Who was suggesting that others be denied access? Obama wants to make you pay for someone else's birth control. Why should you or I be required to pay for someone else's birth control. This is not a question of access. This is a question of making someone else pay for it. In particular it is a question of making someone else pay for something they consider to be murder.

Um, they did to the same degree or greater than the Republicans have under Obama. As to the CFPB, if Bush had created that monstrosity, you would be screaming your head off (hint, it has the power to decide what companies it regulates on the basis of its Director's decision that the company is critical to the financial markets, even if the company is not part of the financial markets). Why anybody thinks that a bill that was created by two of the loudest opponents of fixing the problems in the financial markets before the meltdown were the right guys to craft the law to fix the problems after the meltdown is a mystery to me.

The original poster answered with an answer that made sense. Your answer makes no sense. You seem to be saying that if I give to charity than I believe that people have "right" to food, health care and/or housing.
What does it mean to say that someone has "right to food, health care and a roof"? I will ask again, do you mean that someone should provide you with those things? Or do you mean, as my reading of the OP's response, that you have the right to provide yourself with those things and the government should not interfere? I can support the latter, but I cannot support the idea that you are somehow obligated to provide me with any of those three things. I will do everything I can to help those who are lacking those three things obtain them, but I do not feel that I have the right to force someone else to provide them to either myself or another.

No, this is a study of the happiness of Twits, some of whom are technically savvy people, but most of whom are just twits. It does not take any technical savvy to be on Twitter.

Except that according to the Gallup poll several of them do not show up as happy places.

Gallup does a "well-being" poll (the factors they use to determine "well-being" correlate pretty well with happiness). While the Gallup poll agrees that Hawaii is the "happiest", the rest of their poll comes out significantly different. For example, the Twit survey from this article has Florida as above the median for happiness, the Gallup poll has them third from the bottom. Another example, this Twit poll puts Maryland near the bottom, while Gallup puts it near the top. The real problem with the Twit survey is that states that are vacation destinations will have a disproportionate representation of people who are not involved in their daily grind. I suspect That not only are people who are on vacation more likely to be happy, those that are Twits probably tweet more while on vacation.

Right because the guy who proposes the alternative has no bias on this issue...wait, the guy suggesting the alternative hypothesis happens to work for the city which might be on the hook for those medical expenses if the hypothesis is correct. Note that the argument for the alternative hypothesis looks a lot like the type of arguments the tobacco companies made against the early studies linking cigarettes to cance.

I spoke with an bee keeper shortly after the story about the problems with feeding bees HFCS (it often contains small amounts of insecticide, which causes problems with bees navigation). His comment was that it was probably not a significant problem since most beekeepers only fed bees a small amount of sugar water in the late winter so that the bees were stronger when the first blossoms of spring happened. He fed his bees cane sugar in water in late February, early March. Based on what he said, the only reason that beekeepers in the U.S. feed their bees sugar water is so that they are stronger when the blooms of spring happen, not because they took too much honey out of the hive. Nature does not care if the hive can pollinate lots of flowers and start making large amounts of honey in the early spring, so nature does not care if it takes several weeks after the flowers start to bloom for the hive to be up to speed. Commercial beekeepers on the other hand want to get as much productivity out of the hive as they can. Which means that if they can get the hive up to mid season strength as soon as the flowers start to bloom, they can make more money. Beekeepers also tend to actually treat their hives as sort of pets (not individual bees, but the hive as a whole), feeling emotionally attached to the health of the hive. Beekeepers significantly improve the health of bee hives much like cat owners improve the lives of cats.

What evidence do you have that this is true? Wild animals with significant problems with their teeth/mouth die in short order, humans get it treated and live on.

FAIL. Zip codes do not follow municipal boundaries. If you use zip code to determine what tax rate to apply, you will get it wrong a significant percentage of the time. Just because someone has a particular city zip code does not mean that where they live is subject to the tax rate of that city.

How exactly is software going to know when a municipality introduces a sales tax holiday for three days? Someone is going to have to keep track of all of the various changes to those sales tax laws and enter it into the software. I really doubt that Paypal will offer it for free (unless of course you are selling through Ebay)..

I worked retail at the time, the law was very confusing. Before the law was changed, it was complicated enough, but some things were clear. If you put it in your mouth and swallowed it, it was not taxable because it was considered food. After the change, if you sold hot dogs cold, they were not taxable, but if you put them on a grill and heated them up, they were. Milk was not taxable, but chocolate milk was. Fruit drinks were not taxable if they were over a certain percentage real juice. Candy was taxable, but granola bars weren't (was a granola bar covered in chocolate taxable or not? I don't remember, but that was a matter of some debate for over a year after the law passed).
The store owner in question in my above example had been in business for twenty plus years.

So, you are in favor of increasing the cost of doing business? Which of course means that you prefer doing business with larger companies, because a larger, established company can more readily absorb an increased cost of doing business.
Quickbooks may only cost $300 retail, but if you want that payroll tax calculator functionality, it is another $29 a month (plus $1.50 per employee per month). What do you think they are going to charge for the sales tax package (which is significantly more complicated than the payroll tax package, very few municipalities institute "tax holidays" on payroll taxes and if they do, it is almost always across the board, not just on certain classes of items). Oh yeah, if you want that payroll tax functionality, you need to buy a new version of Quickbooks every three years. So, you're talking about an additional $600+ for the first year to start up a company that the person has no guarantees will ever be profitable.

That one is easy, the business owner. About 20 years ago my state changed their sales tax laws. In particular, they changed what was and was not taxable. One small business owner gave up trying to figure out which items he sold were or were not taxable and charged sales tax on everything. He remitted the full amount collected to the state. The state prosecuted him for charging sales tax for things which were not taxable. The penalties exceeded his yearly revenue.

Well, let's see. First off I did not say it was an insurmountable problem. I said it the proposed legislation favors large companies over small companies. I am talking about companies that are small enough that buying Quickbooks makes it not worth their time to start the company.

So, how much is it going to cost me to get that software? Who is going to update it every time one of those many municipalities changes their tax laws? How much will that cost me? Do you have a clue how complicated it is to keep track of the sales tax laws all throughout the U.S., with different municipalities charging sales tax on different things? Not everything is taxable in every municipality and what is taxable, or not taxable varies from location to location. In addition, How do I keep track of what tax jurisdiction a customer is in (hint, zip codes won't do the trick)?
Sure, you can say, "That's a cost of doing business," of course when you say that what you are saying is "I don't mind stacking the deck in favor of big business."