The point (object) is the protest, not the protesting of the point.
Snappy one liner, but the idea is that convoluted. Where they are is the point. They are standing in some poor clod's front yard holding signs and yelling at him. Why? Because he is fortunate enough and skillful enough to have a nice job with benefits that he earned with his own hard work and education. Somehow that is "unfair" to the other people who live there because of "gentrification", which basically means his living there has benefited property owners by making their property worth more.
Never mind that most of the "protesters" don't even live there.
{sarc}Lets make an example of people who work hard and get an education! How dare they reap any benefits from it, and benefit their neighborhoods by not being "neighbor hoods"??!!{end sarc}

Ahem..
BART!?

Please, Rush is way too liberal for me, LOL!

Well, "Anonymous Coward", you should follow the money. Who does it hurt, really, for tech companies to bus their own people to work rather than have them drive their cars? Its much better on the environment, less traffic on the freeways, and better for the workers.
Its not that they are busing their people to work, is it?
Its the fact that they are not using MUNICIPAL i.e. government owned buses that exclusively use unionized workers, specifically SEIU, which has a habit of using this very tactic.

Don't love it when Government and Unions get together to do things for the "common good"?

When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".
Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.

1. Elected by who exactly?
2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.

A hard core gamer who has no life usually panics when he can't get to his favorite MMORPG. All the sites as well as the game-server where down for a short time while CCP moved them to a new location. The websites are now up and a message that the game will be down until 9pm GMT appears in place of the normal website. Tweet updates are available here, and on their Facebook page .

Source is key. In the one scenario I am drawing a line for myself, in the other, the government is drawing an line for me, and not with my consent, sensibilities or moral compass.

Actually we do live in that society right now. I have heard antic-dote after antic-dote about people dying in the streets with a crowd of onlookers afraid to help. I would myself hesitate knowing that if I tried to help, I would be liable for the outcome no matter if what I did helped or not. Tort reform would go a long ways farther in fixing that immoral situation than any number of federal mandates on ME.
YOUR logical failings in this area are:
1. Freedom is the ability to CHOOSE a direction independently, without coercion.
2. Totalitarian Government, and Government Malfeasance are the cause of hunger and sickness all over the world.

So, by your logic, if I don't want to pay car insurance, then I should just stop driving...and if I don't want to pay for health insurance, then I should just stop living, right?

__I think it would be my moral duty to NOT have health insurance, since the alternative is philosophically bankrupt

Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest Ponsie scheme scams in American History. Already takes up 40% of the budget, and although we would be massively better without it, we can't get rid of it because so many are dependent on it.
What a massively evil twist to what was supposed to be a government run pension, and is anything but.

"Tea-Partiers"...cute, at least you didn't say "tea-baggers".
That political consultants thing is pretty much a no starter, not because people would or would not support it, but because there is pretty much no viable alternative to the massive government run bureaucracies that are in place right now. They are a monopoly and in order to pull it down, you would have to dismantle health care in Europe, completely. Even the stupidest person in the world would see that its better to have sucky health care than none.
Your friend might agree, however there are better ways to do it, I am sure. He would have likely had to wait for his Government Bureaucrat health care worker to have deemed his situation life threatening enough to warrant immediate emergency response, right about when it burst completely.