Actually we do know what happened. They put up a video on YouTube which was a friend of the woman in question simulating giving a blowjob. I'm sure you have a problem with that woman too. "I don't trust this guy because his significant other is a political activist who has a friend that made a video of herself simulating a blowjob on the viewer of the video." You're a fucking tool, plain and simple.

You're not only a bad judge of character - apparently your reading comprehension isn't so great. I see you've backed off your original statement of "she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate" - let's look at the actual story behind your claim that his s/o actually offered blowjobs for votes:

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

Seems to me the satirical nature of that poster and the associated campaign is pretty clear. But hey, let's just smear a guy because of something that you claim his s/o did, which she didn't actually do, shall we? So much more fun that way.

Oops, slightly bad math by me - there's 12 total, so I'd guess 8 go Dem, 2 GOP, and 2 toss-up? Sorry bout that.

That seems highly unlikely, if you actually look at the map. California's entire coastline, except for the San Diego area, skews heavily blue (and even San Diego is lightly blue), so the opposite would probably be true - only California 4 (on his map) would likely elect Republican senators. Keep in mind the coasts are also far more heavily populated. So it'd probably be 8-2 the other way.

http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/US_election/figs/CA.png

Uh, hang on. Oz the Great and Powerful was a Disney movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939) was an MGM movie. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone that's confused, like the previous two posters.

THIS is the comment that should be modded up.

You must not have read the article (big surprise). It was supposed to be voluntary; apparently a number of people didn't feel like it was voluntary at all, given what they actually experienced.

Wilson also had a sense of humor.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The difference between someoldguy and "Yoda" appears to be that someoldguy is really good at predicting the exact same things in hindsight.

MSNBC and Fox get what, a few million viewers, max, per day? A tiny fraction of the population of the US.

Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself. It's a ridiculous point of view bred by your narcissism.

Lemme guess, you can also tell us about the real story behind 9/11, that only you and a few other really smart people know about. "Really smart" in this case meaning you read websites that aren't "on anyone else's radar."

{{citation needed}}

Yes, those dirty filthy peasants that are only paying $450/night SHOULD be paying for wifi. After all, $450 a night isn't a "real" luxury hotel. How dare they assume to be as deserving as I am!

Perhaps????

That's his point exactly, and a good illustration of why high-end hotels charge for internet while others don't. You're not looking at it from a corporate viewpoint - it's irrelevant what the soda costs to make. If people are willing to pay $2 per glass, then the corporate mindset is "We're losing money if we don't charge $2 per glass." It was ONLY when some places started offering free refills (because they realized it "keeps you in the store where you're more likely to buy something else") that everyone started offering free refills on soda, because of the competition. Until then, it wasn't a question of what that soda cost to make; it was merely a question of maximizing profit.

If one semi-high-end hotel chain, say, maybe, Hilton, starts offering free wifi to all customers, then you'll see others follow suit. Until then, they'll all charge, only because the majority of their customers are willing to pay it, or are on corporate stays that pay for their internet charges anyway.