...and the murder of unborn people.

Only implemented twice ... once in Massachusetts which leans extremely left, and then upon the nation as a whole when the left controlled house, senate, AND whitehouse.

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.

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.

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.

When you measure "productivity" as the amount of legislation passed, then the most foul suppressive police state regimes of the world are the most productive.

Perhaps you shoudnt be blowing this particular horn. The people in office certainly know better.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for evil on purpose.

And that makes you a willing supporter of evil. Your intent is to do harm. Your intent is more evil.

There are zero valid excuses for this. Either you proudly say that you wanted more evil, or you are trying to fool people (and maybe even yourself) with an excuse.

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.

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.

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.

Your view of reality is based on the notion that if you arent very comfortable then you arent a member of the middle class. Thats not how middle class is defined.

Neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. The middle class. The ones that continue to vote for themselves more government benefits and services than they pay for at the expense the rich, the poor, and when its neither of those then its at the expense of future adults... children and all the people that havent even been born yet.

You can't dream your way out of this. Follow the money. They are even adding foodstamps to the list of things required to appease them. At the expense of the rich and the poor. Thats the middle class.

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.

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.

You start shooting politicians until the problem is solved.

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 .. supply, demand, and competition)

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.

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.