So your are the idiot still using google

Given your phrasing, it's interesting that you refer to someone else as an idiot....

Not-For-Profits are when people come together to pull their resources.

POOL their resources. Try not to use expressions you've never seen in print.

Or try not to post when you're too drunk/sleep-deprived to remember how to spell expressions you HAVE seen in print.

It's not about a return to constitutional values, it has nothing to do with the constitution, and it's not right or left wing.

It has nothing to do with the Constitution? They want a Constitutional Amendment, for Christ's sake!

but not to attack civilian infrastructure such as electricity, water supply, trains, banks, the stock market, etc. etc.

Dresden. Hamburg. Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Numerous other cities in both Germany and Japan.

Step back to the 1800s, and we have Sherman's Neckties between Atlanta and Savannah (civilian railroads torn up by Union troops in Sherman's Army).

And that's just the USA.

Coventry.

Nanking.

Too many others to count....

1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action.

I'm curious. How, exactly, are we supposed to "find evidence of something shifty going on" without, well, SPYING on people??

Sure, slavery produced more cotton than the post-Civil-War south did, but only by using force and ignoring unalienable rights.

Actually, that common misconception is...a misconception.

Cotton production in the South almost doubled between 1850 and 1870, and more than doubled again by 1900.

And that in spite of the more obvious economic damage (railroads destroyed, workers killed, that sort of thing).

Everything's expiration date is also shorter than the time it takes the purple ink that shows the expiration date to fade unto unreadability. Coincidence?

The next bubble is student loans, and it's already very far along in the pumping process.

The real issue stems from the retarded decision back in the high income tax bracket era of the early 20th century that led to the IRS allowing health insurance premiums to be tax-deductible from payroll. That fucking brain damaged decision led to our current clusterfuck of employer-provided health care.

Note that this was a side-effect of WW2.

During WW2, Wage and Price controls were put into effect for many industries.

Which left companies unable to attract talent by paying them more. So, some bright boy figured that he could offer free health insurance as a perk of the job (instead of higher pay).

By the time the dust of WW2 had settled, the current system of employer-provided health insurance was firmly established. Leading us inevitably to today....

While I believe the first two sentences of this argument are be true, I see no logical reason to infer the final sentence, which I think is false. This being the case, I find entire line of reasoning invalid.

So, you believe that the First Amendment is limited to speech with no artificial aids, eh?

Note that that would allow newspapers and news broadcasts to control information flow during a political campaign. Unless you intend to restrict Freedom of the Press as well.

Note that neither newscasters nor newspapermen are unbiased, and allowing them to decide what you are allowed to know about a particular candidate is at least as bad as the current situation.

Note also that the incumbent has an enormous advantage even if the news people are paragons of virtue to the last man - all an incumbent has to do to get press attention is propose a law. His challenger(s) get no such instant attention.

So, your ideal solution guts the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of the Press, OR it gives incumbents an enormously LARGER advantage....

contrary to that tenement.

Not sure where slums fit into your argument, so I'm assuming you meant "tenet"....

Yes, they could.

And the owners could still spend their money on politics.

Note that stripping corporation status from a business does NOT remove its money. It just changes (possibly) who is in control of the money. And the (hypothetical) new owners of the money can still spend it on politics....

Actually 3/4 of the states can call for a Convention.

2/3 of the States can call a Constitutional Convention.

Which bypasses the need for Congress to act, but leaves in place the need for 3/4 of the States to ratify any proposed Amendments.

What sort of humidity conditions do you have though?

I'm in New Orleans. 80% humidity is considered a dry day. Usually it's more like 90+F/90+% humidity.

We tend to run AC nine months of the year here. It's not all that common to run your AC in December here, but it's not unusual enough to comment on....