What you're saying is that it needs a catchier catch phrase to see what difference it makes?

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was the "making shit up" about others thread. I'll stop posting now.

Yes, I explicitly said I wanted some of that extra liberty to rub off. Why is that bullshit? I cannot make sense of such an argument, except to the extent that you seem to want bad things to happen to certain people.

Then I guess I must not really care about their liberty either, but since my increased liberty is a side effect of their increased liberty, I'm OK with that. OTOH, as Soros gets more influence, my liberty is decreased. Whatever the motives, the two "sides" of billionaires are not the same. That you are blinded by your envy says a lot about you.

You're not reading (or at least not responding to) what I wrote. Are you dodging the question or can you really not tell the difference between the rule of law and policy preferences? Do you think the law, however you want to characterize it, is the law or not?

Whatever the Supreme Court upheld, it didn't say the President could rewrite the law by himself. I think that each branch attempting to stay within its Constitutional lanes (e.g., signing statements to that effect) are legitimate and probably necessary. I think the Executive openly contradicting plain language in a statute for political purposes is authoritarian bullshit and should be punished by impeachment and conviction, a clear violation of his oath.

So you're saying that directly contradicting obvious and unequivocal and uncontroversial things in statutes like dates is the same as interpreting a law based on the Constitution? I admit to not having an encyclopedic knowledge of signing statements, but this is definitely different than my recollection of them. We went from "settled law that cannot be changed!" to "I have a pen!" to "I can do whatever I want!"

Is your position that Obama is now calling his signature accomplishment unconstitutional? Maybe he was paying attention to his lectures on Constitutional law after all!

You're right, making personnel decisions is exactly like extra-Constitutional rewriting of legislation.

Yes, the only thing guaranteed about watching him is that he's sure he's right. Sometimes he even is.

Whenever I hear this, I know that I can safely ignore the rest of the comment, because it's already wrong. O'Reilly is all over the place.

It's inspirational, you mean. It takes not RTFA to a new level, and adds in a lot of other ignorance. It's a model /. comment.

Now if only the study used anything remotely resembling "people's freely written statements" about what they believe.

Depends on the return on investment. Even if the return is positive, there may be more efficient ways to deploy that capital. At least until the technology matures enough to become competitive with alternatives. Of course, the glut of natural gas is pushing that point into the future right now.

As far as being profitable, does that include the impact of government subsidies (e.g., tax credits)?

I think the weight of evidence shows that corporations seeking profit will generally operate a more desirable system than a system run by government. I said that before, and I get it that you disagree.

To expand on my previous point, having a third party paying for something puts incentives in the wrong place, and you end up with a distorted market and out of control costs. Putting the government in charge to manage these things by fiat doesn't help (see Hayek's knowledge problem), and in fact, makes things worse.

I'm impressed that your are unable to equate "a third party [insurance company] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties" with "a third party [government] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties."

It's almost as impressive as your idea of "Tea Party myths."