NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
> > "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>Again - go **** yourself. I was around 30 years ago too dingleberry -
> >>abut the time I got out of college.
> >
> >
> > Then act your age.
>
> Age is a number - why act my age when I might have to act like a stodgey
> old Scrooge like you?

It would be better than acting like an uneducated Teletubbies fanatic.

> >
> > >And probably have a better liberal
> >
> >>arts education than you have
> >
> >
> > doubtful- extremely doubtful.
>
> How do you know?

The same way you knew that you education was better. What's the matter-
can't take somebody playing by your own rules?

> >
> >
> >
> >>and have much more capable than you to
> >>understand the role of reguation and taxes.
> >
> >
> > Not according to your posts.
>
> Don't be a dumb ass - you can't tell that from my posts!

Sure can- its all you've been talking about in this entire thread.

> >
> >
> >> You only went back 30 years
> >>- I went back over a 100 years and clearly the USA is better off with
> >>reguation and taxes than without them.
> >
> >
> > 100 years ago no longer applies. The advancements of the last 100 years
> > outweigh the sum total of the prvious 1,000 years. You can't apply
> > antiquated rules of industry and government to a tewchnology driven
society.
>
> Not true - you can apply the same rules but you can adapt them instead
> of throwing them out the window and saying that no rules are better.

Really? How do the economics and implications of shipping, foreign trade,
electronic banking, telecommunications, mass media advertising, the WTO,
mass production and technology from 100 years ago apply today? I'm anxious
to hear the adaptations are made for areas of economic development and
advancement that weren't in effect at the time.


> >
> >
> >>We don't have depressions, runs
> >>on the banks, air so dirty you can't see through it or water so foul
> >>that rivers catch fire.
> >
> >
> > You're right- we don't.
>
> That's because we have regulations which apply to the industries and
> other sources of the pollution that used to cause those problems. Are
> you saying that clean water & air, and healthy food aren't worthwhile
> protecting through regulation because we live in a technology-driven
> society?

I must have missed my post that said anything close to that. Of course,
this kind of blows your whole 'apply 100 year old rules' theory. That was
what got us to the point of needing the environmental regulations in the
first place.

And before you try to take credit for something that your idealogy had no
part in, take a look at the Montreal Protocol. Let me know which
administration was in power when it was adopted.

> >
> >
> >>The fact that we have Social Security which
> >>provides a safety net for older people that is more sound now than it
> >>was 30 years ago proves that some regulation is good and needs to stay
> >>in place and be strengthened up and not torn down proves you wrong.
> >
> >
> > That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I
thought
> > you said you understood this stuff?
>
> No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
> passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
> govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
> Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that the
> government does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry
> what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.

But this thread had nothing to do with the government regulating itself. It
deals with government regulating others- a point which is obviously too
complex for you to deal with. And one is not synonymous with the other, and
the same rules don't (and shouldn't) apply to both. Only a flaming, tax
happy, entitlement touting, big government advocating, insecure and
incompetent mind would feel that anything else is appropriate.

> >
> >
> >
> >>Now take your nose out of George Bush's ass and clear your head and see
> >>if you can understand that.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an
allegiance
> > to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
>
> Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
> because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
> place blind faith in much of anything.
> >
> >

Yeah- the great minority speaks. I find it kind of funny that the 'blue'
states in the last election are home to some of the biggest environmental
messes in the world, while the 'red' states have clean air and pure water
(and better financial conditions). Coincidence? I think not. Further
proof that your idealogy can't work on a small scale, much less a large one.

---

› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
<snip the diatribe>

I've played with you enough, little troll. All you are capable of is
*****ing and whining about **** you can't control, and offer nothing of any
merit to correct the perceived injustices of the world. Your personal pity
party has no need to continue.

BTW- I earned my first degree before the Internet was even on the design
board. Your boasting does no good here.

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > John Richards wrote:
> >
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Who defined manfacturing jobs as 'good'? They are actually the
> >>> bottom of
> >>> the employment pool- no skills, little room for advancement, income
> >>> restraints. Please try to understand something about the subject.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My only comment is that it would seem that a $16-20 per hour
> >> manufacturing job is better than an $8 per hour job at Wal-Mart,
> >> Target or Home Depot.
> >>
> >
> > And usually the benefits are better too.
>
> Yes they are on both accounts - only dinngleberry boy would say that
> working for $8 an hour is better than $20 an hour. Of course, having his
> nose burried so far up Dumbya's ass sort of clouds his vision.

Nope- wouldn't say that. I'd just ask where those jobs exist in the new
global economy. Are you saying that the government needs to mandate that
those jobs return? At those wages? Whose going to buy products at 4 times
the cost of comparable products? And where in the Constitution does the
government gain power to control free market trade?

I don't have my nose buried anywhere. Usenet Child has his head in a cloud-
just haven't decided what kind of smoke he's inhaling.

In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:26:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.152.186.28
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1103775976 4.152.186.28 (Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:26:16 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:26:16 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.cingular:39808 alt.cellular.gsm:36466 alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream:60404 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:152457 alt.cellular.verizon:161206



John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:30:14 -0800, Steve
> Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Richards wrote:
>>
>>>"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Who defined manfacturing jobs as 'good'? They are actually the bottom of
>>>>the employment pool- no skills, little room for advancement, income
>>>>restraints. Please try to understand something about the subject.
>>>
>>>My only comment is that it would seem that a $16-20 per hour
>>>manufacturing job is better than an $8 per hour job at Wal-Mart,
>>>Target or Home Depot.
>>
>>And usually the benefits are better too.
>
>
> Not on a competitive basis.


What the **** does that mean? Are you gonna tell me that some
underemployed ex-manufacturing worker is better off working for Wal-Mart
at $7.oo an hour with no benefits than working for $16 to $20 an hour
with benefits, health care, a pension, etc? Exactly how is he better
off working for less money?

Or are you saying that we as a whole are better off if most of our
workers are paid less money in service and retail work than with
manufacturing jobs?

Hey - let's outsource your ****ing job to India and see how much better
off we all are. Why don't you do the right thing and fly over to India
and recruit your own replacement right now and give hi your job even
before your boss does it. If you do that - we will all applaud your
sacrifice to the Gods of Competitiveness! Well, all of us won't do that
- I will be still be calling you a schmuck!

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
05:28:50 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Who defined manfacturing jobs as 'good'? They are actually the bottom of
>> the employment pool- no skills, little room for advancement, income
>> restraints. Please try to understand something about the subject.
>
>My only comment is that it would seem that a $16-20 per hour
>manufacturing job is better than an $8 per hour job at Wal-Mart,
>Target or Home Depot.

Such manufacturing jobs aren't available at the same skill level.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:30:14 -0800, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Richards wrote:
>> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Who defined manfacturing jobs as 'good'? They are actually the bottom of
>>> the employment pool- no skills, little room for advancement, income
>>> restraints. Please try to understand something about the subject.
>>
>> My only comment is that it would seem that a $16-20 per hour
>> manufacturing job is better than an $8 per hour job at Wal-Mart,
>> Target or Home Depot.
>
>And usually the benefits are better too.

Not on a competitive basis.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

I think y'all should read a book written in the 1960s called "The Cold Cash
War"

It predicted that there would be 5-6 corporations w/ their own armies
running the world in the end and, that governments would be mere figureheads
kept in place to mollify the sheep, er, public into thinking they had some
sense of control.

Funny how things turn out isn't it?

--
Ron Marraccini

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Scott Stephenson wrote:
> >
> > > "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>Again - go **** yourself. I was around 30 years ago too dingleberry -
> > >>abut the time I got out of college.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then act your age.
> >
> > Age is a number - why act my age when I might have to act like a stodgey
> > old Scrooge like you?
>
> It would be better than acting like an uneducated Teletubbies fanatic.
>
> > >
> > > >And probably have a better liberal
> > >
> > >>arts education than you have
> > >
> > >
> > > doubtful- extremely doubtful.
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> The same way you knew that you education was better. What's the matter-
> can't take somebody playing by your own rules?
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>and have much more capable than you to
> > >>understand the role of reguation and taxes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not according to your posts.
> >
> > Don't be a dumb ass - you can't tell that from my posts!
>
> Sure can- its all you've been talking about in this entire thread.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >> You only went back 30 years
> > >>- I went back over a 100 years and clearly the USA is better off with
> > >>reguation and taxes than without them.
> > >
> > >
> > > 100 years ago no longer applies. The advancements of the last 100
years
> > > outweigh the sum total of the prvious 1,000 years. You can't apply
> > > antiquated rules of industry and government to a tewchnology driven
> society.
> >
> > Not true - you can apply the same rules but you can adapt them instead
> > of throwing them out the window and saying that no rules are better.
>
> Really? How do the economics and implications of shipping, foreign trade,
> electronic banking, telecommunications, mass media advertising, the WTO,
> mass production and technology from 100 years ago apply today? I'm
anxious
> to hear the adaptations are made for areas of economic development and
> advancement that weren't in effect at the time.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >>We don't have depressions, runs
> > >>on the banks, air so dirty you can't see through it or water so foul
> > >>that rivers catch fire.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're right- we don't.
> >
> > That's because we have regulations which apply to the industries and
> > other sources of the pollution that used to cause those problems. Are
> > you saying that clean water & air, and healthy food aren't worthwhile
> > protecting through regulation because we live in a technology-driven
> > society?
>
> I must have missed my post that said anything close to that. Of course,
> this kind of blows your whole 'apply 100 year old rules' theory. That was
> what got us to the point of needing the environmental regulations in the
> first place.
>
> And before you try to take credit for something that your idealogy had no
> part in, take a look at the Montreal Protocol. Let me know which
> administration was in power when it was adopted.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >>The fact that we have Social Security which
> > >>provides a safety net for older people that is more sound now than it
> > >>was 30 years ago proves that some regulation is good and needs to stay
> > >>in place and be strengthened up and not torn down proves you wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I
> thought
> > > you said you understood this stuff?
> >
> > No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
> > passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
> > govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
> > Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that the
> > government does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry
> > what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.
>
> But this thread had nothing to do with the government regulating itself.
It
> deals with government regulating others- a point which is obviously too
> complex for you to deal with. And one is not synonymous with the other,
and
> the same rules don't (and shouldn't) apply to both. Only a flaming, tax
> happy, entitlement touting, big government advocating, insecure and
> incompetent mind would feel that anything else is appropriate.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Now take your nose out of George Bush's ass and clear your head and
see
> > >>if you can understand that.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an
> allegiance
> > > to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
> >
> > Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
> > because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
> > place blind faith in much of anything.
> > >
> > >
>
> Yeah- the great minority speaks. I find it kind of funny that the 'blue'
> states in the last election are home to some of the biggest environmental
> messes in the world, while the 'red' states have clean air and pure water
> (and better financial conditions). Coincidence? I think not. Further
> proof that your idealogy can't work on a small scale, much less a large
one.
>
>

I think y'all should read a book written in the 1960s called "The Cold Cash
War"

It predicted that there would be 5-6 corporations w/ their own armies
running the world in the end and, that governments would be mere figureheads
kept in place to mollify the sheep, er, public into thinking they had some
sense of control.

Funny how things turn out isn't it?

--
Ron Marraccini

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Scott Stephenson wrote:
> >
> > > "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>Again - go **** yourself. I was around 30 years ago too dingleberry -
> > >>abut the time I got out of college.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then act your age.
> >
> > Age is a number - why act my age when I might have to act like a stodgey
> > old Scrooge like you?
>
> It would be better than acting like an uneducated Teletubbies fanatic.
>
> > >
> > > >And probably have a better liberal
> > >
> > >>arts education than you have
> > >
> > >
> > > doubtful- extremely doubtful.
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> The same way you knew that you education was better. What's the matter-
> can't take somebody playing by your own rules?
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>and have much more capable than you to
> > >>understand the role of reguation and taxes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not according to your posts.
> >
> > Don't be a dumb ass - you can't tell that from my posts!
>
> Sure can- its all you've been talking about in this entire thread.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >> You only went back 30 years
> > >>- I went back over a 100 years and clearly the USA is better off with
> > >>reguation and taxes than without them.
> > >
> > >
> > > 100 years ago no longer applies. The advancements of the last 100
years
> > > outweigh the sum total of the prvious 1,000 years. You can't apply
> > > antiquated rules of industry and government to a tewchnology driven
> society.
> >
> > Not true - you can apply the same rules but you can adapt them instead
> > of throwing them out the window and saying that no rules are better.
>
> Really? How do the economics and implications of shipping, foreign trade,
> electronic banking, telecommunications, mass media advertising, the WTO,
> mass production and technology from 100 years ago apply today? I'm
anxious
> to hear the adaptations are made for areas of economic development and
> advancement that weren't in effect at the time.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >>We don't have depressions, runs
> > >>on the banks, air so dirty you can't see through it or water so foul
> > >>that rivers catch fire.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're right- we don't.
> >
> > That's because we have regulations which apply to the industries and
> > other sources of the pollution that used to cause those problems. Are
> > you saying that clean water & air, and healthy food aren't worthwhile
> > protecting through regulation because we live in a technology-driven
> > society?
>
> I must have missed my post that said anything close to that. Of course,
> this kind of blows your whole 'apply 100 year old rules' theory. That was
> what got us to the point of needing the environmental regulations in the
> first place.
>
> And before you try to take credit for something that your idealogy had no
> part in, take a look at the Montreal Protocol. Let me know which
> administration was in power when it was adopted.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >>The fact that we have Social Security which
> > >>provides a safety net for older people that is more sound now than it
> > >>was 30 years ago proves that some regulation is good and needs to stay
> > >>in place and be strengthened up and not torn down proves you wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I
> thought
> > > you said you understood this stuff?
> >
> > No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
> > passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
> > govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
> > Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that the
> > government does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry
> > what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.
>
> But this thread had nothing to do with the government regulating itself.
It
> deals with government regulating others- a point which is obviously too
> complex for you to deal with. And one is not synonymous with the other,
and
> the same rules don't (and shouldn't) apply to both. Only a flaming, tax
> happy, entitlement touting, big government advocating, insecure and
> incompetent mind would feel that anything else is appropriate.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Now take your nose out of George Bush's ass and clear your head and
see
> > >>if you can understand that.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an
> allegiance
> > > to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
> >
> > Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
> > because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
> > place blind faith in much of anything.
> > >
> > >
>
> Yeah- the great minority speaks. I find it kind of funny that the 'blue'
> states in the last election are home to some of the biggest environmental
> messes in the world, while the 'red' states have clean air and pure water
> (and better financial conditions). Coincidence? I think not. Further
> proof that your idealogy can't work on a small scale, much less a large
one.
>
>

Oh yeah,

Forgot a couple of things:

1. This country was founded by religious dissidents and criminals who were
either expelled or left their homelands to avoid persecution. - It is still
run (and practiced)by them.

2. We are in for really tough times if the medical community ie; doctors,
hospitals, clinics/drug companies & the insurance industry companies remain
unregulated. Perhaps it's time to nationalize them.
--
Ron Marraccini

"Ron Marraccini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> I think y'all should read a book written in the 1960s called "The Cold
Cash
> War"
>
> It predicted that there would be 5-6 corporations w/ their own armies
> running the world in the end and, that governments would be mere
figureheads
> kept in place to mollify the sheep, er, public into thinking they had some
> sense of control.
>
> Funny how things turn out isn't it?
>
> --
> Ron Marraccini
>
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Scott Stephenson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>
> > > >>Again - go **** yourself. I was around 30 years ago too
dingleberry -
> > > >>abut the time I got out of college.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then act your age.
> > >
> > > Age is a number - why act my age when I might have to act like a
stodgey
> > > old Scrooge like you?
> >
> > It would be better than acting like an uneducated Teletubbies fanatic.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >And probably have a better liberal
> > > >
> > > >>arts education than you have
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > doubtful- extremely doubtful.
> > >
> > > How do you know?
> >
> > The same way you knew that you education was better. What's the matter-
> > can't take somebody playing by your own rules?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>and have much more capable than you to
> > > >>understand the role of reguation and taxes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not according to your posts.
> > >
> > > Don't be a dumb ass - you can't tell that from my posts!
> >
> > Sure can- its all you've been talking about in this entire thread.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> You only went back 30 years
> > > >>- I went back over a 100 years and clearly the USA is better off
with
> > > >>reguation and taxes than without them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 100 years ago no longer applies. The advancements of the last 100
> years
> > > > outweigh the sum total of the prvious 1,000 years. You can't apply
> > > > antiquated rules of industry and government to a tewchnology driven
> > society.
> > >
> > > Not true - you can apply the same rules but you can adapt them instead
> > > of throwing them out the window and saying that no rules are better.
> >
> > Really? How do the economics and implications of shipping, foreign
trade,
> > electronic banking, telecommunications, mass media advertising, the WTO,
> > mass production and technology from 100 years ago apply today? I'm
> anxious
> > to hear the adaptations are made for areas of economic development and
> > advancement that weren't in effect at the time.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>We don't have depressions, runs
> > > >>on the banks, air so dirty you can't see through it or water so foul
> > > >>that rivers catch fire.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're right- we don't.
> > >
> > > That's because we have regulations which apply to the industries and
> > > other sources of the pollution that used to cause those problems. Are
> > > you saying that clean water & air, and healthy food aren't worthwhile
> > > protecting through regulation because we live in a technology-driven
> > > society?
> >
> > I must have missed my post that said anything close to that. Of course,
> > this kind of blows your whole 'apply 100 year old rules' theory. That
was
> > what got us to the point of needing the environmental regulations in the
> > first place.
> >
> > And before you try to take credit for something that your idealogy had
no
> > part in, take a look at the Montreal Protocol. Let me know which
> > administration was in power when it was adopted.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>The fact that we have Social Security which
> > > >>provides a safety net for older people that is more sound now than
it
> > > >>was 30 years ago proves that some regulation is good and needs to
stay
> > > >>in place and be strengthened up and not torn down proves you wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I
> > thought
> > > > you said you understood this stuff?
> > >
> > > No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
> > > passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
> > > govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
> > > Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that the
> > > government does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry
> > > what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.
> >
> > But this thread had nothing to do with the government regulating itself.
> It
> > deals with government regulating others- a point which is obviously too
> > complex for you to deal with. And one is not synonymous with the other,
> and
> > the same rules don't (and shouldn't) apply to both. Only a flaming, tax
> > happy, entitlement touting, big government advocating, insecure and
> > incompetent mind would feel that anything else is appropriate.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Now take your nose out of George Bush's ass and clear your head and
> see
> > > >>if you can understand that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an
> > allegiance
> > > > to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
> > >
> > > Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
> > > because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
> > > place blind faith in much of anything.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Yeah- the great minority speaks. I find it kind of funny that the
'blue'
> > states in the last election are home to some of the biggest
environmental
> > messes in the world, while the 'red' states have clean air and pure
water
> > (and better financial conditions). Coincidence? I think not. Further
> > proof that your idealogy can't work on a small scale, much less a large
> one.
> >
> >
>
>

Ron Marraccini wrote:
> Oh yeah,
>
> Forgot a couple of things:
>
> 1. This country was founded by religious dissidents and criminals who were
> either expelled or left their homelands to avoid persecution. - It is still
> run (and practiced)by them.
>
> 2. We are in for really tough times if the medical community ie; doctors,
> hospitals, clinics/drug companies & the insurance industry companies remain
> unregulated. Perhaps it's time to nationalize them.

Great. Now can y'all take this discussion somewhere else? hasn't been about
cellular for some time now.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

What a load of bitter crap. You're some kind of anarchist. Furthermore,
you have clue about the medical profession or the laws binding the
pharmaceutical industry, doctors, hospitals, or insurance industry. ZIP
--

- Philip

Ron Marraccini wrote:
> Oh yeah,
>
> Forgot a couple of things:
>
> 1. This country was founded by religious dissidents and criminals who
> were either expelled or left their homelands to avoid persecution. -
> It is still run (and practiced)by them.
>
> 2. We are in for really tough times if the medical community ie;
> doctors, hospitals, clinics/drug companies & the insurance industry
> companies remain unregulated. Perhaps it's time to nationalize them.
>
> "Ron Marraccini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> I think y'all should read a book written in the 1960s called "The
>> Cold Cash War"
>>
>> It predicted that there would be 5-6 corporations w/ their own armies
>> running the world in the end and, that governments would be mere
>> figureheads kept in place to mollify the sheep, er, public into
>> thinking they had some sense of control.
>>
>> Funny how things turn out isn't it?
>>
>> --
>> Ron Marraccini
>>
>> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again - go **** yourself. I was around 30 years ago too
> dingleberry -
>>>>>> abut the time I got out of college.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then act your age.
>>>>
>>>> Age is a number - why act my age when I might have to act like a
>>>> stodgey old Scrooge like you?
>>>
>>> It would be better than acting like an uneducated Teletubbies
>>> fanatic.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >And probably have a better liberal
>>>>>
>>>>>> arts education than you have
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> doubtful- extremely doubtful.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>> The same way you knew that you education was better. What's the
>>> matter- can't take somebody playing by your own rules?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and have much more capable than you to
>>>>>> understand the role of reguation and taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to your posts.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be a dumb ass - you can't tell that from my posts!
>>>
>>> Sure can- its all you've been talking about in this entire thread.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You only went back 30 years
>>>>>> - I went back over a 100 years and clearly the USA is better off
>>>>>> with reguation and taxes than without them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 100 years ago no longer applies. The advancements of the last
>>>>> 100 years outweigh the sum total of the prvious 1,000 years. You
>>>>> can't apply antiquated rules of industry and government to a
>>>>> tewchnology driven society.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - you can apply the same rules but you can adapt them
>>>> instead of throwing them out the window and saying that no rules
>>>> are better.
>>>
>>> Really? How do the economics and implications of shipping, foreign
>>> trade, electronic banking, telecommunications, mass media
>>> advertising, the WTO, mass production and technology from 100 years
>>> ago apply today? I'm anxious to hear the adaptations are made for
>>> areas of economic development and advancement that weren't in
>>> effect at the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't have depressions, runs
>>>>>> on the banks, air so dirty you can't see through it or water so
>>>>>> foul that rivers catch fire.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right- we don't.
>>>>
>>>> That's because we have regulations which apply to the industries
>>>> and other sources of the pollution that used to cause those
>>>> problems. Are you saying that clean water & air, and healthy food
>>>> aren't worthwhile protecting through regulation because we live in
>>>> a technology-driven society?
>>>
>>> I must have missed my post that said anything close to that. Of
>>> course, this kind of blows your whole 'apply 100 year old rules'
>>> theory. That was what got us to the point of needing the
>>> environmental regulations in the first place.
>>>
>>> And before you try to take credit for something that your idealogy
>>> had no part in, take a look at the Montreal Protocol. Let me know
>>> which administration was in power when it was adopted.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that we have Social Security which
>>>>>> provides a safety net for older people that is more sound now
>>>>>> than it was 30 years ago proves that some regulation is good and
>>>>>> needs to stay in place and be strengthened up and not torn down
>>>>>> proves you wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation.
>>>>> I thought you said you understood this stuff?
>>>>
>>>> No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
>>>> passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
>>>> govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
>>>> Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that
>>>> the government does - from collecting Social Security to telling
>>>> industry what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.
>>>
>>> But this thread had nothing to do with the government regulating
>>> itself. It deals with government regulating others- a point which
>>> is obviously too complex for you to deal with. And one is not
>>> synonymous with the other, and the same rules don't (and shouldn't)
>>> apply to both. Only a flaming, tax happy, entitlement touting, big
>>> government advocating, insecure and incompetent mind would feel
>>> that anything else is appropriate.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now take your nose out of George Bush's ass and clear your head
>>>>>> and see if you can understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an
>>>>> allegiance to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
>>>>
>>>> Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
>>>> because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
>>>> place blind faith in much of anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah- the great minority speaks. I find it kind of funny that the
>>> 'blue' states in the last election are home to some of the biggest
>>> environmental messes in the world, while the 'red' states have
>>> clean air and pure water (and better financial conditions).
>>> Coincidence? I think not. Further proof that your idealogy can't
>>> work on a small scale, much less a large one.

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron Marraccini wrote:
> > Oh yeah,
> >
> > Forgot a couple of things:
> >
> > 1. This country was founded by religious dissidents and criminals who
were
> > either expelled or left their homelands to avoid persecution. - It is
still
> > run (and practiced)by them.
> >
> > 2. We are in for really tough times if the medical community ie;
doctors,
> > hospitals, clinics/drug companies & the insurance industry companies
remain
> > unregulated. Perhaps it's time to nationalize them.
>
> Great. Now can y'all take this discussion somewhere else? hasn't been
about
> cellular for some time now.
>

Putting a time limit on us? Only two days ago you were contributing to this
thread, and not one thought had anything to do with cellular.

Scott Stephenson wrote:

> Putting a time limit on us? Only two days ago you were contributing to this
> thread, and not one thought had anything to do with cellular.

I've spend most of my time arguing with DJ Osborn over in the other thread.

In fact, out of (currently) 164 posts to this thread, not including the one I'm
making now, there is exactly one post authored by me, the one you just replied to.

It's not the offtopicness that irritates me so much as it is the fact that you
guys are screaming at each other, with each side saying what amounts to "you're
an asshole" in every post. The offtopicness was just a convenient reason to
complain.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
> > Putting a time limit on us? Only two days ago you were contributing to
this
> > thread, and not one thought had anything to do with cellular.
>
> I've spend most of my time arguing with DJ Osborn over in the other
thread.
>
> In fact, out of (currently) 164 posts to this thread, not including the
one I'm
> making now, there is exactly one post authored by me, the one you just
replied to.
>
> It's not the offtopicness that irritates me so much as it is the fact that
you
> guys are screaming at each other, with each side saying what amounts to
"you're
> an asshole" in every post. The offtopicness was just a convenient reason
to
> complain.
>
> --

I've tired of the troll anyway- even I can take only so much whining before
it gets old.

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
>> Putting a time limit on us? Only two days ago you were contributing
>> to this thread, and not one thought had anything to do with cellular.
>
> I've spend most of my time arguing with DJ Osborn over in the other
> thread.
> In fact, out of (currently) 164 posts to this thread, not including
> the one I'm making now, there is exactly one post authored by me, the
> one you just replied to.
> It's not the offtopicness that irritates me so much as it is the fact
> that you guys are screaming at each other, with each side saying what
> amounts to "you're an asshole" in every post. The offtopicness was
> just a convenient reason to complain.

Not Assh--e .... just suffering rectal cranial inversion.