You're wrong, just like a Republican bigot. Poor Black people tend to live in cities; trailer parks have more poor White people. In 2012, in reality (not in the Republican fantasy bubble), Democrats had only a two point advantage among Whites making 17 points (ie. R:58% / D:41%).

It's thinking like yours that doomed Republicans to win a landslide only in your imaginations.

Republicans oppose publicly funded broadband because Republicans are funded by a few very rich people whose corporations would lose some of their monopoly money to the public competition.

Capitalists will sell the rope used to hang them.

It's a crisis of governance. Republicans are committed to terrible ideas about how to govern the country. The ideas that they executed for years with trifecta control of the US government, and perpetuated in years after by minority interference with goverment action to reform what they installed.

I hope that Priebus and the Republican Party stays committed to them. They belong on the dustheap of history, along with so much American greatness they destroyed.

Because Obamacare does a lot more than just insure more people. Though for those newly insured, it has improved their healthcare by funding what couldn't be bought before, already proving you wrong.

Obamacare also requires insurers provide contraception for the price of insurance premiums, which is preventive medicine that reduces costs due to unexpected pregnancies and STDs.

You're pretty sure that health insurance is meant to cover only catastrophes, but it's not. It's to cover spikes in health care costs that come from occasional expensive events. It's just like car collision insurance: it's a financing strategy that allows people to keep moving through life in a way they can afford, based on statistics. In fact car insurance should pay for routine maintenance that prevents catastrophic costs like engines seizing or bald tires skidding into something.

The financing costs money to operate, plus salaries and profits to motivate people to dedicate the time it requires to do it properly. Though not as much as the insurers charge (up to 20% of premiums, even under Obamacare). What every one of our foreign competitors has chosen over the past several generations is a public health insurance system like unemployment insurance, which we already have for a lot of Americans in either Medicare, Medicaid, VA insurance and some others.

In fact you have called for public health insurance in what you have detailed. Except for some reason you want an "employer offered health account". Why should the employer have anything whatsoever to do with health? Why should an employer even know when you have drawn on payments for medicine? Why should you have to move it when you change employers? Why should employers spend one minute administering health financing when their business is totally unrelated? Obviously that "account" should be Medicare/Medicaid/VA insurance, paid by taxes, administered without profit by the government that already does so very well for many millions of Americans.

What's wrong with you libertarians is that you cannot accept that government is the people joined together to protect ourselves, at a great scale economy. You're obsessed with authoritarian private corporations that demonstrate daily the vast waste they layer atop most widespread services, especially those that are equally available to all. You reduce actual life experiences demonstrated everywhere to inane sloganeering like "heading down the path of communism, and history has already told us how well that works". No, you have merely cherrypicked history and called things names without regard to their meaning.

There's more to economics than economics 101. There's more to reality than the libertarian mayor of Sim City bothers to carp about.

Obamacare has already insured many more people, as it was designed to do.

Now show me where Obamacare has not done what it was designed to do. Or just stop posting purely ideological made-up propaganda.

Optimal decision making about everyone's life is not graded on the content of the decision as much as on its acceptance by everyone. That's why democracy is the best system yet tried: it depends on the consent of the governed.

No, they said nothing about everyone who disagrees with their politics. Nor did they say that single-party rule is best. Yours is the savory troll food known as a strawman argument.

What they said was that of the two parties we actually have, the Democratic Party does things to improve democracy. The Republican Party is blatantly anti-democratic, whether in funding by (and for) a few of the richest people, or in stopping people from voting if they're probably not voting Republican.

In reality, what they said is true. In Republican fallacyland, you're still just a savory troll.

OK: You're a communist.

And an idiot.

So you blindly voted for whatever crook was opposed by the people who actually work in your local government. You've proved Republicans don't need their disintegrating party: you only care about what you imagine are liberals.

Offer every rich one all the entitlements you can possibly give them, when they cannot be afforded. Talk about RMoney fiddling while the US burns.

Of course you can't find a more "Conservative" country to move to. Except maybe Somalia - oh, wait, too Black for Republicans.

Thanks for playing through your entire post, demonstrating how Republican parrots like you live entirely in a fantasy world. Where each of you is a dictator.

It's a horribly corporatist troll. Commercial tech is nothing but good, because it makes people's lives better "without opposition". Political tech is bad because there's opposition, or because it doesn't fix everything. What a load of CXO worshipping propaganda.

In this case the prosecutors and justice system were incompetent to prove this person was the killer.

In other cases they're incompetent to tell that the prosecutors and justice system have failed to prove the person was the killer.

When we execute convicted people there is no chance to catch the errors that are executing people who are not guilty. Not guilty people are killed because the system isn't adequate to execute only the guilty.

We shouldn't execute people, because we're not really sure that we're killing someone who's guilty.

How many actual criminals has the TSA actually caught? People who would actually have done any harm if the TSA hadn't caught them?

How many of them would have been caught with methods that don't violate everyone going through an airport?

The answer is probably that the benefit is very small. Other than the benefit of $BILLIONS to security corps and a authority/fear culture that makes it easier to waste more $BILLIONS on abusing us.

Is there some way we can get the Google TV UI on an Android tablet? The entire GUI, not just the Google TV Remote Android app. How about more than just the UI, and actually stream TV from the Google TV box to the Android tablet.

X needs to be replaced with something the way Linux replaced Unix. X is full of old solutions to old problems, loads of features and methods that nobody (or hardly anybody) uses, is far too complex. It's stuck with an architecture and components slavishly oriented to the client/server pattern rather than distributed peers and meshes of servers for shared AV on multiple devices of very different power that people actually use.Android ditched X. We should replace it even on Linux with Skia, adding a multi-window extension and a widget that allows both X and Skia to display simultaneously. Until nobody uses X anymore.

Make these windows into objects that can be easily collected into groups, pipe data among them, flick them among networked machines (including public screens). A new infrastructure for the new, ubiquitous AV presentation we're running on mobile parallel supercomputers.