Well... while I'm not one for hate and vitriol like most of the politically oriented people out there (it seems), I sit back and watch and: 1) I agree with the other response that neither of the two major parties actually represent a majority of anybody but politicians and businesses, and 2) I thought the tea party was an interesting idea until they became right wing on steroids. I thought they were interesting until they started campaigning against abortion, and inviting people like Sarah Pailin to speak at events. Again... I don't run out and start hating on either abortion or anti-abortion activists, I know they both have their opinions and beliefs, but I think it should largely stay out of politics at this point, and it's not going to change any time soon - both parties use it to rile up their bases, though.
So no hate against the Tea Party, but they are hardly a big difference between them and republicans - more like republicans demanding what the party SAYS they represent as opposed to how republican candidates actually act when they get into office. The GOP just needs some house cleaning, IMO.
People SAY they want freedom and liberty, but neither major party offers it. There's really only one out there that does (besides complete anarchists), and everybody thinks they're "crazy" because they want freedom and liberty, which, OMG, requires people to take back some responsibility for themselves.
65,000 people don't belong in any dessert. That's clearly unsanitary.
Tell that to Vegas. They like it dirty.
You're right... they've made the FairTax worse, now. I didn't see the latest submission to congress.... but complaint about the strawman stands, because it was prior to 2013 when I was hearing that nonsense about it. Still, I would suggest that, mortgage interest rates being what they are, they would not be subjected to tax - only the fees involved with the lender would be subject.
Lastly, the problem with your question is that it puts the FairTax in a poor position compared to other suggested (and the existing) forms of taxation, because it was designed to be revenue neutral. Now you're demanding something that the current system doesn't even provide, and then complaining about it. It seems like a way off base reason to campaign against it.
Safer than hydroelectric.
Including Chernobyl, there have been something like 56 direct fatalities, 4000+ deaths from cancer attributed to the radiation, and 350,000+ displaced peoples due to fission reactor failures. I'm not aware of any deaths *directly* attributed to Fukushima but let's round that off to an even 60.
Banqiao hydroelectric dam collapse: 26,000 drowned, 145,000 dead from disease and famine, 11+ million displaced.
Adjusted for GW capacity, hydroelectric power (970GW) is an order of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear (372GW).
Ban hydro power!
The Fair tax as been torn apart many times. In fact, I'm surprised to see it mentioned again on
Only by those who create FairTax strawmen so that they can tear them down (like no tax exemption for mortgage interest). I don't think I've ever seen any valid complaints against the FairTax, so if you think it's been torn apart, then point me to an article tearing it apart that doesn't make lies and/or incorrect assumptions about it. The only people who actually understand the FairTax that still complain about seem to be the type who advocate taxation as a means of control rather than a means of revenue. Ultimately, while admittedly poorly named, and not without flaws, I've never seen a better suggestion.
There are differences, of course, but they balance out, I think. First, Comcast needs infrastructure across the whole city in order to deliver it's services, and I think that gives the city even more right to decide wether or not to let them do it. They'd be using city owed property and be given rights of way in order to do their business, whereas Walmart only takes a piece of land - generally already zoned for commercial area - and builds where a commercial enterprise was already desired by the city.
So... on the outside, it seems like Walmart would have a better case for suing. At the same time, the destruction in the wake of the Walmart tornados are terrible... we had a new one open near me and within six months it looked like a dump that had been there for 30 years, not to mention all the nearby stores that were bought out and destroyed to make it possible. Largely, though, it's the clientele. Just look at the "People of Walmart" websites... the store parking lot was trashed, oil stained, garbage all over the place... the shopping carts looked like they were 10 years past their prime when they were only six months old. In six months it went from brand new, including new parking lot and everything, to being a horrible eye-sore.