RTFLawsuit. It was her phone. The article botched that part of the story.

Bottom-rung workers should be on welfare. The alternative to working + welfare is just welfare - and that's far more corrosive to society.

They already are. Welfare ended in the 1990s. Now the US has TANF, which only lasts for 5 years. It is impossible to be "just on welfare". But that strawman is GREAT when you want to beat on the poor.

(Before you trot out the studies that show that modest increases in minimum wage don't increase unemployment, please be prepared to discuss just what qualifies as "modest", and why the results shouldn't be extrapolated to mandate a $100/hr minimum wage.)

Right after you explain why Minnesota is kicking Wisconsin's ass in employment, and it's not due to higher minimum wage and similar "safety net" spending.

They're very similar states economically, and started this most recent recession with similar industry and employment situations. They even have similar weather and natural resources, since they're right next door to each other. Yet Wisconsin is among the worst in the nation economically. Minnesota is among the best in the nation economically.

Or is it only you who gets to demand people back up their arguments with data?

Wow are you clueless.

About 60-80% of educational achievement is based on the kid's parents and life outside of school.

When mom and dad both work two jobs and the kid goes to school hungry, no amount of "tough love" at school will work.

Mom and dad are too busy trying to keep everyone alive via minimum wage jobs to parent like in your idyllic childhood. You don't have time to make sure the kid is doing their homework properly when the kid goes to school when you leave for work in the morning, and goes to bed when you get home from the second job.

And that presumes both mom and dad are in the picture. Thanks to the glory of "the war on drugs", and moronic policies like mandatory minimum sentences and "three strikes" laws, that isn't always the case. Add in the incentives where the police personally profit from planting evidence and it gets even worse.

Fix those problems? Nah, let's just cut the funds and demand one teacher somehow dispense "tough love" to 120 first graders.

"Our little rich kids" graduate on time just fine. And mommy and daddy make sure they go to the best colleges, telling the kids that they are good, hard workers. And then they show up on Slashdot posting that everyone else is a lazy bum.

If only there was a fucking article that explained she was required to carry the phone 24/7, powered on, and not in "airplane mode".

Golly, if only there was a fucking article that mentioned she was required to carry the phone 24/7, powered on 24/7 and connected 24/7 to the cell towers.

Read the complaint. She was required to install the app on her personal phone. The article botched the "company phone" part.

Golly if only there was a fucking article that said she was required to carry it 24/7 and keep it powered on 24/7.

There used to be. But then Citizens United opened the money floodgates.

So now there isn't one back room. There's a dozen. Each telling different candidates to drop out.

I also agree Walker looks like the front runner. He's still developing, but he starts from a very strong position. If he can avoid any major flubs that the media can run with, he has a real shot.

No, he really doesn't.

Add up all the "blue" states where no Republican that can survive the primary can win, and you get 254 electoral votes.

Add up all the "red" states where no Democrat that can survive the primary can win, and you get 149 electoral votes.

The Democratic candidate needs 1 large "toss-up" state, or two smaller "toss-up" states to win 270 votes. For example, VA will do it, and it's likely to go to the Democrat. Obama carried it twice and in the 2014 Republican wave election, the Democrat won the senate seat. (And governor, but the Republican candidate for governor had a pretty nasty scandal)

The Republican candidate needs every "toss-up" state, and needs to turn one "blue" state.

It's going to be extremely difficult for the Republican to win in 2016. Which is a big part of why the Republican primary race is such a clown car.

Pretty pictures and more analysis from right after the 2014 election: http://blog.chron.com/goplifer...

You're getting these states because of demographics.

The 2016 Democratic candidate will start with 257 electoral votes. No Republican that can survive the primary will win CA or NY or similar "blue" states.

The Republican will start with 149. No Democrat that can survive the primary will win TX or AL or similar "red" states.

The Democratic candidate will need to pick up 1 large or 2 small "toss-up" states. So, pick up VA or pick up CO and IA. That will give them 270 or move votes. Both are quite "gettable" - all 3 in that list went for Obama in 2012, and in 2014 the Democratic candidate won the VA senate seat despite it being a Republican wave election.

The Republican candidate will need to pick up every single "toss-up" state, and turn one of the "blue" states to reach 270.

You have a clown car of candidates because the Republicans who can count realize they can't win the White House in 2016.

Here's a post on it with pretty pictures: http://blog.chron.com/goplifer...

That's because in the "IRS Scandal", more liberal organizations faced extra scrutiny than conservative organizations. In other words, the exact opposite of the claims made by those pushing the scandal.

That keeps being a problem with getting more coverage of all these Obama scandals. They keep not quite turning out to be scandals.

That last sentence was supposed to be a hint to the fact that you don't know what you are talking about when you speak for "the liberals".

What you hear on Fox and talk radio is not what "the liberals" actually believe or want. It's a caricature that they can more easily attack.

No, you can thank increased tax receipts due to the dot-com boom. Government had damn near nothing to do with it.

No, he calls himself a democratic socialist. That isn't socialist. It's more-or-less the mainstream "left" party in most countries in Western Europe. And he'd fit well in those parties.

Nader got fewer votes from registered Democrats in Florida than Bush did. By an order of magnitude.

So no, Nader wasn't the cause of Bush's victory. Gore's terrible campaign was. According to Al Gore himself.