I drive a pick-up with a perfect paint job and I think your attitude is sterotypically elitist. Spare us this "I work with my hands and know what Real Work is like and you guys are all wusses." crap and get your head out of your butt. The only one who is impressed with your supercilious definition of your perfect self is yourself.

Really? Citizens United was about some people who made a movie about Hillary Clinton. If the government forbids you to spend money on making a film (or publishing a book, putting up a website, or buying an ad, or making a sign, etc.), they are certainly limiting your speech.

And note that even the defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that Citizens United overturned admitted in court that the law would have allowed the government to stop the publication of a book if it was about a candidate. If that isn't suppression of speech, what is?

I think there's a basic error in this approach. It assumes that government can and will run better with "big money" taken out of campaigning. But there's a lot of money given to campaigns for several reasons. The first is that, as Citizens United confirmed, money is speech, and spending money to support a cause or a candidate is at the heart of political expression.

The second reason is perhaps even more basic. When government is huge and has their fingers in every pie, it creates a great deal of motivation to influence those fingers. Campaign contributions are merely a form of lobbying, and lobbying has a standard message: subsidize me and cut my taxes and regulations, but burden my competitors and enemies with taxes and regulations, if not ban them outright.

If you really want to "get money out of politics," you need to (as much as possible) get politics out of the economy. (Ideologues will always lobby, and that's fine, because it's the crony capitalism and pay-to-play aspects that are most objectionable.) Which, of course, is not what many reformers want to do. Until they do, they are basically advocating spreading sugar around their picnic blanket, and then complaining about all the ants.

Considering that the Brits are now in the dozens of millions of pounds for standing two (2) policemen outside the Ecuadorian embassy for a couple years, I'd think hundreds of millions of dollars. What this really means is that the system is completely broken and money just disappears, which is to be expected in a corrupt nation.

A couple hours spent interviewing someone to hire to set it all up? Yeah, lots of time and dedication. I'm not saying she'd do it herself. She'd hire people to do it for her. You think Paris Hilton personally manages her cosmetics line?

You'd think that someone worth a couple hundred million dollars would be able to launch their own pay-per-download site for their music and cut out the middlemen.

Can't even give it away huh?

People are stupid enough to comply with them when they request documents too. Seriously. I'm pretty sure my dog can live without a facebook account if the account she currently lends me is ever closed.

No, the right thing to have done is hire a lawyer who actually understands law.

You can use trademarks as often as you want provided you attribute them correctly.

Good luck with that.

Not once have I seen an airline actually enforce carry-on size regulations, in 40 years of air travel.

Better than Wikipedia maybe take a math course? I mean, if you want to sound like you know anything when discussing math.

Incorrect.

The Limit as x aproaches 0+ of a/x = approaches infinity. But the Limit as x approaches 0- of a/x = negative infinity.

Infinity does not exist. Real mathematicians (ie - NOT you) only speak of numbers APPROACHING infinity. So, as the divisor approaches zero, the quotient approaches infinity. You cannot have infinity as a quantity since it does not exist. Otherwise what happens when you divide infinity by zero, and is that new infinity the same as the first infinity?