Well of course not. The definition of terrorism is to instill fear in the general population. Bombing a British military supply depot would not be terrorism. But bombing public docks and scaring loyalists was most certainly meant to intimidate the public.

Agreed. Unfortunately there are no consequences for contradicting their sworn oath. At best they could be impeached by an ethics committee, but their coworkers wouldn't do that. They could be voted out of office but citizens are more concerned about the immediate threats to their pocket books and security. Plus anyone moral and intelligent enough to run against them doesn't want to deal with the BS.

Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen. Americans also spread propaganda in London and other cities to try to change public opinion (while I don't consider this terrorism, it falls under what we label as "terrorism" today).

He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

My vote would be Gates was more ruthless. He absorbed and/or destroyed more small businesses than I could count. He lied in federal court. He used a monopoly to negatively manipulate markets. He would lose billions of dollars on a product just to undercut competition.

By contrast Jobs was an asshole and difficult to work with. This is an easy vote for me.

This might be the most ignorant comment I've read on the internet this week. It's wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

What makes you think they just roll over? They don't. If you notice things expiring from instant it's because contracts are ending and not getting renewed at higher rates. One content owner (Starz, maybe?) asked for a 10x increase and Netflix quickly declined. Netflix is negotiating well and walking a fine line.

Examples? That's news to me. Sanders, in particular, has been extremely consistent. They're both very open in stating their opinions.

No single person caused the real estate bubble and terrible investments. That's completely absurd and irrational.

Your original claim was no one ever came up with any alternative plans. So now you're agreeing others do have plans, just plans you disagree with and will never pass Congress? So, in other words, no better or worse than Paul.

"I have what I need, so everyone else can go fend for themselves."

You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.

Better policy would be to not invest in News Corp at all.

Then why are they, or anyone else seeking a successful investment, owing part of the company? If no one wanted the stock it would devalue itself and the rest of the owners, including the Murdochs, would lose money.

Of course you are correct. But ideally the bar would be set extremely high by the system. Expecting the end user to jump through hoops is a lost cause.

With this response it's no surprise your average computer user is easily infected.