Grillick

For what it's worth, Coach, he responded to that point before you even reiterated it in your last post. So really, there was no need for him to respond again with the same answer.

I've never heard of such a thing as a "non-white only plane seat."

Or he developed his own proprietary OS from scratch that is unlike anything we currently have.

By reading the responses of the people when you asked what colonies are. Funny how reading someone's answers to your questions can provide you with information, huh?

This is the portion that Lambdadelta was referring to as an "ignorant stereotype." You can't blame your cheap BlueTooth keyboard for this absurd statement.

If you'd ever been to El Paso, you'd understand.

You are correct. The insurance companies would make more money if we forced everyone to attempt to buy their product, and allowed them to refuse to sell to people they chose not to. I fail to see how this is a valid criticism of the Affordable Care Act, though.

Not true. Whole hosts of people for whom buying health insurance is not profitable (mostly young, healthy men) have been forced to buy a product (or have had their employers forced to buy a product) from the insurance companies. In exchange for forcing them to do that, we insist the insurance companies accept everyone. The revenues from the former category more than make up for the costs of the latter category. I've said it clearly three times now. I'm not sure how you could possibly misunderstand. I known you're not an idiot. I can only conclude that you are deliberately missing the point.

Please do me the favor of following the same instructions you gave me. "More revenue than it costs" = profit

I double-checked the thread before I posted that statement, and it has nothing to do with someone hijacking my password: there is no such statement. Show it to me. If it's in a different thread, then that's another matter, but that's related to an entirely different conversation in a completely different context, so I don't really see the merit to your argument there either. And yes, making insurance companies accept everyone is the price they pay for us making everyone buy their product, whether that person wants to or not. It's totally fair, and I have no doubt it brings in far more revenue than it costs. Edit: After a second re-reading of the thread, I still don't see what you're talking about...but I see a post from Don Juan that might be what you're talking about. Maybe look at the poster and not just the Alliance Pip?

Before my last post, I hadn't said anything about the ACA in this entire thread, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Even so, it's not hypocritical to note that you are making an argument that something is unfair when I don't believe it is unfair. In fact, the ACA is one of the most insurance-friendly laws ever imagined. It's right up there with the nationwide prevalence of state laws mandating automobile insurance.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone oppose the Affordable Care Act because it's unfair to insurance companies. I'm a little tickled by this argument.

Actually, WISD0MTREE, Wal-Mart is the single largest retailer in the world, with annual sales more than 300% higher than its nearest competitor. This market power makes its commodity chain exceedingly powerful. You have to be willfully blind to the truth if you genuinely think they don't have anything to do with the endemic outsourcing that has hit this country in the last five decades.

In 1637, 1929, and 1987, just to name a few times.

WISD0MTREE, by your definition, the entire insurance industry is socialism.

Because that was 1940, not 1938, and the German invasion mostly bypassed the French army en route to Paris.

It's pretty widely accepted by historians that the Treaty of Versailles was a primary cause of the Great Depression, which was a primary cause of World War II.

In 1938, France had the largest military in the world. It could have checked Germany, with or without UK support.

You can't seriously think the Republicans are more likely than Obama to enact a policy that provides free drug rehab and mental health care to homeless people?

Here's mine: "You are a social-democratic cosmopolitan. 1 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 5 percent are more extremist than you."

WISD0MTREE, I wasn't talking about the physical border when I said immigration restrictions. I was talking about the legal landscape and bureaucracy. But the question of immigration is for another thread, and I won't start a new thread from my phone. Maybe I'll post one when I get to a full-sized computer.

You think poor people get the day off on national holidays? Seriously? I...I..I don't have words to describe the absurdity of that argument. Weekends and holidays are luxuries enjoyed by the middle and upper classes. That is not a solution. It barely qualifies as an attempt at a solution. And WISD0MTREE, the problems with El Paso are a result of immigration restrictions (and an unstable neighboring government, which is a different issue entirely), not a result of an open border.

I have no problem with a billion or so people flooding to our shores just to vote. For one thing, I don't think it's likely to happen. For another, in order to do that, they'd have to actually come to the U.S., which would represent a huge boon for the airlines, food services, hospitality, tourism, and retail industries. Alternatively, they'd have to send in absentee ballots, which would be a huge revenue boost for the USPS. Besides, there is no greater single influence on this world than U.S. foreign policy: why shouldn't the rest of the world have a voice in the makeup of the government that creates it? And let me disabuse you of the notion that anyone "doesn't pay taxes to help support our great society." Off-the-books workers may avoid paying some income taxes, but individual income taxes account for less than 40% of all state tax revenue nationwide. In Texas, where WISD0MTREE lives, individual income taxes account for 0% of all tax revenue. In Missouri, where you live, Coach, individual income taxes account for 46.8% of all tax revenue. Corporate income taxes and sales taxes are paid by every consumer, and people with lower incomes devote far higher proportions of their income to consumption spending rather than savings and investment, which are taxed at substantially lower rates. [Source]

Why not just let everybody vote? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler? Why are you so intent on spending countless taxpayer dollars to prevent something that has at worst one hundredth of a percent prevalence? Voter fraud is a non-issue. The only reason for an ID requirement is to keep people for whom acquiring a photo ID is more inconvenient than it is worth from voting. We already hold our elections during work hours in the middle of a single work day. What more do you need to keep the working poor from voting?

Non-citizens are not allowed to vote in any state. I object to this policy, but it is not unconstitutional. States that enact voter ID laws require CITIZENS to obtain a photo ID in order to cast a vote. All photo IDs in the United States carry a monetary or non-monetary cost. Therefore, any law which requires a citizen, as a prerequisite to voting, to have a photo ID is an unconstitutional poll tax.