Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that the fucked-up fucken ass holes, like you, are also anti-education And just to think! That's actually my pet peeve with lying fucked-up ass holes that subscribe to the leftist philosophies... you know like all the people who subscribe to the leftist philosophies. Well, do kindly eat shit and die.

No, fuck you! Fuck you with a cherry on top. The left is a pro-slavery, pro-crime, pro-mysogeny, anti-science, pro-violence philosophy. Oh, and they are just not open about it. They are lying ass holes. You know... like you.

You are right. We should stay away from politics while discussing ACA (aka "Obamacare"). Because it's not a political discussion. It's a discussion about technology. The headline does, after all, have the word "start-up" in it.

Another Democrat talking. Hide your wallet.

It's not THAT surprising. She is a lawyer and Law Schools tend to beat common sense out of people pretty much the way that firefighter training beats the survival instinct out of people. It's pretty common for a lawyer to insist that a plain English sentence which would not be misinterpreted by anyone (other than a lawyer) has multiple possible meanings. She asked to have a term defined... even though she probably heard it before and probably used it herself. But in an "official" conversation her lawyer training kicked in and she asked to have the term defined "exactly." Lawyers can be that way when they don't rise above their training to learn how to communicate effectively while remaining precise.

Stop using "right wing" as a slur. They are better than the alternative. Better at what you ask? At this point... just better. The left just sucks balls.

Well, the cut they are talking about is a cut in raw numbers (of dollars allotted to NIH), so doing comparisons in row numbers is apples to apples comparison here. Btw, Reagan was an amateur compare to Obama when it comes to deficit spending. No one has spent money on a scale that even compares to Obama during peace time... not even close... It's really quite unbelievable how bad he is. He spent so much money in his 1st year, they literally ran out of people to whom they could give the money. They "stimulus" funding sitting unclaimed because they funded every wildest fantasy anyone could invent and apply for and still they had half a trillion (that's 500 billion or 500,000 million dollars) sitting unclaimed because no one could figure out what to spend it on.

Yes, spending was much higher during WW2.... on this big ticket item called WORLD WAR 2. You know... the big ticket item which could be cut after the war was over. Are you gonna cut spending on WW2 again now?

Right, except that's not what they did. They didn't invest the money. They paid it in benefits. Investing money produces a return. Paying out benefits does not produce a return. The analogy to banks simply does not hold.

Only if the money you spent was saved. If it was spent on other things (like paying entitlements of other people), then you weren't paying for your retirement. You were paying for retirements of other people. And in that case, and I am sorry to say this because it is very harsh, but any "entitlements" you receive is charity. Because if it wasn't saved (and it wasn't), then it's funded by other people. And just because your house got robbed, you don't get a carte blanche to rob your neighbor's house.

Hate to brake to you, but this was 100% on Democrats. Spending went up. It just didn't go towards NIH funding. And it is the Democrats (the party in power) who decided where the funding went.

Sequester didn't cut spending thought. It only reduced increased in spending... let it sink in.. reduced increases... so increases still happened... just not as large as they would have been without the sequester.

Are you high? US Federal government had the highest tax receipts in history AND the highest deficit in history. Regardless of whether you believe this to be a problem, the cut backs were definitely not the result of some imaginary across-the-board cut backs that you have dreamed up.

What if India was simply paid off by Bing to accomplish just such a goal? Simply running away is not an option if you conduct a business in which there are competitors. If you base a society on such principles, you end up with a society in which there is no rule of law -- whoever pays the highest bribe wins. You can argue that we are already there, and to some degree, you'd be right. But these are matters of degree and if Bing were to in India in such a way, that would be another step in the direction of lawlessness.

Sure..if we are talking about laws regarding your operations in India. Any attempt to impose extra-territorial legal restrictions is always very questionable. Generally, there has to be a compelling humanitarian reason for legislating extra-territorial behavior (like outlawing human trafficking or sex tourism to countries with under-age prostitution) or an attempt to stop international criminal behavior (like drug-trafficking or maybe... maybe tax dodging). Improper application of IP laws (like patent laws)? If that were ok, then, as a poster above mentioned, US would go after bank accounts of any company producing generic versions of US drugs before they became off-patent in the US. Unless, of course, they want to claim that this is 10% of Google's operations in India, but I doubt Google does $50 billion worth of business in India.