Comment Re:Obama backs... (Score 1) 706
...regulation of every fucking aspect of our lives except border ingress.
...regulation of every fucking aspect of our lives except border ingress.
Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare
Only implemented twice
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
A conservative government wouldnt do that.
so therefore I'm logically going to vote for a party whose official platform includes saving unborn humans, preventing another group of people to also enter into the special rights club, and treat all people the same regardless of their color.
Fixed that for you. You liberals commonly redefining things to sound politically correct rather than actually correct. Go ahead... keep making politically correct excuses for literally murdering a million defenseless people per year, not admitting that homosexuals just want to join the special rights club known as marriage, and calling attention to peoples skin color every chance you get and even sometimes when you dont really have a chance.
You (A) support mass murder, (B) continue to support creating special classes of people with special rights reserved only to the class, and (C) are a racist.
He made a terrible mistake, in that he took Republicans at their word, and thought that if he adopted the Republicans' positions
Bullshit.
You Democrats are revising history here. The people demanding the system that we got were the Democrats. They couldnt get enough Democrats to vote for single payer, so they started trading pages of legislation for votes. Thats Democrat votes, not Republican votes. The Democrats were exercising party cannibalism, blackmailing each other. Need I remind you that it both required zero Republican votes and also got zero Republican votes, so whose voters were they buying with this shit? Democrat votes, clearly and obviously. There is no other way to see it without being a disingenuous dishonest fuck.
And before you say "but it was just Romneycare" -- That was is Massachusetts, one of the most solidly Democrat State in the country. It just doesnt get any bluer. They did it to Massachusetts and then they did it to the whole country.
Interesting - according to this here [nolo.com], employers have to give you time off to vote.
Time off is personal time.
The OP seems to be complaining that they arent getting paid to vote. Apparently being paid to vote isnt a big flashing red alarm.
and none of the candidates who lost to "none of the above" may run for that office in the next election for it.
How about: if none of the above wins, then none of the candidates that lost to none of the above may ever hold any public office ever again.
If you live in a Democratic-leaning precinct and you're in a union
Sure, because unions are based on the premise of free association instead of government enforced mandate.
Do you think that I have a choice to be in the union that I am in? You clearly think that. I'll keep this in mind if you ever try to defend unions, that this guy doesnt even know the first thing about how unions work. Not even the first thing.
And who do you think tells the politicians what to do?
For the most part, the middle class.
The middle class benefits from both the taxation of the rich and the taxation on the poor. This isn't because the middle class isnt calling most of the shots. They call most of the shots.
If you make the middle class angry then you will not survive reelection. The politicians vilify both the rich and the poor because thats the tune that satisfies their middle class electorate.
As the OP asked, why shouldn't licensees return unused spectrum to the actual owners
If the choice was to keep the license for the spectrum and pretend to need it, or magnanimously give up the license for no benefit, they would do the first not the second.
I dont understand why you willingly and intentionally refuse to understand this.
What do you do though when they've legislated that cars not bought in the state or that are on some blacklist can't get registered?
You start shooting politicians until the problem is solved.
No. This is basic economics - when you make a product, you don't charge the consumer what it costs + x%, you charge what the market will bear. The primary control on the price of an item is the amount that the consumer is willing to pay for it.
Amazing how the anonymous simpletons neglect to deal with actual business economics but instead want to focus on some simplistic price model (that doesnt even include the basics
The idea that Apple would not in any way change its business practices if its profit margins change is laughably ludicrous. Only someone looking to justify their position with horseshit would ever believe otherwise. Picking theories first and then searched for shallow justifications is not rational. Stop doing it.
I don't want it either, primarily because it ends up with poor people paying a higher percentage of their income in tax. You can make adjustments for necessities, like food and gas, but that tends to make it so the middle class is paying the highest percentage of their income in tax.
You seem to be missing the point that corporate taxes are already the exact "regressive" you are worried about. Businesses pass their expenses, such as taxes, along to their customers even when their customers are poor.
There are several differences. For instance those in the know can pretend that corporate taxes are not regressive taxes that effect poor people the most, while shallow slogan-chanting ignorant sheep have no clue that corporate taxes are regressive taxes that effect poor people the most.
End all indirect taxes, including corporate taxes.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro