Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #22507 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-19 07:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-03-19 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 07:26 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:14 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:31 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:51 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 15:53 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-03-20 12:19 +1200
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 20:50 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-03-20 16:14 +1200
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 23:28 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-20 17:16 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-21 12:18 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-20 12:24 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-20 19:33 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-20 17:50 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 07:46 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 09:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 09:23 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 12:25 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-22 17:56 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 11:16 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 14:41 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 19:37 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 17:09 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 23:06 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 22:36 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 00:35 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 22:33 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 09:10 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback-Sorry MS Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 09:41 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback-Sorry MS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 18:58 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-23 14:54 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 15:06 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 18:57 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:16 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 10:17 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:19 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:42 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 18:44 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:24 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 21:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 10:06 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 14:00 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 23:04 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-22 21:34 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 00:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-23 04:51 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 09:23 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 19:04 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-24 00:21 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:52 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:18 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 10:00 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 13:54 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:47 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-25 08:58 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 06:23 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-25 14:10 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-24 15:09 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 23:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 00:44 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 09:13 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:46 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 12:03 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 12:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:08 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-24 12:47 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:20 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 09:13 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 16:04 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:30 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 20:53 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 22:28 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 08:01 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 08:13 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 08:44 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 12:29 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 15:26 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 16:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 14:34 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:05 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-22 14:16 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 14:34 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 14:25 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 10:44 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 14:05 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Name> - 2012-03-23 15:20 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:19 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 20:05 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 10:54 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 09:48 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 12:53 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:15 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-25 12:01 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <sgt@arms.omega.faber.edu> - 2012-03-24 18:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:30 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <sgt@arms.omega.faber.edu> - 2012-03-25 18:11 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-03-26 00:10 +0000
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 17:39 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-03-26 02:50 +0000
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 21:10 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-24 15:02 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 19:09 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-25 14:02 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 12:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-23 15:52 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:24 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 20:04 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 10:43 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-24 11:22 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-24 15:16 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 16:10 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-25 12:19 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-24 19:31 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-25 12:40 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 13:46 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-25 18:14 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-03-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-26 17:44 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:20 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-25 09:33 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-25 13:07 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 19:02 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 20:26 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 21:59 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback News <News@Group.Post> - 2012-03-24 12:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-24 11:09 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-23 20:00 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:43 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 10:40 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:42 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 08:21 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-24 18:29 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-25 09:36 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-03-25 13:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2012-03-21 11:08 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-20 20:34 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 07:49 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 09:25 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 11:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-21 16:02 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 14:24 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2012-03-21 16:38 -0600
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 16:59 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:32 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-23 14:16 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:11 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 18:49 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-22 00:45 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> - 2012-03-21 23:09 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 07:51 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-22 08:28 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:28 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 10:10 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-03-21 19:09 -0500
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-21 08:23 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-22 16:34 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-22 13:45 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-20 12:21 +0100
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-03-20 08:12 +1200
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 16:49 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:37 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 16:56 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 17:08 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 17:22 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 17:46 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 14:54 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 18:17 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:00 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:23 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-03-19 19:26 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 17:55 -0700
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-03-19 22:14 -0400
Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-03-19 20:58 -0700
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 14:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <XZydnT2wa7jy7_bSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22636 |
In article <f72s39-7qg.ln1@news.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:23:47 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: > > > Or Warren Buffet who pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than > > his secretary does. > > Warren Buffet himself pointed that one out and is, I gather, a supporter > of more taxes for the rich. There are methods, well documented methods, for a person to "donate" to the general fund of the Treasury. I would be much more respectful of WB's position if he put his money where his mouth and voluntarily whatever he thinks he should be paying. Until them he is only trying to impose his outlook on others, and taxing by what offends one is a lousy policy. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-38A25D.13565222032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22640 |
In article <XZydnT2wa7jy7_bSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > There are methods, well documented methods, for a person to "donate" to > the general fund of the Treasury. I would be much more respectful of > WB's position if he put his money where his mouth and voluntarily > whatever he thinks he should be paying. Until them he is only trying to > impose his outlook on others, Only Republicans should be able to try to impose their outlook on others, right? > and taxing by what offends one is a lousy policy. But when the GOP does it, it's OK, right? -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 19:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mcSdnRGrBbFbKvbSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22648 |
In article <michelle-38A25D.13565222032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <XZydnT2wa7jy7_bSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There are methods, well documented methods, for a person to "donate" to
> > the general fund of the Treasury. I would be much more respectful of
> > WB's position if he put his money where his mouth and voluntarily
> > whatever he thinks he should be paying. Until them he is only trying to
> > impose his outlook on others,
>
> Only Republicans should be able to try to impose their outlook on others,
> right?
Never said otherwise. Although I am willing to put a little side wager
that your definition of imposing and mine would differ on a couple of
issues.
For instance, I don't think that religious organizations that have a
specific piece of their dogma that is against birth control should be
required to provide insurance for those kinds of pills for birth
control. But should for medical uses (such as heavy periods) where there
is a label indication.
Using the Catholic Church as a for instance, that would include plans
for employees of the diocese, any religious schools, and any hospitals
owned and run by the church. That would not, however, include any
parishoners. I would also say it wouldn't include any employers that
merely rent space (such as the McDonald's in the lobby of the hospital)
If you want to separate church and state, then you also have to separate
state and church, as it were.
BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat
the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery disease.
>
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-7C838F.17091922032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22650 |
In article <mcSdnRGrBbFbKvbSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Only Republicans should be able to try to impose their outlook on others, > > right? > Never said otherwise. Although I am willing to put a little side wager > that your definition of imposing and mine would differ on a couple of > issues. Well, how about trying to prevent people of the same sex from getting married to each other? How about trying to prevent gays from joining the military? How about requiring doctors to rape women in order for them to get an abortion? How about forcing abortion providers to perform unnecessary procedures, record keeping, and have various modifications done to their physical premises that are not required for any other medical procedure? > For instance, I don't think that religious organizations that have a > specific piece of their dogma that is against birth control should be > required to provide insurance for those kinds of pills for birth > control. What about employers who are not religious organizations? > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery disease. Right. A man should be able to get it up and have sex whenever he wants to, and if he can't, his employer is required to provide insurance for medication to artificially have an erection. But a woman who wants to have sex but doesn't want to get pregnant is a slut and whore. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 23:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <timmcn-4A72DF.23065422032012@news.iphouse.com> |
| In reply to | #22651 |
In article <michelle-7C838F.17091922032012@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <mcSdnRGrBbFbKvbSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Only Republicans should be able to try to impose their outlook on > > > others, right? > > Never said otherwise. Although I am willing to put a little side > > wager > > that your definition of imposing and mine would differ on a couple > > of issues. > > Well, how about trying to prevent people of the same sex from getting > married to each other? > > How about trying to prevent gays from joining the military? > > How about requiring doctors to rape women in order for them to get an > abortion? > > How about forcing abortion providers to perform unnecessary > procedures, record keeping, and have various modifications done to > their physical premises that are not required for any other medical > procedure? > > > For instance, I don't think that religious organizations that > > have a > > specific piece of their dogma that is against birth control should > > be required to provide insurance for those kinds of pills for birth > > control. > > What about employers who are not religious organizations? > > > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat > > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery > > disease. > > Right. A man should be able to get it up and have sex whenever he > wants to, and if he can't, his employer is required to provide > insurance for medication to artificially have an erection. But a > woman who wants to have sex but doesn't want to get pregnant is a > slut and whore. Not to mention that a woman can't get birth control pills to treat a health condition not related to contraception. And never mind that there are spontaneous abortions in 40-50% of all pregnancies, usually in the first 10 days of pregnancy, because the fetus is non-viable. -- And wackiness ensues...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-3F85BD.22360822032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22665 |
In article <timmcn-4A72DF.23065422032012@news.iphouse.com>, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > And never mind that there are spontaneous abortions in 40-50% of all > pregnancies, usually in the first 10 days of pregnancy, because the > fetus is non-viable. In some states, the GOP wants to make the woman prove that a stillbirth or spontaneous abortion was from natural causes, and not through any action of her own. There's one case where a woman tried to commit suicide; she lived, but her fetus didn't. She's been charged with murder. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 00:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UM-dnYfG8O0wYPbSnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22651 |
In article <michelle-7C838F.17091922032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <mcSdnRGrBbFbKvbSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Only Republicans should be able to try to impose their outlook on others,
> > > right?
> > Never said otherwise. Although I am willing to put a little side wager
> > that your definition of imposing and mine would differ on a couple of
> > issues.
>
> Well, how about trying to prevent people of the same sex from getting
> married to each other?
I have no problem with that with the same religious proviso.
>
> How about trying to prevent gays from joining the military?
That was always one of the dumber ideas since it did nothing except
pretend there were no gays in the military. Sorta reminded me of an old
Monty Python skit and the old jokes about the British Navy. ALthough
before you get too puffed up, I would like to remind you that DADT was
enacted in 1993 under Clinton and before the GOP take over of Congress
in '94.
>
>
> What about employers who are not religious organizations?
I mentioned specifically that parishoners should not be able to. Only
religious organizations and only those with a well-established part of
their dogma. And, I would also say that Jehova Witness Churches should
be able to avoid paying for transfusions and Scientologists for psych
medications and procedures.
>
> > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat
> > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery disease.
>
> Right. A man should be able to get it up and have sex whenever he wants
> to, and if he can't, his employer is required to provide insurance for
> medication to artificially have an erection. But a woman who wants to have
> sex but doesn't want to get pregnant is a slut and whore.
Never said the last part, but feel free to continue the hyperbole.
As to the former, it is another question altogether unless you can find
me a religion where artificial erections are against their teachings. If
so, then yeah, they should be able to not pay for Viagra.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-22 22:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-90245C.22335922032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22666 |
In article <UM-dnYfG8O0wYPbSnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Only Republicans should be able to try to impose their outlook on
> > > > others, right?
> > > Never said otherwise. Although I am willing to put a little side
> > > wager
> > > that your definition of imposing and mine would differ on a couple
> > > of issues.
> >
> > Well, how about trying to prevent people of the same sex from getting
> > married to each other?
> I have no problem with that with the same religious proviso.
What religious proviso? You mean that if an employee marries someone of
the same sex, his employer has the right to fire him because it offends the
religious beliefs of the employer?
> ALthough before you get too puffed up, I would like to remind you that
> DADT was enacted in 1993 under Clinton and before the GOP take over of
> Congress in '94.
Yup; it was passed by a coalition of Republicans and homophobic Democrats;
he signed it because it had been passed by a veto-proof majority.
> > What about employers who are not religious organizations?
>
> I mentioned specifically that parishoners should not be able to. Only
> religious organizations and only those with a well-established part of
> their dogma.
So a company that is owned by a Catholic should not be able to prevent a
woman from getting birth control pills under the company's insurance plan?
What about a hospital that's owned by the Catholic Church? The hospital
itself is not a religious organization; it's a medical organization.
> > > BTW: Viagra is a given under my scenario since it is used to treat
> > > the sequalae of a medical condition usually peripheral artery
> > > disease.
> >
> > Right. A man should be able to get it up and have sex whenever he
> > wants to, and if he can't, his employer is required to provide
> > insurance for medication to artificially have an erection. But a
> > woman who wants to have sex but doesn't want to get pregnant is a slut
> > and whore.
>
> Never said the last part, but feel free to continue the hyperbole.
You never said that last part, but Rush Limbaugh did; he's the unofficial
mouthpiece for the GOP. I haven't heard anyone of any importance in the
GOP disavow his saying that.
> As to the former, it is another question altogether unless you can find
> me a religion where artificial erections are against their teachings. If
> so, then yeah, they should be able to not pay for Viagra.
It's not a matter of artificial erections; it's a matter of having sex.
I note that you didn't bother to answer these two questions:
How about requiring doctors to rape women in order for them to get an
abortion?
How about forcing abortion providers to perform unnecessary
procedures, record keeping, and have various modifications done to
their physical premises that are not required for any other medical
procedure?
Too uncomfortable for you?
--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 09:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <66SdnbOVD8bQ6_HSnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22669 |
In article <michelle-90245C.22335922032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> What religious proviso? You mean that if an employee marries someone of
> the same sex, his employer has the right to fire him because it offends the
> religious beliefs of the employer?
Where exactly do you come with this off-the-wall shit. I was saying
that I saw no problems with gay marriages as long as there was no
requirement that a religion that was against them had to perform them.
Find a church more inclusive or do a civil commitment.
>
> Yup; it was passed by a coalition of Republicans and homophobic Democrats;
> he signed it because it had been passed by a veto-proof majority.
There are homophobic Democrats? Who knew. DADT was the codification
of a policy that Pres. Clinton put in place by Executive Order in
January of 1993. There were only 43 members of the GOP at the time in
the Senate which means that at least 17 Dems had to jump over to be
veto-proof. So, under your scenario, there were at least 30% of the Dems
were homophobic (possibly more I wasn't able to find the actual vote
right off so I don't know if any GOP voted against it.
>
>
> So a company that is owned by a Catholic should not be able to prevent a
> woman from getting birth control pills under the company's insurance plan?
> What about a hospital that's owned by the Catholic Church? The hospital
> itself is not a religious organization; it's a medical organization.
It is both. If you look at the bylaws of most of the Catholic
Hospital organizations, they are viewed as part of the Church's outreach
or as part of their desire to serve community. It is partly a religious
organization. The ownership is the controlling part anyway to my mind.
>
> > Never said the last part, but feel free to continue the hyperbole.
>
> You never said that last part, but Rush Limbaugh did; he's the unofficial
> mouthpiece for the GOP. I haven't heard anyone of any importance in the
> GOP disavow his saying that.
Unofficial means, well unofficial in most contexts. Although in the
interests of full disclosure, I would feel more comfortable personally
if the GOP would disavow parts. I would also fee more comfortable if the
Dems would disavow Oberman and a couple of others. The process has
become so factionalized since the True Believers on both sides have
effectively gotten control of the nominating process so that the more
reasonable voices are crowded out and intimidated into silence.
>
> It's not a matter of artificial erections; it's a matter of having sex.
>
> I note that you didn't bother to answer these two questions:
>
> How about requiring doctors to rape women in order for them to get an
> abortion?
>
> How about forcing abortion providers to perform unnecessary
> procedures, record keeping, and have various modifications done to
> their physical premises that are not required for any other medical
> procedure?
>
> Too uncomfortable for you?
Nope, I thought you would be able to see the pattern and I did not
have to walk you through everything. Please accept my most humble
apologies for assuming you were bright enough to connect the dots on
your own. It won't happen again.
Although I do not like the hyperbole about rape. I worked as an EMT
and saw more than my fair share of rapes. This doesn't come close to the
brutality, and psych impact of a real rape. If anything using rape in
this context tends to marginalize the suffering of real rape.
Having said that, I don't think abortion clinics should be subjected
to any additional regulations. However, I also note that the
pro-abortion people tried really hard to get their clinics exempted from
many of the regs and rules that surrounded other out-patient surgical
centers. They should be treated as what they are, just like the people
that did my hernia surgery.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 09:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback-Sorry MS |
| Message-ID | <ibednbVNA4UL4PHSnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22679 |
In article <66SdnbOVD8bQ6_HSnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > How about forcing abortion providers to perform unnecessary > > procedures, record keeping, and have various modifications done to > > their physical premises that are not required for any other medical > > procedure? > > > > Too uncomfortable for you? > Nope, I thought you would be able to see the pattern and I did not > have to walk you through everything. Please accept my most humble > apologies for assuming you were bright enough to connect the dots on > your own. It won't happen again. > This was a little snarky on my part and I apologize. However, the reason I did not specifically answer the questions are the same. Given the context, I should have figured out that wouldn't have flown and saved us both some time. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 18:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Apple to Pay Dividend, Plans $10 Billion Buyback-Sorry MS |
| Message-ID | <michelle-9CF1A7.18582923032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22681 |
In article <ibednbVNA4UL4PHSnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > This was a little snarky on my part and I apologize. Accepted. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 14:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f6cc6fa$0$16559$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #22679 |
Kurt Ullman wrote: > There are homophobic Democrats? Who knew. DADT was the codification > of a policy that Pres. Clinton put in place by Executive Order in > January of 1993. There were only 43 members of the GOP at the time in As I recall, Clinton started with the desire to be sex neutral, but there was very staunch opposition from within the military generals, admirals and what not who said that having openly gay in the military would cause mayhem and result in the universe collapsing onto itself. So Clinton was forced to tone down his plan to the "don't ask don't tell".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 15:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TcSdnXzIpqVeVPHSnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22691 |
In article <4f6cc6fa$0$16559$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > There are homophobic Democrats? Who knew. DADT was the codification > > of a policy that Pres. Clinton put in place by Executive Order in > > January of 1993. There were only 43 members of the GOP at the time in > > > As I recall, Clinton started with the desire to be sex neutral, but > there was very staunch opposition from within the military generals, > admirals and what not who said that having openly gay in the military > would cause mayhem and result in the universe collapsing onto itself. So > Clinton was forced to tone down his plan to the "don't ask don't tell". Clinton campaigned on that, yet still put out the EO in early January, soon after the inauguration. The EO was such as mishmash trying to be all things to all people (a politician would do that? Who knew!-g) that the Congress came around and passed the bill (little bit of trivia it was never given one of those cute and important sounding bill names, just being titled as the part and section of US Code involved.) It was passed by solid bipartisan majorities in both Houses, so apparently at the time homophobia was rampant on both sides of the aisle. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 18:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-3B6838.18574923032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22679 |
In article <66SdnbOVD8bQ6_HSnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > What religious proviso? You mean that if an employee marries someone > > of the same sex, his employer has the right to fire him because it > > offends the religious beliefs of the employer? > Where exactly do you come with this off-the-wall shit. I was saying > that I saw no problems with gay marriages as long as there was no > requirement that a religion that was against them had to perform them. That might be what you meant, but that's not how it came across. BTW, I agree with you. No religion should be required to perform marriages that go against the tenets of that faith. > > Yup; it was passed by a coalition of Republicans and homophobic Democrats; > > he signed it because it had been passed by a veto-proof majority. > There are homophobic Democrats? Who knew. Yup; the Democratic party is not a monolithic our-way or the highway party. Before DADT, being gay was grounds for court martial, and there were no restraints (other than those for any other "offense") on ferreting out gays. One of Clinton's campaign promises was to remove all impediments to gays serving in the military; however, he received too much opposition from congress to be able to do that. DADT was a compromise. He lost a lot of credibility with a good portion of his supporters as a result. > > > Never said the last part, but feel free to continue the > > > hyperbole. > > > > You never said that last part, but Rush Limbaugh did; he's the > > unofficial mouthpiece for the GOP. I haven't heard anyone of any > > importance in the GOP disavow his saying that. > Unofficial means, well unofficial in most contexts. Yeah, as in "this is what we believe and want, but political realities prevent us from making it formal and official." > > I note that you didn't bother to answer these two questions: > > > > How about requiring doctors to rape women in order for them to > > get an abortion? > > > > How about forcing abortion providers to perform unnecessary > > procedures, record keeping, and have various modifications done > > to their physical premises that are not required for any other > > medical procedure? > > > > Too uncomfortable for you? > Nope, I thought you would be able to see the pattern and I did not > have to walk you through everything. Please accept my most humble > apologies for assuming you were bright enough to connect the dots on > your own. It won't happen again. I connected the dots; you just don't like the picture they paint. > Although I do not like the hyperbole about rape. Those laws require a doctor to stick a rod, six inches or so long, into the vagina of the woman, against her will. And that, my friend, is rape, no matter how you slice it. > I worked as an EMT and saw more than my fair share of rapes. This > doesn't come close to the brutality, and psych impact of a real rape. Not all rapes are as brutal as the ones you're alluding to. And how do you know what the psych impact to these women is? > Having said that, I don't think abortion clinics should be subjected > to any additional regulations. I'm very happy that you think that way, and I'm not being sarcastic. > However, I also note that the pro-abortion people tried really hard to > get their clinics exempted from many of the regs and rules that > surrounded other out-patient surgical centers. I don't know of anyone who does that. I do know that many in the GOP want chemically induced abortion (e.g., Plan B) to be classified as surgical abortion. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 08:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5MudnSGBE-n_XPDSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22709 |
In article <michelle-3B6838.18574923032012@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > Although I do not like the hyperbole about rape. > > Those laws require a doctor to stick a rod, six inches or so long, into the > vagina of the woman, against her will. And that, my friend, is rape, no > matter how you slice it. > I would definitely go with assault and it is on its face an attempt to shame someone--which is VERY bad policy-- but physical rape is still orders of magnitude worse psychologically and physically. > > I worked as an EMT and saw more than my fair share of rapes. This > > doesn't come close to the brutality, and psych impact of a real rape. > > Not all rapes are as brutal as the ones you're alluding to. And how do you > know what the psych impact to these women is? I have yet to see or hear of a rape that wasn't brutal. Rape is, afterall about physical and mental control and not about sex. As for the other Psych RN for 10 years after an EMT with a lot of PTSD (although mostly at the time diagnosed as depression) clients following rapes, I read a lot of medical literature in my current job as a medical writer, I have had two dear friends raped. Just because I have a penis I can't have empathy for the victims of rape? Sounds sorta sexist to me... > > However, I also note that the pro-abortion people tried really hard to > > get their clinics exempted from many of the regs and rules that > > surrounded other out-patient surgical centers. > > I don't know of anyone who does that. I do know that many in the GOP want > chemically induced abortion (e.g., Plan B) to be classified as surgical > abortion. You weren't paying attention. Heck Planned Parenthood tried that in Indiana about 10 years ago suggesting that the State's attempt to make them conform to the rules and regulations of all other outpatient surgical facilities was against the Constitutional protections set out in Roe v Wade. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 11:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CB935D7C.83FD0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #22744 |
On 3/24/12 7:43 AM, in article 5MudnSGBE-n_XPDSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <michelle-3B6838.18574923032012@news.eternal-september.org>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > >>> Although I do not like the hyperbole about rape. >> >> Those laws require a doctor to stick a rod, six inches or so long, into the >> vagina of the woman, against her will. And that, my friend, is rape, no >> matter how you slice it. >> > > I would definitely go with assault and it is on its face an attempt > to shame someone--which is VERY bad policy-- but physical rape is still > orders of magnitude worse psychologically and physically. > >>> I worked as an EMT and saw more than my fair share of rapes. This >>> doesn't come close to the brutality, and psych impact of a real rape. >> >> Not all rapes are as brutal as the ones you're alluding to. And how do you >> know what the psych impact to these women is? > I have yet to see or hear of a rape that wasn't brutal. Rape is, > afterall about physical and mental control and not about sex. As for the > other Psych RN for 10 years after an EMT with a lot of PTSD (although > mostly at the time diagnosed as depression) clients following rapes, I > read a lot of medical literature in my current job as a medical writer, > I have had two dear friends raped. Just because I have a penis I can't > have empathy for the victims of rape? Sounds sorta sexist to me... > >>> However, I also note that the pro-abortion people tried really hard to >>> get their clinics exempted from many of the regs and rules that >>> surrounded other out-patient surgical centers. >> >> I don't know of anyone who does that. I do know that many in the GOP want >> chemically induced abortion (e.g., Plan B) to be classified as surgical >> abortion. > > You weren't paying attention. Heck Planned Parenthood tried that in > Indiana about 10 years ago suggesting that the State's attempt to make > them conform to the rules and regulations of all other outpatient > surgical facilities was against the Constitutional protections set out > in Roe v Wade. Interesting aside that most of our liberal friends most likely are not aware: Margaret Sanger, founder of that wonderful organization was a devout racist and the purpose was to prevent the population growth of "Negros"... <http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-77D33B.10173424032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22760 |
In article <CB935D7C.83FD0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > Interesting aside that most of our liberal friends most likely are not > aware: Margaret Sanger, founder of that wonderful organization was a > devout racist and the purpose was to prevent the population growth of > "Negros"... Wrong again, as can be seen from this excerpt from the Wikipedia article about her: Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but would not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor any refusal to work within interracial projects.[83] Her contemporaries in the African-American community supported her efforts. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[84] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with African-American doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of African-American doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and African-American churches, and received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[85] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[86] From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role -- alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble -- in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor African Americans.[87] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." This quote has been used by numerous Sanger detractors, including Angela Davis and opponents of the legalization of abortion, to support their claims that Sanger was racist.[88] However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."[89] -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 20:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CB93DCB4.840A8%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #22772 |
On 3/24/12 12:17 PM, in article michelle-77D33B.10173424032012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <CB935D7C.83FD0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, > George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Interesting aside that most of our liberal friends most likely are not >> aware: Margaret Sanger, founder of that wonderful organization was a >> devout racist and the purpose was to prevent the population growth of >> "Negros"... > > Wrong again, as can be seen from this excerpt from the Wikipedia article > about her: > <snipped undocumented opinion> Michelle, I cannot believe that you are quoting Wiki. That's like quoting IMDB for factual info from motion pictures, LOL!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-B40AEB.19424624032012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #22815 |
In article <CB93DCB4.840A8%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Wrong again, as can be seen from this excerpt from the Wikipedia article > > about her: > > > > <snipped undocumented opinion> Very well documented; that's what the footnotes are for. > Michelle, I cannot believe that you are quoting Wiki. It was easier than referencing each of those footnotes individually. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 18:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dfmanno-2305BD.18444024032012@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #22760 |
In article <CB935D7C.83FD0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > Interesting aside that most of our liberal friends most likely are not > aware: Margaret Sanger, founder of that wonderful organization was a devout > racist and the purpose was to prevent the population growth of "Negros"... 1) Sanger was a eugenicist at a time when eugenics was considered cutting-edge science and many people advocated it. Eugenicists were hoping to improve the human race by preventing people with genetic defects from reproducing, and limiting birth control and abortion for women who were considered "fit" or healthy. That eugenics was later shown to be bad science and was adopted by the Nazis and others to justify racism does not make Sanger a racist. You're applying today's morality to yesterday's culture. 2) You're lying, again. The "quotes" purported to show she was a racist are either taken out of conduct, falsely attributed to her or out-and-out fabricated. 3) It's interesting how conservatives ignore all the proven racists in their ranks to concentrate on the few people on the other side at whom they can hurl accusations - founded or not. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matt 7:3) -- D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. (George Carlin)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web