..buy a new MacBook Air and get it for free.

This is like the third or fourth time I've seen this phrase in this thread. Am I the only one who this doesn't make sense to? If the OS on its own costs $29, what on earth gives you the idea that you're getting it for free when you pay at minimum $1,200 for a laptop? You're paying for the hardware as well as the software.

Sure, it doesn't cost you any effort to go download and install it, but let's not kid ourselves here...

/rant

I think a contributing factor to this is the fact that you don't have a choice. You can't go with Verizon and get the iPhone with the faster processor.

I would be hesitant to leave a place where I was settled, particularly if the value of my current real estate was skyrocketing, regardless of my taxes going up (because it either washes, or I'm still making more if I stay in my current investment despite them). On the same note, I would be hesitant to move into such an area because it would be a dumb investment to buy real estate when it's high, and add to that the fact that taxes are being raised. I don't see why you're surprised that conservatists would use that study to argue this point...

Wow... I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You can't run OSX on a PC, because the software (OSX) is closed. You can run Windows/Linux on a Mac because the software (Windows/Linux) is open.

Actually, the ideal free market response to this would be for users to find a different ISP. Granted, there aren't many options to choose from, but there are options, and if people would go to them (despite having to take a cut in speed), then we'd see these companies sing a different tune. Unfortunately, this isn't an ideal world, and it is pretty much incapable of harboring an ideal free market.

Then we get the government involved... Well, they can be just as bad as these cuthroat companies, and there's no competition to go to to "vote with your dollars".

I'm curious; I haven't heard of any events where Tea Party people have been vindictive, or where they've bullied anyone, especially because of their vote... What are you basing your fear of them on other than the fact that they're passionate about what they believe in?

or rather, "unfounded" claims. Woops. :)

Please skip down to verse 14 before you make unbiased claims. My point about time reference stands.

Most Christians are pretty ignorant as to what the bible actually says, so let me offer what might be a different view than has been presented here before:

It would be pretty stupid for any Christian to say that the Earth is a meager 6000 years old, yet they do it anyway. However, there is pretty clear text that says that to God, time is of no consequence. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" and all that. Now, consider that in the "seven days" that he created the world, day and night didn't even exist until the 4th day (correct me if I got the "day" wrong), which means that the way that we're measuring this time is wrong. So, the entirety of the creation process that is documented in the Bible is not something that Christians should be using to try and disprove Evolution, because it makes no mention whatsoever about how the inhabitants of the planet were created, and why would it be so wrong to believe that a creator would use the biological laws of the world he'd created to achieve said end?

Just consider it.

Interesting way to look at it, there. But what rights did the government protect for that individual? I never saw their free speech being inhibited, I only saw them bear the reprecussions of how they chose to employ it.

I guess what I'm saying is this: if I talked badly about my employer in public, and they caught wind of it, I would expect them to reprimand me in some way. It's my right to say what I want, they can't inhibit that; they do have the right, however, to respond to it in whichever way they see fit.

Isn't that what happened to General McChrystal? Granted, I understand that this isn't a private sector issue, but the similatities are a little glaring...

How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.

I'm a little curious as to why we're arguing about the ability to vote of any individual who, due to language barriers, is unable to understand what he or she is voting for in the first place.

I think that there are many more aspects to consider here.

Wow... Nice moderating guys. Disagree != troll.

I'm not the biggest fan of Sarah Palin, but your post is incredibly one-sided. Before the presidential election she was the governor with the highest approval ratings in the nation. Again, I'm not the biggest fan of hers, but do try to be a little less biased.

That's a ridiculous statement. Just "because some people are not smart with their finances, we should have the government step in and handle everybody's finances". It doesn't make sense, because not all consumers have the same needs. Also, the price of incandescent bulbs is very low compared to the alternatives, and as many others have pointed out before, the alternatives have a much higher negative impact on the environment (for production alone; for the sake of this point, we won't consider disposal).