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.

Well, yes, Obama could have fired Eric Holder, but despite not doing so, he got re-elected. If he was the head of a corporation and did something similar, I could choose to not do business with the corporation. I cannot choose to not do business with the U.S. government without moving out of the country, and even then I might still have to do business with it.

It is amazing how many people seem to have forgotten what this thread is about. It is about whether it is better to have powerful corporations which I can chose not to do business with or a government which can theoretically be voted out of office. So, let's ask this another way. Which is easier? Not doing business with Comcast if I decide that their terms of service, price, and invasion of my privacy are not worth it in order to have access to the Internet? Or voting the government out of office in such a way as to actually change the DHS which I don't like for more or less the same reasons?
People seem to forget that if I am willing to do without the products or services a particular company provides, I can easily not do business with them. On the other hand, it is very hard to actually vote a change in the government (possible, but very hard).

Perhaps you have not heard of the Civil Service Act? Elected officials do not actually have the power to fire bureaucrats (well, at least not without a lot more difficulty than it takes for me to refuse to do business with a corporation).

Of course it is easy to get 97% consensus when you count anyone who does not explicitly state their disagreement as agreeing (which is what the study which that "97% consensus" is based on did).