The SAE's only sin in the eyes of the university was to bring bad press. If the University of Oklahoma president truly meant it when he said that "we don't provide services for bigots" then the only fraternities on campus would be the ones dedicated to professions or academic achievement.

Clinton is a psychopath, and her supporters are enablers.

The problem being that all of the candidates can be painted with that very same brush. We've been voting for the lesser of two evils for a very long time. Looks like someone is frustrated that we currently see her as the lesser evil.

I noticed you used the word EXCLUSIVELY.

As a moderate, I see no difference in the two parties.

They are pretty much mirror images of each other. The only difference being that one has the appearance of exclusively catering to the wealthy corporate class while the other has the appearance of being inclusive. Which explains why the former party accuses the latter of waging class warfare. Of course this back and forth rhetoric serves no purpose but to distract the public from how much of our representatives are bought and paid for.

The point isn't whether she did something wrong or not, the point was there will be very few people talking about this in the future, regardless of her actions. The media will quite simply ignore this because they will be in the tank for Hillary the way they were for Obama in 2008 & 2012. I didn't vote for Obama, but I was actually glad that he got elected in 2008, because that meant that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain would be president.

No the point is that her detractors have cried wolf so many times that the public doesn't believe anything they say now.

It really speaks volumes about her character (or lack of it).

The problem being that no politician has shown any indication of having character in such a long time that not having character isn't viewed as a handicap.

Wireless spectrum is limited. Right-of-way access is limited. The number of potential customers is limited. Sources of capital needed to build infrastructure is limited.

I heard your technical monopoly (artificially created by government) theory before, but I believe that when it comes to supplying "the last mile" of high speed internet there is no such thing as pure technical monopoly.

It's my humble opinion that if systemd stops you cold, you ought to be in another profession.

Why look for another profession? It is easier to look for another OS.

It's obvious you like systemd. On the other hand, I have no pressing need for systemd and am quite happy with RHEL6.

There is a good chance that your attitude is one of the reasons why systemd has met some resistance.

You are completely missing the point. Raising the minimum wage does NOT reduce the number of poor households, because most minimum wage earners are NOT poor.

I completely see your point. You've skewed the statistics (actually repeated an argument made by the conservative Heritage foundation and the collection of political bloggers) to make it look like minimum wage doesn't affect the poor. The problem with your slight of hand is that its obvious that your argument falls flat when you realize that total population of minimum wage earners is not the same as the total population of poor households.

To put it another way... You are arguing that the plurality of minimum wage earners aren't poor, instead of the more applicable argument that the overwhelming majority of poor employed households are minimum wage earners. Your argument has the convenient side effect of ignoring the current problem with encouraging people off of welfare by getting a job that pays less than what they get by simply staying home.

Someone else who hasn't bothered actually reading stuff written in support of minimum wage legislation...

Your worst fear has come true. I'm reporting the arguments given by conservatives that support the minimum wage hike. They make very credible arguments about how not raising the minimum wage to match inflation is nothing more than a government subsidy to industry that only pay their workers the minimum wage (Ron Unz made the argument when talking about the minimum wage in California) .

Except that you are taxing the creation of low wage jobs. That is probably not smart policy. People are poor, not because of low pay, but because of NO pay. Most poor households have no earned income at all.

You are trying to subdivide the poor in order to push a solution that isn't necessary good. All poor households have low pay and this includes the ones with no pay. Creating more low pay households in order to reduce the no pay households do very little to help the population of poor households and instead continues the status-quo that benefit business at the expense of tax payers who have to fund government services that make up for the difference.

I would counter your argument by saying that if we reduced the total number of poor households with an increased minimum wage, even if we increased the number of no pay households in the poor household population the overall governmental cost would be lower.

Yet they think raising the minimum wage will increase the demand for low skill workers, they think wage and price controls will reduce demand and increase supply, they think capping surge pricing will increase supply and reduce demand, on and on the hypocrisy goes.

Wrong. They argue that by raising the minimum wage, we lower the amount of corporate subsidy in the form of welfare and medicaid. If they pay their employees a livable wage, we as taxpayers wouldn't be spending as much government money to make up for the difference. The idea they proposed was not to reduce the total unemployment, but instead the number of under-employed workers.

The money not spent on subsidizing the living standards of the minimum wage could (in theory) be used to subsidize new jobs by redirecting that money into actual job creation in the form of subsidizing job training and education or helping with start up costs for industry that serves the nation's long-term strategic interests.