1. there is no fast and furious gun running blame on anything but lax gun laws. Were there laws that allowed one to jail suspected gun runners, they would have been enforced, but law enforcement don't waste their time when they know they can't get a conviction. The real fast and furious debacle is on the gun lobby that keeps those laws lax.

2. The notion that the President of the United States (and I mean any President) would appoint an ambassador to another nation and then intentionally bring harm upon them is insane. You would, at a minimum, need some sort of motive here to get me interested enough to research this.

3. I didn't see any indication that Obama or even the WH had anything to do with this, instructed this to happen, or that it wasn't a rogue employee / office. Plus, in the end here, you're talking about tax exempt status being on the line. How could that possibly raise to the level of Watergate?

As for watergate, you are correct, it was far from the worst thing Nixon did--but it is still 100 times worse than the worst Obama has done.

Don't get me wrong, Nixon did some great things (creating of the EPA among them). But he and Johnson really abused the power of the presidency and both continued a war purely for political gain at an enormous cost in lives. I mean, you're worried about a delayed tax exempt status while Johnson / Nixon had the NSA spying on MLK.

Name one worse than watergate.

Setting aside that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government from 2001 - 2006, this narrative assumes that the federally backed loan buyers (Fannie and Freddie) were the drivers of the speculative bubble, but they weren't--the wall street firms were way out in the lead on this and Fannie and Freddie were just following along after the party was most of the way over.

Cute theory, but the rail system is controlled by a collaboration of DC, Virginia, and Maryland. Far from one party in control. Also not dysfunctional as far as I can see.

I think you are trying to be ironic and are throwing your hands up. But try to disprove me on this claim: there is no more effective or prolific trust buster than the USG.

Yes, and then there is the question of why I might care about that. Well, except to note that LEO was also no that valuable.

what color do you think blood in your veins is, exactly?

Well, right tool for the job. I think that for servers and clients that connect to untrusted servers, probably C is not the right tool. For example, I'd rather sshd was written in a language that checks out of bounds conditions and I'd rather have it be slow than insecure.

The fed has almost a century of history of hitting it's target monetary growth target of 2%. At what point will the sun arriving every morning convince you that it will arrive tomorrow?

So, you think that a store shouldn't be able to set final prices with it's wholesalers? I agree that wholesalers conspiring is problematic, but I don't get there being a problem when a wholesalers and a retailer set prices together.

Apple conspired to unsettle a monopsonistic price fixing scheme by introducing competition. Yes, they correctly pointed out that prices would rise when the monopsony ended, but I think the justice department really slipped a disc on this one.

Regulatory capture can and does happen but is not a rule so much as it is a possibility.

Yet pop the astronomy books that I read my children are full of moons being captured. I've never gotten that.

Per facility is not really useful, you really need to know the cost per beer. i.e. if a facility makes 13 billion cans of beer in a year, $13 million is a 0.001$ increase per can--yawn.

You might want to add, "I am not an economist but..." before you write these things. "which may mean lower profits, leading to reduced employment" is as ridiculous as saying that adding a powered usb port will draw less power from your CPU and speed computation.

We have no idea what this will do for employment, there's simply too much going on. Increasing beer prices ever so slightly (I doubt this adds more than a cent or two per can, but whatever) would decrease beer consumption (also ever so slightly) and might increase productivity in other industries. Also, increasing food safety could decrease time off economy wide. It's impossible to know. But I doubt any effect would be large.