The way you see it the USA was a dictatorship.

That pretty much ends any connection you might have had with reality.

In the real world actual, you know, analysis and research showed that Republicans lost support of their base because they stopped governing by the principles that their voters expected of them. The Republicans stopped acting like Republicans, and they were punished.

In the real world Bush was actually reelected based on the Iraq war: the thing you think got the power taken away was actually the thing that preserved it! Easy evidence of this is that the president has much more to do with war strategy than congressmen, so if the war was such a negative then it would have hit Bush harder than the congress. We saw the opposite.

So no. I know it's fun to see the world in ways that jive with your own opinions and create fun drama in those you disagree with, but reality just doesn't bear your perspective out. Republicans lost largely because of things like profligate spending, and that was quite the opposite of a free pass.

But that fallacy is countered by having the rest of the country ready to slap the politicians of the district (who represent a tiny minority) back down when they start demanding the maintainance of a bad program.

On the other hand you seem to be touching a new fallacy here, talking about the inefficiencies of switching vendors and starting and stopping programs as if those things are required parts of the process. In reality vendors and programs are kept unless it's beneficial to modify them, and at that point the overhead of the move is taken into account. Thus this approach gains you flexibility but the costs of switching are only realized if the flexibility is exercised.

Who gave Bush and the Republicans a free pass on spending?

They were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE largely because of their spending habits! That's hardly a free pass!

The economy is not the static thing--the state function--that politicians like to pretend it is. You can't lower taxes, see what happens, and then fiddle with them again.

Right now we have lowish taxes but the real possibility of significant tax hikes in the near future. The economy is taking that uncertainty into account, so the low tax situation of the moment is confounded. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of lowered taxes leading to economic boosts. Take Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" which lowered taxes for a lot of businesses and (as has been verified) directly encouraged hiring and economic gains.

So how many times do you have to do the same thing to realize it's not working? Well first you have to ignore the evidence that it is...

Every business pays quite a lot in payroll taxes.

The availability of loans is a problem as well, but then part of the reason they can't get loans is because the capital to provide those loans is being diverted into the treasury to help fund huge deficits. In effect every small business trying to get a loan has to compete with the US government who also wants the loans but offers sweeter deals.

So whether we're being slammed directly through taxes or through misdirection of capital in the money market, the result is the same: overspending by the US government is draining resources from the economy.

Wow. Such ignorance.

Drop us a line if you ever come back to Earth.

Sure the current administration owns an "industry" that will benefit from these regulations. THE industry, these days: the Federal Government and all of the other governments who will benefit from being the generous philanthropists, handing out health care.... to those who cooperate, at least.

Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and other businesses aren't funding "hatred" against single payer health care. They don't need to. People read the proposals and see their freedoms being taken away, see themselves being "strongly encouraged" to go in certain directions by a government seeking to force its philosophies and values upon us all, and they naturally reject the ideas. People can see the scumminess of this process and inconsistencies in political pronouncements without some evil corporation hilighting them.

The "hatred" for single payer options comes from a simple fact: people don't all agree that it's a good idea, and resent having it forced upon them.

In many areas roads are just as much about making work as they are about getting cars from place to place.

Decrease maintenance costs and displace plow crews and you take away half of the infrastructure's utility!

Yes, but you can go one step further there: why did the Republican want to beat Obama? Probably because he thought Obama's solutions were not in the best interests of the people.

Back to non-evil.

Since storing movies tends to be a write once activity, would using the various flash options be reliable?

A full season of a TV show or a few movies could fit on a single 4GB card, and the things are small enough to sort and stack just about anywhere. No need to worry about spinning them up once a year, either.

Does anyone know where to get cheap SD cards in bulk?

Maybe the MMPI tests were discredited with respect to hiring uses, but they're still widely used, well researched, and actively developed exams.

Psychology has its factions with different groups not giving sufficient credit to each others' methods much like physics has its string theory believers and dismissers.

That's right: you have no inside knowledge... meaning that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

What you described is simply not how such tests work. They don't look up specific answers to look for the person they want to hire. They analyze the entirety of the test, which includes many, many interrelated questions, to form a more complete picture of the individual.

With very, very few exceptions, individual questions mean absolutely nothing in this sort of test. So no, this question or that question isn't biased against anyone; if you have a problem with the analysis that's one thing, but clearly you don't know anything about that.

In this case the landlord, in the common usage of the term, is the government, not the people.

The government manages the spectrum for the people as it sees fit and has no responsibility to make anyone whole because nothing was taken from them.

The government manages the spectrum for the people as it sees fit and has no responsibility to make anyone whole because nothing was taken from them.

The government manages the spectrum for the people as it sees fit and has no responsibility to make anyone whole because nothing was taken from them.

You really want to go down the road of silly, childish rhetorical devices?

Right then. I owned that spectrum too, so why are only people with TV sets to get the benefit of a $40 coupon?

Clearly that's punishing me, withholding benefit I should be receiving for my share of the rent proceeds.

As I said, the spectrum wasn't owned by the people with the TV sets. It was owned by all citizens, TV sets or no. So let's put the broadcasters' payments into the general fund so that it can benefit all people, the real class of owners, and not just those with obsolete TV sets.

Again: go back and read what I wrote and try again.

You seem to keep bringing up things that in no way contradict what I said.