Whenever you receive a call from one of these scammers do what you can to talk to a live person. This is what costs them money. When I get a robo-call telling me about pack pain medication or having an import message from my credit card company, I always press whatever button I need to push to seem interested and speak with a representative. Then I keep that person on the phone for as long as possible until they give up and hang up on me.

If everyone did this, the overhead of these bastards would be too high to keep calling people. At worse, it would make them limit their calls to known suckers.

But if you oppose a living minimum wage, then you support slavery
Do you not know what a slave is? If I volunteer at the local soup kitchen, does that make me a slave? By YOUR definition, it does. However, slaves are considered property and have no choices. I can throw down my apron and walk out of the soup kitchen. A slave does not have that choice.
In the context of this discussion, if a "slave" doesn't like his wages, he's free to quit, making him not really slave. If he wants to make better wages, he needs to make himself worth more to employers. That's how freedom works.

Add to that the fact that vendors will hoard the money rather than reinvest them
How exactly do vendors "hoard" their money? Do they:
1) Expand to make even more money
2) Cash it out and put in their own pockets
3) Invest it using other means such as bonds or stock market
4) Stick in the bank
5) Buy a giant Scrooge McDuck style safe to store stacks of $100 bills and gold coins.

In the case of 1 and 3, the money goes back into the economy. The business expands, creating more jobs by the expansion itself or running the now larger business.
In the case of Number 2, you need to ask the question again, "How exactly do the stock holders 'hoard' their money?" The answers don't really change. Even if they build mansions, someone has to gather the materials, construct the home, fill it with furniture, and then maintain the house by keeping it clean and repaired. Even this keeps people employed.
Number 4 is an option some use, but it's temporary. Even then, the bank will load the money back out to other businesses or individuals who will also spend the money, expanding the economy.
Number 5, of course, is what you think happens, but that's simply not reality.

Either way, you are missing a basic economic fact, ALL MONEY IS SPENT, and by spending that money, the economy expands. The more money being made, the more the economy grows. Profit is what happens when you increase the value of resources. Profit, by definition, makes the economy larger, meaning more money for everyone.

So you can stop with your rich-envy.

I have no idea how feasible what Gravis Zero suggested is. But there's nothing about it that defies thermodynamics, since it posits using electrical power to create the combustible fuel. It doesn't require a miracle just, as GZ said, a lot of energy.

You can play golf with a $110 set of clubs (which you can probably find cheaper used) at a public course for $20 to $40 a round, if you walk rather than rent a cart. If you want, you can buy some golf shoes, but they're not required. It does not require thousands of dollars nor membership in a country club.

There's nothing about a golf ball that makes it unworthy of patents. A particular composition of matter, for example, is a commonly patented invention. If the patent holder invented a new filling material, a new outer material, a new glue to hold it all together, a particular winding pattern, and a new machine to perform the winding, all that would be patentable (assuming all the other requirements for a patent are met). I suspect that's not what actually happened--I think this is an attempt to muscle a new competitor out of the market. But that doesn't mean there's nothing patentable about a golf ball.

Exactly. Most people don't have a choice of ISP. They do have a choice of VPN, so VPN providers are subject to market forces.

No I do not understand. I would very much like someone to explain what these do. That's not a sarcastic accusation that they do nothing. I genuinely want to know.

There is a certain category of acts that are wrong regardless of the legalities. There are others that are wrong because they are against the law. Legally enslaving people falls in the former category. Legally paying zero taxes falls in the latter category. Note that "legally" does a lot of work in that sentence. For example, it presumes accounting and reporting that complies with the law, that is honest, etc. But if Apple is following the law in NZ, they are not doing anything unethical.

Can you point to which part of the ADA authorizes "lengthy jail sentences"?

A lot gets said, and total carbon output has been studied a lot. For example, http://www.ucsusa.org/publicat....

"causing undue harm to a spec[i]fic segment of the population" is not one of the recognized exceptions to the free speech clause of the Constitution. Generally, reporting true facts is protected. The exceptions are few and far between, and heavily constrained. The most obvious one is the prohibition on the disclosure of classified national security information. But that prohibition applies to those who receive clearances and agree to the relevant restrictions. It does not apply to those who obtain and disclose the information without breaking their own agreements. This is why no reporters were prosecuted for publishing information from wikileaks or Snowden.

Actually, you've stated it exactly wrong: the counties with the differences were not "demographically similar." When you control for demographics, the difference in voting patterns disappears. See also https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/... and https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/....

If Snopes were left-leaning, it would have been impossible for me to defend Bush all those years.

Sorry, but Snopes is left-leaning. What you've run across are examples so flagrant, they had to admit them to false. For example, "Trump to Repurpose USS Enterprise Into Floating Hotel and Casino" or "Donald Trump Was Born in Pakistan" are obviously fake and Snopes will label it as such.
The best way to check any "fact-check" site is to find the same quote said by two people on different sides of the aisle. What I have found is that many times, the same claim will receive a higher rating from the left, as the site will find an excuse as to why it may be true. The right receives no such courtesy.

Do you mean the "reality" that says only white Republicans can be racist?
Maybe you mean the "reality" that every Republican candidate since Reagan is a racist/misogynist/elitist/Bible-thumper?
Oh, I know... You mean the "reality" of Obamacare cutting health care costs and everyone being able to keep their doctor, right?

Sorry, but when "the left wing" has played the bigot (racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe) card so hard and so long that it's color has worn off, I have hard time believing that they know what "reality" truly is. Don't believe me? Go back and look at the smears against Romney and look at what they are saying about him now. Back then, he was an animal abusing, woman suppressing, religious nut-job. Today, he's the sane pick for Secretary of State. Seriously, how long did you think the American public would believe the BS when you tell them same BS every four years, only to back off your claims a few weeks after the elections end? Well, the elections you win, anyway.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe they simply disagree with your policies for reasons other than hatred?