There is help, and there is help.

I don't find perpetuating enslavement to social welfare state as being "helpful". In fact, the results of this weekend in Chicago seem to suggest that it is actually harmful.

REAL help requires more than "Yet Another Handout Porgram" and real changes to the systems in place that actually CAUSE the problems in the first place. But like surgery, there is pain involved and great deal of rehab afterwards.

Further, if I use "cloud" based office suite, why would I pay for Office365, when GoogleDocs is free, and in many ways, better than Office365.

What need is there for "Windows" in a "cloud" based ecosystem?

If I get the functionality of Office, on web interface(and thus, on any web device), why do I need Windows?

Hyperbole makes a good point, with fictitious examples, so that I can say things without being called "hater" or other kneejerk term the left drags out when they are actually losing a discussion on facts.

In this case, the fake person is part hyperbole, but examples abound enough to make the point. The Hyperbole part doesn't negate from my point, because it is semi fictitious. My point was, and still remains.

You see, if we start talking about the families (or lack thereof) and the lack of structure and the other poor life choices, and look at the facts of why these people are in such bad shape, the only conclusion will be, Socialism failures have destroyed the Black Families and three generations of the "great society" as done exactly what Johnson said it would, create a voting class that is enslaved to the status quo of voting for white liberal men and Uncle Tom blacks who perpetuate that enslavement.

But I am a racist white person who thinks black people are a lot more capable than liberals think they are.

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

They knew what they were saying. The fact that they had some distastful things in their past, doesn't negate what they set up.

Oh, and the one guy that was perfect, you won't follow either, so unless you are without sin, stop throwing stones.

BTW, Liberals kill babies by the millions, which is much worse that owning a slave IMHO. So can I toss out everything Democrats have supported over the last 40 years?

There is no definition. The court rule that defining marriage is a violation of 14th Amendment. Guess what, polygamists and incestuous marriages are also now legal.

"We hold these truths to be self evident" ...

The responder to my initial post was simply tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Freedom, Liberty are being eroded for group politics; this is evil as the group always has more power than an individual.

Good luck convincing me that groups have more rights than individuals.

Let me know when you accept all versions of "marriage" how anyone defines it, in all 50 states (see plural marriages) We already define marriage and redefining it simply suggests that it isn't really a right.

Gay marriage isn't about sex, or living with someone, kids or anything else they make it out to be, instead it is all about government sanction benefits. I would like to marry my daughter (not for sex, or living with her) so that I can have the same benefits granted to gay people. Until then, you aren't for "marriage equality" you're for redefining marriage as long as it suits your particular version. My version doesn't count.

Very Unstable Herbs!

Because, if we talk about why a woman has three kids of unknown paternity at all, it reflects badly on her life choices and since that is her choice, we as a society must accept it. Anything else is "hate".

As in, this fictitious woman, I must hate her for even mentioning she might exist somewhere, as you have already implied in your post ... " my convenient self-serving narrative is not instantly and universally accepted as true and relevant"

The fact is, there is such a person, somewhere out there. The fact that you can't figure out hyperbole mixed in with my point, is proof that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. Your response is one of pure emotion. (I rest my case)

And there is probably more than one, since similar people are trotted out by the "Living Wage" proponents all the time. So, if it isn't true, then the "living wage" people are lying about it being "normal" and we don't need a "living wage" to help support this non-real person.

The lie is either we accept anecdotal evidence or we don't. Pick one. If it is acceptable for proponent of the cause you support ("living wage") then it is equally acceptable to use that as a case against it.

Please don't try to convince me that the proponents don't use such people in their propaganda.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

FYI, I realize that I violated my own rules on talking to supporters of "Living Wage" because they are simpletons. In simple terms, for my point to be valid, there must exist more than zero people that fit this description, and for your point to be valid there has to be none. Having watched any number of day time talk shows "Who's your baby's daddy?" I am confident that there exists at least one that resembles ...

https://www.google.com/search?...

Microsoft has been pushing for renewable revenue streams. Switching to subscription is going to kill Windows, regardless of whether or not Windows is subscription. If you look at the moves MS is doing lately, they seem to be offering up a lot of trial balloons for all sorts of various Subscription models. They have decided against Windows (for now) but having paid attention for a long time, I know that is temporary.

My meaning was, it doesn't matter what is actually "subscription", but it is going to kill Windows. And it will likely kill off Office as well.

Having both Office 365 and Google's Docs at work, I can tell you most people prefer Google Docs for just about everything. It is really that much of a better ONLINE experience.

Yeah, screw liberty and justice .... and freedom, lets live under threat of ever expanding state! YEHAH /Merica!

The intention of the subsidies was clear, they wanted to force the states into having their own Health Care Exchange; they wanted all the Republican held states to suffer. They stated it so. And they also stated that it wasn't a tax, because nobody would have voted for a "tax increase" and a violation of Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K/yr.

But that doesn't matter now. Now that it is a tax, it can be repealed as such. Who is gonna vote against someone repealing a tax? Oh right, liberals.

Is a flat out lie. Yeah it sound great and triggers emotional responses (fear, anger) of simpleminded people who can't see beyond "Single Mom with three kids" working in a Min Wage job, because they are completely unqualified for any other kind of job. We aren't allowed to talk about why she has three kids from four fathers (well, we know two of the kids fathers, the third is in dispute until Paternity test is done). The point being, "living wage" is a simpleton view of the world, and is wholly unworkable and creates more problems than it solves.

And while I am talking about it, there is no point convincing people who believe in the "Living Wage" lie to change their view, because they can't, any more than my wife can stop fearing spiders. It is an emotional response, and no amount of logic matters at that point.

That worked out well for Europe the last time didn't it?