowing for faster delivery of your important internets.

Naw, in that case submersing it your bathtub for several hours will work just as well. The soapy suds wash all the viagra, sex and Nigerian internets out of the tubes, allowing for faster delivery of your important internets.

Make sure you put Astroglide on all interfaces, because sometimes the bits are sticky and clog up the bus.

Something tells me you aren't reading my posts - I find that they are all full of shit, and I am just pointing out that Democrats are just as stupid in this regard as Republicans.
Notice that when something embarrasing and indefensible like this is brought out into the open, the invariable response is, "He may be corrupt/sick/dumb as a box of rocks/ but so's the other side!".
I'm surprised no-one on the right has yet to bring up their favourite whipping-boy, Clinton. "Ted Stevens may have the intellectual capacity of a squashed frog, but at least he didn't get a chewie of a chubby in the Oval office!"

Notice that when something embarrasing and indefensible like this is brought out into the open, the invariable response is, "He may be corrupt/sick/dumb as a box of rocks/ but so's the other side!".
I'm surprised no-one on the right has yet to bring up their favourite whipping-boy, Clinton. "Ted Stevens may have the intellectual capacity of a squashed frog, but at least he didn't get a chewie of a chubby in the Oval office!"

Nothing illegal about getting serviced by an intern. Minor problem there with the perjury though. But I didn't chalk that one up to stupid. I think that if he hadn't been married to The Witch Queen of Angmar, he would have had no problem talking about it.

He needs badly to be nuetered...he must not be allowed to breed !

its a question of National security .

Maybe he can get his tubes tied.

It would leave out most of the people currently in office.

At least you wouldn't have to put up with people voting the village idiot and "Mr. Scruffy" to office.

At least you wouldn't have to put up with people voting the village idiot and "Mr. Scruffy" to office.What's wrong with Scruffy?

http://tfp.killbots.com/scans/192_pink-scruffy.gif

The fact that he primarily consists of ink?

The fact that he primarily consists of ink?
Would he do a worse job than the current village idiot we have?

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
Ok, what is he going on about here?
Is what he means is that the DoD has it's own dedicated servers and website? (OMG! really? What a shock!)
Or is he telling us that the Dod has it's own seperate national phone and cable system?
Or is he telling us that he hasn't a freakin' clue?


It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
what the hell does "operation of our families" mean?
Does anyone know?

Anyone?

There have been a couple of threads devoted to the debate over Net Neutrality in the US around here, and as users, we understand the need to keep providers from being able to control access to bandwidth, etc.

Alas, the lead Republican Senator in this debate, Ted Stevens of Alaska, probably best known for earmarking over $200 million for two bridges to nowhere in his home state, knows only the color of the money the telecommunications industry contributes to his campaigns. One thing is for certain--he doesn't understand the internet (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1512499). The following is a transcript of his statements trying to explain his vote on the Net Neutrality vote in his Senate committee. Audio is available at the link above. It won't help you understand him any better.

I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.


That (speech?) was the biggest load of bull I have read in a long time. I must have read it at least 5 times, trying to make sense of it. At first I felt like crying, then I laughed insanely, and finally I remembered why I don't 'store up treasures on Earth'.

>.<

And Americans wonder why they're percieved as the biggest threat to... Anything, really.

And Americans wonder why they're percieved as the biggest threat to... Anything, really.
"perceived as"? Oh, please.

Notice that when something embarrasing and indefensible like this is brought out into the open, the invariable response is, "He may be corrupt/sick/dumb as a box of rocks/ but so's the other side!".
I'm surprised no-one on the right has yet to bring up their favourite whipping-boy, Clinton. "Ted Stevens may have the intellectual capacity of a squashed frog, but at least he didn't get a chewie of a chubby in the Oval office!"

Not to defend DK, but you know...there are politicians on both sides that are invariably a waste of my valuable breathing oxygen. Just because I am a Democrat does not mean I have to swallow a line of shyte from my own party or that I don't have the common sense to know who is good and decent public servant and who is a greedy conniving bastard.

It just so happens right now that the Republicans have a larger amount of creepy, destestable, lying sacks of liquid crap than the Democrats have. That does not mean my party is immune from having them.

Ahhh, the inevitable result of having only two parties to choose from.

It just so happens right now that the Republicans have a larger amount of creepy, destestable, lying sacks of liquid crap than the Democrats have. That does not mean my party is immune from having them.

I agree completely. In fact, I think the reason we don't stink so bad right now is a direct result of not being in power for the last ten to twelve years, congressionally speaking anyway. If you're not in power, there's no reason to have money thrown at you, after all.

I agree completely. In fact, I think the reason we don't stink so bad right now is a direct result of not being in power for the last ten to twelve years, congressionally speaking anyway. If you're not in power, there's no reason to have money thrown at you, after all.PErhaps it would help if you abandoned the two-party system & outlawed lobbyism.

Your current system seems like a recipe for corrupt corporate puppets.

PErhaps it would help if you abandoned the two-party system & outlawed lobbyism.

Your current system seems like a recipe for corrupt corporate puppets.

The two party system jsut sort of exists. Er, because of lobbyists. Although I don't exactly know how one would outlaw lobbyists. I personally think we should reduce the pay we give our "public servants" - if they had to work as well as screw us all over, maybe they wouldn't be quite as bad? Or not...

PErhaps it would help if you abandoned the two-party system & outlawed lobbyism.

Your current system seems like a recipe for corrupt corporate puppets.
Well, it always has been in a number of ways--before corporations, they were puppets of the rich, landed gentry. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And from the looks of voter turnout, it looks like 40% in a good year, 50% in most years have decided to tune out completely.

Unfortunately, there'll be no getting rid of the 2-party system in the US, not in my lifetime anyway. The one bipartisan success we've seen is the movement to crush any third party interlopers--what vague third party success seen in the US has been based on cults of personality, and when the personality goes, so goes the movement.

Getting rid of lobbyists would be a good start, however, and in the states where there is publicly financed elections, you get competitive elections with better voter turnout.

<Snipped boring, obvious bits>

Getting rid of lobbyists would be a good start, however, and in the states where there is publicly financed elections, you get competitive elections with better voter turnout.So you already know where to start. Now what's holding you back?

Form a non-partisan party (hehe) & snag some attention. Get rid of the legal corruption & chances are the two monolithic parties will start to crumble on their own.

Maybe just ban parties altogether. I like that idea...

So you already know where to start. Now what's holding you back?

Form a non-partisan party (hehe) & snag some attention. Get rid of the legal corruption & chances are the two monolithic parties will start to crumble on their own.
It's a chicken and egg problem--you can't get rid of legal corruption without power and you can't get power because of the legal corruption. The only real answer is revolution, and the situation in the US isn't nearly bad enough for that to have a shot in hell at working, assuming it would work in the first place.

There have been a couple of threads devoted to the debate over Net Neutrality in the US around here, and as users, we understand the need to keep providers from being able to control access to bandwidth, etc.

Alas, the lead Republican Senator in this debate, Ted Stevens of Alaska, probably best known for earmarking over $200 million for two bridges to nowhere in his home state, knows only the color of the money the telecommunications industry contributes to his campaigns. One thing is for certain--he doesn't understand the internet (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1512499). The following is a transcript of his statements trying to explain his vote on the Net Neutrality vote in his Senate committee. Audio is available at the link above. It won't help you understand him any better.

I bolded a couple of especially precious bits. Enjoy yourselves trying to figure out just what the hell he's talking about.

You're just jealous that no one sends you internets. :D

Maybe just ban parties altogether. I like that idea...

Banning parties would be like banning alcohol and abortions. It will still go on, you just won't be able to see it.

Would he do a worse job than the current village idiot we have?

Well, you'd have him sitting there as a cardboard figure, made of ink....doing absolutely nothing. Damn. He'd be better than anybody in office right now.

what the hell does "operation of our families" mean?
Does anyone know?

Anyone?

Mafia families maybe? :p

i just laughed my ass off reading this whole thread. its like one big fucking joke!

The only real answer is revolution

pretty much

and the situation in the US isn't nearly bad enough for that to have a shot in hell at working, assuming it would work in the first place.

hey if a 3 pence per pound tax on tea could kick things off before, i'm sure we could make something of half a billion dollars for bridges to uninhabited islands in alaska. and then we'll just work from there.

you can always count on americans to not want to pay for things.