Wow this is a really impressive list of standard Republican right-wing arguments. Well done.

1) Taxes are the fees we pay to maintain society. A tax cut may feel like relief in the short-term, but as the crumbling bridges and decaying school ruin the economy, the cuts cost far more that what who get back. And so-called pork-barrel spending is in the eye of the beholder. (Is the F-22 fighter program "pork"? Is Head Start "pork")

2) In fact, the time most poor people spend only a few months on public assistance. It's why we call it a "safety net", because we want to protect those who have fallen on hard times. While it's true there are people that spend a long time on the programs, it's really a very small percentage.

3) You worked and got out of poverty. Congratulations! My guess is you were fairly young, healthy, without too many family commitments, and managed to avoid getting profiled (by class or race) for extra judicial punishment along the way. Not everyone is so lucky.

4) If you want to prevent pregnancies, why not just pass out free contraceptives and have classes for STD prevention? Oh that's right, it's because you're regulating sexual behavior. You WANT there to be lifelong consequences. And if you think teenage pregnancy was rare in the past, you're sadly misinformed. What happened was the girls dropped out of school, consigned to a life of poverty. And as for teen-pregnancy being socially acceptable, there are some studies now that say that shows like MTV's "Teen Mom" actually reduce the rates of teen pregnancy.

5) Your "pro-life" argument is totally based on religious belief. Just because a set of cells may become "human" given time and the proper growth environment doesn't make it human life. Why? It's what you mean by life. Life could be the onset of consciousness, which probably doesn't really happen until weeks after the baby is born.

Do you honestly believe that it's more efficient for two (or more) different companies to lay down the communication hardware necessary for cable service, including broadband internet, that for there to be only one?

It's the same problem as electric or water service. It makes no sense for two companies to lay down water pipes serving the same area, so why does it make sense for cable?

The physical network aspect of cable, and broadband internet, is a natural monopoly, because of the amount of infrastructure investment required to create it.

Now if you want to talk about content providers, that's a different story. That is why broadband internet needs to be regulated as a "common carrier," to prevent situations like Comcast throttling NetFlix in favor of their own On Demand offerings.

Perhaps you should think a little before casting aspersions ("What crack are you smoking") on those you disagree with? Or do you enjoy being seen as an arrogant jerk?

Why do we have to take it?

We need to insist that High-speed Internet is regulated as a "Common carrier", like electricity.

We have Public Utility Commissions that oversee quality and cost for electric, water/sewer, and gas. Why in the world is broadband not added to that?

As long as it's treated under "Common carrier" regulations (like electricity) then yes.

Cable is a natural monopoly. Competition really doesn't work in this type of business.

What we really need is for cable high-speed internet service to be declared a "Common carrier", so they are required to not discriminate against NetFlix, etc.

Until you turn 40

Strawman argument. I most certainly did not say that the new technology should be banned.

What I argued was that technological advancement does not reward all equally, and in fact some individuals are harmed by it. This fact must be understood and appreciated to maintain social order.

The term "Luddite" has become a pejorative, but you should look at the history of the Luddites and the social ills and inequalities they were fighting against. They were much more than the stereotype.

So the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe are shuttled to work in their private Wi-Fi enabled comfort busses, free from having to deal with the riff-raff of society while the common folk are out their sucking on exhaust fumes.

I can't imagine a scenario where this turns out badly.

So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve? I think that tech advances are generally good, but this "Creative Destruction" comes at a cost to certain individuals in society who were unlucky/unconnected enough to choose the wrong profession. You can't simply let all those people fend for themselves without any support.

The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

Wow. I think you would fit into Putin's (or Stalin's) Russia just fine.

Hectare (as in 100 ares, an are being 100 square meters) is standard and quite common in Metric countries, and is abbreviated ha.

The conversion is approx 2.471 acre = 1 ha

Yep.

While we're at it, let's dissolve all those other regulatory agencies like the FDA, USDA, SEC, etc. so we can achieve that libertarian paradise that awaits.

What was Upton Sinclair so bent out of shape about, anyway? Extra protein, amirite?

The PPACA was already passed on a party line vote with little discusion on it.

Were you stuck in Biosphere II for 2009-2010? Yes, it passed on party lines (because no Republican would vote for a plan conceived by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts), but the claim that there was little discussion of the PPACA is blatantly false.

And also about the claim that Democrats are the ones worried about ideology? Wow. Just wow.

So you would prefer a Public Option, or even Single Payer then?

to pay a minimum of 80% of premiums towards benefits. Excess is to refunded to the buyers.

Personally, I would rather have a Single Payer system (Medicare for All) but we weren't about to get that with the political influence the Health Insurance companies have. (And it would be disruptive to all the people employed by the Health Insurance companies).

And if you think that the Republicans aren't getting money from the Health Insurance companies, I have a bridge that I can sell you.

Politicians are not the source of the problem. They are the symptom. Jim DeMint resigned the Senate to become a lobbyist. If the Senate was all-powerful, why would he do that?

The problem is the over-corporatization of society. Or as Mitt Romney said "Corporations are People too" (I know he didn't mean it literally, but still).

This has lead to this incestuous revolving-door relationship between Government and Business.

Personally, I feel that Government is the only thing we have that is big enough to be able to compete against Business.

It can work, like how Teddy Roosevelt became the Trust Buster (Henry Clay Frick, the steel baron complained, "We bought the son of a bitch and then he didn't stay bought.")

We need Business, but we also need a referee strong enough to enforce the rules. And Government is the only thing we have that is.