Well, you're using their logic.

"Lastly, we have absolutely no idea what the side effects are. We've been eating GMO food for a while now and we have higher incidence of things such as autism, obesity, diabetes, ADHD, to name a few."

Moral hazard.

I would say anytime they interact with the public, but the most important thing is that they stick to the rules without exception.

I fail to see the argument against body cameras here. Exonerating police officers and reducing lawsuits when there is clear evidence of proper policing should be encouraged, not bemoaned. A police officer turning off their camera or a department "losing" footage is a different issue. There needs to be clear rules…

Depends. Are you kind of a dick?

Shit, I'm screwed then, and I'm straight.

I don't have a problem with that.

No, it wasn't. The rulemaking here was very, very public.

The enforcement mechanisms are the same as they've always been; the court system. This doesn't change that at all. Do you think that this ruling means that the internet companies now have to pass all internet traffic through a government checkpoint for inspection?

I'm sorry, did the 1st Amendment just get repealed? I wasn't aware of that.

1) It's not a bill.

Neither does he.

That's not what this is.

Why are you so opposed to capitalism? This makes the market be a market.

The internet has been working "just fine" because prior to 2014, there were net neutrality protections. They were struck down, so this step was necessary.

Nationally, though, that's not the case. Insurance rate increases were the lowest in a decade, and the uninsured rate has been dropping like a stone. Also, the rules didn't really effect employee-sponsored healthcare coverage (other than to make it more widespread), so any company that dropped their coverage was…

For discussing basic facts?

What are you talking about? They've been online for months!

With a bending cost curve and 10 million more people with healthcare? Yea, we all know it ended up.