Insert lecture on the difference between technical and pointlessly pedantic here...

At least 50% false (because I have no idea what was done with the "surplus" in those years): http://www.heritage.org/multim...

Except, they will still have to do this eventually, and now they are paying for both.

So, you're saying the media backed Bush both times? That's so weird, I'd heard rumors they had a liberal bias.

This phrase is a meaningless tautology. It is also arguably false, unless accidental gun deaths don't count as deaths.

There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.

People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.

Of course it does. Everyone knows there are only two positions for every possible topic. That's why the two party system is such a huge success, and why everyone loves it so much.(Excepting of course commies, who prefer a one-party system... see, there's the two options for how many political parties a system can have!)

The idea that there could be a third viewpoint is inconceivable.

I was under the impression that it is not possible to enter a contract which violates the law. If you give your written consent to allow an illegal action to be performed against you, that contract (or at least that portion of it) is not valid.

Oops, left out a link in above post. Re: tax costs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...

I'd guess 125k is absolute worst case tax situation, based on this.

Yeah, this. You're quoting an income that puts you in the top 8% of Americans. If you're finding it hard to get by, I'm curious to know what your imagination thinks average wage earners do to survive.

I never said that I did. I may well do, but it's really quite beside the point, as what the exact nature of any consensus is was never part of any comment I made.

As I originally stated, you claimed that someone else's opinion was wrong. Yet the opinion was never expressed by someone else, only imagined by you. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

I've quoted one thing in this thread, and it was your words. I'm not sure what drugs you're on that are causing you to imagine something else that I quoted, but at least you're loyal to your delusion.

That much is obvious.

You really like constructing those straw men, don't you? Nothing I've written here could lead to this conclusion. So not only do you not have any way of knowing whether or not I think there is a consensus, you don't have any information as to what I think that consensus might be. And yet, your're 100% positive that I must be wrong about it.

Since you're so knowledgable about information you don't have access to, can you tell me if the tie I'm going to wear next Tuesday goes with the shirt I was planning to wear it with?

Anyone who argues against things that people didn't say is wasting their own time. You are one of those people.

(Reread my post. Show where I state that there is any consensus, on any topic, of any magnitude.)