HAHAHAHA. Okay. I thought your post was serious until then, but you gave away the gag.

That applies to about 99.9% of every effort to change things in Washington for the better. But 1000 of those actions just might.

Yea, because nobody gives a crap if the government is collecting all your information, reading your email, and listening to your phone calls. If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about, right? Who cares about the 4th Amendment, it's all antiquated and stuff. We just want our Facebook and our smart phones and the GPS on our cars so Big Brother knows where we are. Silly, to make an issue of NSA's actions.

What is the reason for the scare quotes on "filibuster"? Rand Paul's filibuster was, in fact, a filibuster, unlike the fake filibusters we have been subjected to over the last 40-odd years when the threat of a filibuster became a de-facto one, but without anyone actually having to stand in the chamber and talk for as long as they could stand to be there - ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Are we so desensitized now by phony parliamentary maneuvers that don't actually require any effort on the part of our representatives that when someone actually follows the traditional route of discussion and debate and puts up a rhetorical fight we have to use scare quotes to distinguish it from the backroom posturing that normally goes on?

the lost revenue by the studio, which currently stands at $10AU ($7.90US) based on iTunes pricing.

The studio should only be entitled to recover the wholesale price, which is presumably somewhere around half of the retail price.

You're off by a decade... 31 years.

He must be using one of those newfangled Pentium processors.

It is a clever trick to equivocate "insurance" and "access". It is possible to self-insure - a completely rational, actuarially-sound, choice for many young people.

QFT. There were a couple of time intervals in my 20s when I went without insurance, but that didn't stop me from hitting up the quick-care clinic and the pharmacy on the couple of occasions that a cold (or flu or whatever it was) wouldn't go away in a reasonable amount of time with OTC treatment.

Too bad 404care makes that illegal now. Perhaps some "Irish democracy" is warranted as a response.

Since when does Android run on iOS devices? It doesn't?

At risk of being pedantic, there was a project years ago that got Android kinda-sorta working on the iPhone 3G. It was sluggish and drained your battery at an alarming rate because it didn't have any hardware-acceleration or power-management support, and it didn't let you make calls IIRC, but it was Android on an iPhone. It even set itself up in a dual-boot environment, so you could switch between Android and iOS. AFAIK, it was never developed into something that was actually usable. It also never ran on anything newer than the iPhone 3G.

That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.

What kind of "libertarian" are you if you'd even entertain the notion of voting for either of those socialist jackwagons? You might as well turn in your guns, your money, and your freedom now, before they take them from you.

And they make the vast majority of the income and should pay the majority source of the income tax.

They already do:

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

How much more would you like them to pay?

I did not intend to leave that impression. Just pointing out that prosecutors do what they want, and justify it later. The VA attorney clearly violated his oath, regardless of the merits of the cause.

He was lying. [aside]You can tell when politicians do that by checking to see if their lips are moving.[/aside]. Virginia's Attorney General was in a similar position, except it wasn't just a state law, it was written into the state Constitution. Yet he still refused to uphold the law. So Cooper was just blowing smoke up your ass. He defended the anti-gay marriage law because he decided that was the most politically beneficial position, and had a handy excuse to use for doing it.