Everything that you said could be used, word for word, to argue against the Democrats pushing through what many now call "ObamaCare". Based on opinion polls, a majority of American voters was against this change. Procedural tactics were used to squeeze the legislation into something that could get enough votes to pass, and out-right bribery in some cases (See "Louisiana Purchase"). The promises made to the elderly through Medicare don't stand up the liabilities we now owe. The debt incurred by these changes is perhaps not as great a financial risk as defaulting on the debt, but we've yet to see just what will happen if it does. You could easily argue that those voting in favor cared more about re-election (or were retiring and hence wouldn't be held accountable in an election) than ensuring financial stability in the US.

Your language could also apply to a number of other causes, though we'd stretch the "financial risk" side in doing so: Environmentalists, Defense Hawks, Warmongers, Unions, Corporations, "Big" Industries, Wall Street, etc. All of these in some fashion end up "ramming" (and jamming) things through Congress and down our proverbial throats.

What you want, but don't yet know you want, is more limited government. Take the power away, and the abuse of that power is also removed. If that power remains in Congress, it will be abused in Congress.

The Tea-Party Republicans ran on platforms of cutting spending and lowering the debt. Can you blame them for not turning on their constituents and breaking promises to pass legislation their home districts are against? I thought we were tired of politicians making campaign promises, then breaking them in office.

Some conservative opinions do find an open audience on Slashdot. Now, if we had another evolution/creationism thread, you would see very few pro-creationism comments modded up. But in a lot of political threads, any comment on how awesome Ron Paul is will get modded up. Then again, Ron Paul isn't "conservative", he's libertarian. Libertarian views certainly get mod points.

While its nice to see Lenovo offering those higher resolutions, neither HD+ nor FHD is available for under 1000 quid. Considering he used have better than FHD before, it sure would be nice if new computers weren't a downgrade.

I absolutely feel your pain. When purchasing a new laptop, I was coming from a 14.1" Thinkpad T43 with a resolution of 1400 x 1050 (it went higher, but you had to scroll). I wanted something better than 1366 x 768 resolution, but with every manufacturer I had to go to a 17.3" screen to get it. I ended up with a huge "laptop" just to get 1600 x 900. It is frustrating to lose so much vertical space to gain some horizontal that I really don't need anyway (few web pages actually use that wide screen space well). Some games will leverage it, but I'd have been much happier with a 4:3 ratio with better resolution.

I think it only fair to also present similar definitions for what a Republic is.

Personally, I feel that Republic is more accurate given the historical meaning of democracy, but that the meaning of "democracy" has changed since 1787 to basically include what the United States is now. The founders generally thought of direct democracy (think Athens) rather than today's broader definitions. Perhaps the most-encompassing term may be that the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

Definition of REPUBLIC (from Merriam Webster)
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Or from Dictionary.com:
republic
/rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

In an increasingly crowded world, wasted space and getting away from people is the height of luxury.

While I too have issues with Corporations being treated like people, your analogies are all very dramatic and unsubstantial.

Polygamy is not a merger. Mergers turn multiple entities into one single thing. Polygamy still retains the individual people. The appropriate analogy would be cannibalism, and even that is wrong since mergers are usually mutually beneficial.

As long as their business practices are legal, it is nothing like murder. If the business practices are illegal, then there is no argument.

Corporate dissolution is not like suicide. Suicide destroys the value inherent in the person, whereas dissolution only destroys the company's name. The better analogy would be more like a divorce, where the parents split up the property and change their names. Again, that's all quite legal and isn't special treatment for corporations.

Robbery is theft. A hostile takeover isn't theft. It is a purchase of ownership. The two are not alike at all. As for slavery, a hostile takeover has nothing like it. Slavery doesn't apply because you aren't allowed to treat people like property. Company ownership is property and is traded every day. And blackmail doesn't even apply.

You also ignore that there are many laws that apply only to businesses and not to people. When was the last time you:

• filed with the SEC?
• submitted paperwork to the FDA?
• Had a visit from OSHA?
• Ensured your family was compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley?
• Had your marriage certificate inspected by the FTC?
• etc...

There are lots of problems with how we treat companies like people -- we agree on that. But your analogies don't add to that argument.