Well, actually, yes. Oh, they don't word it that way and they do not tell you to switch ISPs. They do however tell you to contact your ISP if you want to access the website. I forget the exact wording because a month after telling me that my complaint against ESPN's practice was completely unwarranted since they did not pay for ESPN360 access, my ISP proudly informed me that I could now access a website I had no interest in because they had agreed to pay ESPN's extortion.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said ESPN360, which is a website. If you can access this website, your ISP is paying ESPN a fee. If your ISP is not paying ESPN that fee (which is based upon their total number of Internet subscribers), you cannot access that webpage.

Umm, ESPN ALREADY charges the ISPs in order for any of their customers to access EXPN360. ESPN360 is "free" to the consumer, but you can only access it if your ISP pays ESPN a fee for each and every subscriber to your ISP's service.

What happens when BOTH people involved are visibly intoxicated to the point that they cannot make a reasonable decision? In that situation, who raped whom? That is the problem with counting it as rape when a woman went to a college party, had too much to drink and had sex with a guy she met at the party. Chances are good that the guy had too much to drink as well. So, when doing statistics on rape, if the woman feels that she was not raped in that situation one might want to accept her opinion unless you have more information than just that she was too drunk to legally consent. Perhaps, the woman was the sexual aggressor and convinced the (drunk) man to have sex? Perhaps the woman went to the party intending to have sex with the man she ended up having sex with? There are many reasons why a woman would not consider sex in that situation to be rape. Is it not sexist to assume that she does not know whether or not it was rape? Especially when we assume that the man, who was also drunk, was not raped because he wanted to have sex.
PLEASE NOTE: This is not a defense of any man who uses alcohol (or any other substance which reduces the ability to make rational decisions) to engage in sex with a woman who would otherwise turn him down.

Because it reflects a mindset where people call for the government to be granted more power to solve problems created by the government.

No, my theory is that raising the minimum wage is either bad for the economy, or has no impact because it is insufficient to actually make any difference whatsoever.

You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension because you QUOTED his answer to your questions "1) be irrelevant because the minimum wage is set below labor market rates"

Well, since raising the minimum wage will not kill jobs, why are we only talking about raising it to $10.10 an hour (or $15 some places)? Let's make it a decent wage like $50 an hour.

How exactly is someone who has trouble getting enough to eat going to pay the expense required to exercise this "right" you claim that they have? You do not have the right to require someone else to provide you with something.

Well, perhaps this link will convince you that some of the people buying that real estate are spouting those lines: http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc...

Look at real estate prices in either city, read the NYT.

Which of course explains why some of the same people who are spouting similar lines to what you just said are paying record prices for real estate in both cities.

I am so glad you brought that up because I was reading a post elsewhere earlier today when I realized a problem with many of the people who cry "ad hominem fallacy" in arguments. The poster you responded to pointed out that the article does not contain any actual data, just the opinion of "expert(s)". When considering arguments made by someone who does not provide any actual data, it is entirely relevant to consider the credibility of the person who is making the argument. If that person, or organization, has been known to distort facts in order to support their position, it throws into doubt the validity of the claim they are currently making.

Palestinian Arabs are descended from the same people as Syrian Arabs, Lebanese Arabs, Jordanian Arabs and quite a few other Arabs.

What law were they breaking? And why weren't they charged with that? Why did the police lie so that they could charge them with something else?
The drone pilots may have been legally in the wrong, but that does not justify the police lying.