So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

In article ,
says...

In article om,
says...

On 1/6/2013 2:38 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/6/13 10:53 AM, JustWait wrote:


Bull****... Show me the post where somebody besides harry or don said
"it's not a problem". You lie, but it's what I expect from a progressive
anyway..


If I see a URL that interests me and it looks "broken," (such as a space
in the wrong place or a two line URL that isn't going to work), I have
the necessary "skills" to resolve the issue, and we're not talking about
complex skills being needed.

The fact is, you are ignorant and lazy. Period.

We would all appreciate it if you would focus your efforts on paying
your current and back taxes. We are tired of paying your fair share
along with paying our own fair share.


Don't you remember? Harry used to own an old red tobbaco
barn,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , until it vanished.

The Maryland Red Barn didn't vanish, the old, very old building up and
moved to Harry's landlord's neighbor's property.

The Maryland Red Barn probably got scared thinking it would be sold for
back taxes....

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 11:06:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/5/2013 4:05 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:42:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

===

It turns out that there is an easy way to post long links without them
becoming broken. The trick is to enclose the link in angle brackets
like this:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20130102/US.Superstorm.Aid/

That way there is no need to cut and paste, use tiny URLs, etc.

I know, but really, I thought that people here were at least competent
enough to take a space out of a link after copying and pasting. But,
alas, they've proven me wrong!

Such a narrow twit.. You know, some folks readers might be different
than yours.. Mine will not copy and paste a broken line in one shot, it'
takes each line separately... If you would just put the ****ing arrows
in, we could all just click on the ****ing thing, you stupid as ****,
idiot... that is those of us who still think you may put up a relevant
link someday...

That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

The use of http://tinyurl.com/ would make the process so much easier. Put the button in your browser
tool bar, and life is quite simple. Check out the link below to see how much trouble is saved - no
copying, no pasting, just a quick click or double-click, depending on your news reader.

http://tinyurl.com/o42at

Yes, I've apologized, I really never realized that I was dealing with
some Neanderthals that didn't know how to cut and paste. I thought
everyone here was at the very least smart enough to do that, and I was
wrong.

Cutting and pasting is for the third grade and folks like ESAD. You've proven that you're well past
the ESAD stage, unless the 'S' means 'Steak'!

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

On 1/7/13 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

I know how to paste but I have to open a new browser instance, paste
the url, delete the space and launch it instead of simply clicking the
link.

It is really seldom worth the effort for the crap you link.



Well, perhaps if you weren't using a 19th Century news reader like Forte
Agent...

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

On 1/7/2013 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

I know how to paste but I have to open a new browser instance, paste
the url, delete the space and launch it instead of simply clicking the
link.

It is really seldom worth the effort for the crap you link.


Exactly!

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 11:06:36 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/5/2013 4:05 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:42:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

===

It turns out that there is an easy way to post long links without them
becoming broken. The trick is to enclose the link in angle brackets
like this:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20130102/US.Superstorm.Aid/

That way there is no need to cut and paste, use tiny URLs, etc.

I know, but really, I thought that people here were at least competent
enough to take a space out of a link after copying and pasting. But,
alas, they've proven me wrong!

Such a narrow twit.. You know, some folks readers might be different
than yours.. Mine will not copy and paste a broken line in one shot, it'
takes each line separately... If you would just put the ****ing arrows
in, we could all just click on the ****ing thing, you stupid as ****,
idiot... that is those of us who still think you may put up a relevant
link someday...

That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

The use of http://tinyurl.com/ would make the process so much easier. Put the button in your browser
tool bar, and life is quite simple. Check out the link below to see how much trouble is saved - no
copying, no pasting, just a quick click or double-click, depending on your news reader.

http://tinyurl.com/o42at

Yes, I've apologized, I really never realized that I was dealing with
some Neanderthals that didn't know how to cut and paste. I thought
everyone here was at the very least smart enough to do that, and I was
wrong.

Cutting and pasting is for the third grade and folks like ESAD. You've proven that you're well past
the ESAD stage, unless the 'S' means 'Steak'!

Again, I agree, anyone passed a third grade education should be able to
cut and paste and take a space out of a URL, thanks for pointing that
out.

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:25:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head

OK I looked it up and, sa usual you are full of ****

This is the text of the bill that passed, No Alaska fisheries, No roof
on the Smithsonian or any of the other crap in the 100 page H.R.1


H.R.41 -- To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National
Flood Insurance Program. (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 41 IH

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 41

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood
Insurance Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 3, 2013

Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN,
Mr. LANCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs.
CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr.
CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. MENG,
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. TONKO, and Mr.
BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood
Insurance Program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and
inserting `$30,425,000,000'.

(b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S.
Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).

Oh, ****, are you really trying to tell people here that THAT is the
bill in it's entirety???? Really????

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

I know how to paste but I have to open a new browser instance, paste
the url, delete the space and launch it instead of simply clicking the
link.

It is really seldom worth the effort for the crap you link.

Gee, that's rough, sorry.

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

In article m,
says...

On 1/7/2013 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

I know how to paste but I have to open a new browser instance, paste
the url, delete the space and launch it instead of simply clicking the
link.

It is really seldom worth the effort for the crap you link.


Exactly!

Well, then, why whine and cry about your inability to do so?

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

On 1/7/13 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 11:19:52 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/7/13 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:33:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



That's odd, Mr. Internet Guru.... I use the same reader as you, and I
have no problems! And of course, name calling is what happens when you
have been found, once again, to be a complete idiot. How Harryesque.
Notice, if you will, the only ones to have trouble with the links I
provide are you, Greg and Meyer.... Everyone else says it's not a
problem!!! Hmmmmmm?

I know how to paste but I have to open a new browser instance, paste
the url, delete the space and launch it instead of simply clicking the
link.

It is really seldom worth the effort for the crap you link.



Well, perhaps if you weren't using a 19th Century news reader like Forte
Agent...

There are a number of reasons for using a simpler news reader than
Outlook or some other bloatware.
For one thing, it runs off a thumb drive and will execute on any
windoze platform without actually being installed. That is handy if
you have more than one machine.



You must follow some usenet groups other than rec.boats, because
carrying a thumb drive to be able to read this one from any windoze
machine seems a waste of time and effort, considering the lack of
content here.

Facebook, interestingly, updates itself to its users no matter what
machine they are on. If I visit with my iMac and then the next day visit
with my tablet, my stuff to read is just where I left it after I logged
out with the iMac...the old stuff I've already read is way down at the
bottom of the list. Of course, no one really gives a damn about usenet
anymore, so development ceased ages ago.

So, Scotty is against Sany aid....so....
 

On 1/7/2013 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:25:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head

OK I looked it up and, sa usual you are full of ****

This is the text of the bill that passed, No Alaska fisheries, No roof
on the Smithsonian or any of the other crap in the 100 page H.R.1


H.R.41 -- To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National
Flood Insurance Program. (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 41 IH

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 41

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood
Insurance Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 3, 2013

Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN,
Mr. LANCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs.
CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr.
CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. MENG,
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. TONKO, and Mr.
BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood
Insurance Program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and
inserting `$30,425,000,000'.

(b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S.
Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).


Hey, do you have the same for the original bill the republicans forced
the dems to dump?