Oh look everyone! It's False Equivalency Man!! These two situations have nothing in common. One involves a rich guy donating money to a political cause that suppresses the rights of others. The other is a bunch of women just trying to earn a living using one of the options available to them. The strippers don't have an axe to grind, and just want to do their jobs without being harassed by stiff penised evangelicals (outside of work anyway)
I usually go with option 2 out of those... It's a pretty sure bet these days.
I'm willing to bet that the law requiring them to register probably came from the brains of jokers like this in the first place. "If they have to register the fact that they take their clothes off for money, those harlots will think twice about stripping for money!"... Also, I don't doubt that his "desire to pray for them" might be in fact, a way to shame them into quitting their jobs lest they become publicly exposed (nyuk nyuk nyuk). Either that or he's a little perv wanting to stalk them... Honestly with the fundamentalists, it's a toss up either way.
I think he wants to "pray" for them individually... outside their residence's bedroom windows... naked from the waist down... atoning FURIOUSLY for their sins.
Honestly I think even the measure being considered doesn't go far enough. Sure, it'll protect future students, but what about those of us who are currently feeling the penetration of the long thick phallus of Sallie Mae after having gotten a degree from one of these colleges.
In your haste to make a "communism" reference, you missed: In order to receive federal student aid, the law requires that most for-profit programs, regardless of credential level, and most non-degree programs at non-profit and public institutions, including community colleges, prepare students for "gainful employment in a recognized occupation"
What you're describing is known as the "Gray fallacy" or "Argument to moderation" and is often incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Ahh After Dark... memories lol. Yes, you're correct. Early 90s.
That, and the whole concept of a grammar "nazi" on this thread is somewhat apropos as well.
Hahahahaha, you really think that's what corporate personhood is about? The ability to sue them? That's unbelievably cute. I could just put you in my pocket. Let me give you a hint, it was about the ability to make political donations in the name of a corporation.
Out of all of that, apes vs. monkeys was what you chose to take issue with? lmfao!
So you either subsidize it with your taxes (a fixed amount) or you subsidize it by getting raped by the ISP (an amount that can change when the CEO farts). Also, how many of your "5+ choices" are top tier providers? If the answer is 1, then you're dealing with a monopoly. If there's only one car company that makes highway capable vehicles, and everyone else is manufacturing golf carts, then they're hardly the same thing. Even if the answer is 2, then it's a duopoly because there still won't be competition, as history shows that those circumstances lead to collusion, not competition.
And the ones about Tesla tend to even be fellatious...
And taking out Beijing would only cause them to take out Los Angeles.
Not seeing the downside here...
As opposed to using them on us... which happens way more often.