It's certainly been useful to Zuckerberg. How many billions has he made from Facebook?
As far as I understand - and correct me if I'm wrong - his wealth is almost entirely tied up in stocks. He has billions in (vastly overvalued) shares of facebook. If he tried to sell a billion dollar's worth of facebook stock - and I'm doubtful that he would even be allowed to do it - the stock's value would plummet as it would be seen by the market as his attempting to leave the company before it goes broke. While he is far from poor, he doesn't have $1B in actual non-stock assets, AFAIK.
Furthermore, I never move it by accident with my thumbs or wrist when they are resting at the bottom of the keyboard.
Clearly never used a mac multi-touch trackpad.
I have had exactly the same problems with Mac laptops of the current generation that I have had with every other touchpad ever put on any laptop keyboard, ever. A fancy overpriced laptop does not change the fact that a touchpad is simply an inferior way to move the cursor about.
I've explained on numerous occasions that Woodrow Wilson, 100 years ago, was the bad guy
I recall you blaming him many times over. That doesn't change the fact that there has never been an American President who has met your definition of "conservative". Furthermore it does not change the fact that our current POTUS is the most fiscally conservative president we have ever had.
Regardless, smitty, I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. i hope that in spite of all your anger and hatred you do find things to be thankful for on this day. I know I have much to be thankful for myself.
Not necessarily. It supports the thesis that in your view, we have never had a "conservative" president, as by your definition every president has been "progressive". That should lead you to ponder why we have never had a "conservative" president.
both taken strides to set back the progress of the working class
Given that "progress" seems to mean borrowing unborn generations into penury to support unsustainable, velvet-handcuff entitlements, I'd wear your remark as a badge of honor.
What you describe as having come from "progress" has been done by every conservative president in my lifetime, and likely prior as well. If you feel that conservatives need to oppose such things then that would support a thesis of our country having never elected a conservative president.
I suppose you're one of those falling prey to the temptation to think that the government "owes" people jobs. Sweet candy, but hard on the teeth for at least $17T reasons worth of mal-investment.
When you make such unsupported statements you do little to advance the discussion. Please don't project your ideals of "leftism" onto me. I never claimed that the government owes people jobs. I was merely pointing out that you and I likely have very different ideas of the value of such jobs, and then I continued on to show that the plan you linked to will destroy private sector jobs as well.
As described in that paragraph he would be putting people - both government and private sector - out of work. Is that really what he wants? I thought conservatives were pro-business and pro-job.
And we need to differentiate between actual, market-founded jobs, and government positions
You can fester all the hatred you want against government jobs, I don't care and I don't think you want to have that discussion anyways. I was talking about the people who work for the insurance companies who this bill would put out of work. He even admitted in his proposal that it would put people out of work. I don't think his "co-pilot" job creation will nearly make up for the number of people he is proposing putting out of work (even if we follow your lead and pretend that government employees are not actual people).
legislation/regulations that need more bureaucrats to oversee, and more hires to read/comply with
The people who will be put out of work who work for insurance companies are doing the work because of the system we have had for decades, irrespective of government (in)action. The insurance companies come up with X number of plans and each one needs to be understood both by people at the company as well as by office and clerical types at any medical office that accepts it. Didn't you say before that you wanted more plans to be available to consumers? That will only increase the number of employees required at the clinical end.
Yes, we've seen your fallacious "it has to be presented on the floor to matter" argument.
If it isn't presented by someone on the floor, than how can it be counted as an alternative to what we have? If you count any random dribble by some blogger as an alternative then you need to count everything that was ever written by any blogger, anywhere. You clearly don't want to consider every post from every blogger, so why is this one better? The most logical thing to compare to is something that has actually been presented by an elected representative.
But we've already shown that the Republicans have done that, and when they have, the Democrats and media ridiculed them for wasting time presenting a bill that wouldn't pass the Senate.
Do you have an example of a bill that was presented by republicans that did something other than just repeal the ACA? I have yet to see one.
How kind of you. I can't say I'm surprised that you were so quickly willing to stoop down to petty insults. Why did you enter this discussion? You certainly didn't make yourself look knowledgeable or reasonable.
what is their business plan?
Maybe aggregate a wealth of information on people for whatever purposes the highest bidder may pay. But then again, NSA and Marketing would have no need for any of that so I'm probably wrong.
Selling ads only gets you so far, if people don't click on the ads you show them (regardless of how tailored they are) or more importantly don't actually buy anything from the people the ads are for. Eventually people will stop advertising on facebook when they realize that they aren't generating enough money from the ads to justify their costs. At that point, the whole business collapses as the NSA already has all the data they need (and wouldn't pay facebook for data anyways).
But did they have smartphones?
The cell phone I had in the year 2000 could memorize more phone numbers than I could; that seemed pretty smart to me for its time. There was even a camera add-on available for it.
Can you show me one education proposal from the Tea Party that actually was designed to help people in poor cities who don't have money to pay for private schools or access to transport to get them to charter schools outside their busing area?
No, of course you cannot. The Tea Party philosophy is dependent on having a large number of people who are kept in the lowest income tax brackets. That is where the Tea Party expects to collect the majority of taxes from. If those people had the ability to move up the economic ladder then the whole Tea Party pyramid scheme is at risk of crumbling.