|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 30 2016 05:59 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 05:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 05:06 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 04:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
"Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."
Source "Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."That right there is why Obama has changed from a middling president I voted for, to a great president who will be on dollar bills within 10 years of his death. Poe's law in action people. Obama is going to leave office with a 46-48% approval rating. Presidential approval ratings go up over time (Bush2 is somehow around 40% now). Just because you hate incremental, positive, social change doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Obama never went above 64% approval rating during his 8 years in office, which is the lowest any president has had since these approval ratings have been measured. He also has the lowest approval rating among 'the other party' of any US president in history (14%). He has been the most divisive president the US has had since the civil war and it will take decades to get one half of the country working with the other half again. Thanks Obama.
If you are doing the hating, then you are the divisive one. Obama doesn't hate you. You hate Obama. You are the divisive problem. Why shouldn't a person be accountable for their own feelings? Personal responsibility and all that, remember?
This applies to the Tea Party / Trump crew as well. If your heart is full of hate, then your accusations of divisiveness are discounted by the amount of hate you are bringing to the table.
// Also, LOL on that attempt to use the ceiling of support as a way of countering the floor. Remember that every president has gone UP after office (Reagan, Bush1, BClinton, Bush2). The floor is vastly more important than any supposed ceiling.
|
On January 30 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 05:53 cLutZ wrote:
So, in Illinois, we have this with schoolteachers, and they absolutely hate it. Every time they go on strike (outside of the City of Chicago) they get mercilessly mocked because people can see that their kid's English teacher is earning 80k. Notoriously one math teacher earned over 150k while only teaching 3 50-minute classes a day.
I think NBA/NFL players also hate that the world knows what they earn, and it really seems to serve them poorly in CBA negotiations as the public never seems to be on their side.
Also, I think it creates a dumb situation where things need to be explained that really just ends of becoming a paperwork nightmare. Employment discrimination law is already totally screwed up because of the application of "disparate impact" standards. I would point out again that the specific information about employees is not public under the requirement. They couldn't trot out someones pay when they go on strike.
First, let me address your general proposition that employees are not identifiable, and its not true for large (but not mega Wal-Mart) firms, like a 100-person law firm, if the data has any meaning. Lets just say at the firm you divide between Paralegals, Associates, and Partners. And lets say it says F 25-35 Paralegal, Chicago Office, 50k, it needs to be at least that specific to have any meaning, and already it probably has narrowed the pool down to probably 1 person, maybe 2. So I'd argue with that premise on its own.
Second, as I referenced, we already have a problem with too much information being given to outside groups and generating frivolous (but very hard to defend against) lawsuits based only on reporting of the racial and sexual makeup of a workforce. If we add another layer of public evidence, it will be a nightmare for everyone besides employment attorneys.
|
On January 30 2016 06:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 05:59 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 05:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 05:06 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 04:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
"Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."
Source "Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."That right there is why Obama has changed from a middling president I voted for, to a great president who will be on dollar bills within 10 years of his death. Poe's law in action people. Obama is going to leave office with a 46-48% approval rating. Presidential approval ratings go up over time (Bush2 is somehow around 40% now). Just because you hate incremental, positive, social change doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Obama never went above 64% approval rating during his 8 years in office, which is the lowest any president has had since these approval ratings have been measured. He also has the lowest approval rating among 'the other party' of any US president in history (14%). He has been the most divisive president the US has had since the civil war and it will take decades to get one half of the country working with the other half again. Thanks Obama. I mean that's just because it's moving more and more towards the extrem side of things. You just didn't have large amounts of people who insult the president claiming he's a Muslim-Communist born in Africa to someone entirely else than the people who claim to be his parents, shipped to America to become President and destroy the country from the inside. That kind of thing is on a new level. Of course if you have people who are telling those stories on the other side of the spectrum people aren't going to like him if they actually end up believing it.
To be fair there has been some vitriolic stuff before, but the the ability for dissemination of information combined with the hate has been unprecedented.
|
To bring some sourced data to the discussion, according to Gallup (who invented the concept of approval ratings) Obama's highest approval rating was 67% (discounting daily and 3-day averages) just after he took office. For comparison Ronald Reagan's highest was 68% (Source +more presidents).
My personal take is that it's astonishing Obama is even competitive with past Presidents given the nature of the opposition to him.
|
On January 30 2016 06:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On January 30 2016 05:53 cLutZ wrote:
So, in Illinois, we have this with schoolteachers, and they absolutely hate it. Every time they go on strike (outside of the City of Chicago) they get mercilessly mocked because people can see that their kid's English teacher is earning 80k. Notoriously one math teacher earned over 150k while only teaching 3 50-minute classes a day.
I think NBA/NFL players also hate that the world knows what they earn, and it really seems to serve them poorly in CBA negotiations as the public never seems to be on their side.
Also, I think it creates a dumb situation where things need to be explained that really just ends of becoming a paperwork nightmare. Employment discrimination law is already totally screwed up because of the application of "disparate impact" standards. I would point out again that the specific information about employees is not public under the requirement. They couldn't trot out someones pay when they go on strike. First, let me address your general proposition that employees are not identifiable, and its not true for large (but not mega Wal-Mart) firms, like a 100-person law firm, if the data has any meaning. Lets just say at the firm you divide between Paralegals, Associates, and Partners. And lets say it says F 25-35 Paralegal, Chicago Office, 50k, it needs to be at least that specific to have any meaning, and already it probably has narrowed the pool down to probably 1 person, maybe 2. So I'd argue with that premise on its own. Second, as I referenced, we already have a problem with too much information being given to outside groups and generating frivolous (but very hard to defend against) lawsuits based only on reporting of the racial and sexual makeup of a workforce. If we add another layer of public evidence, it will be a nightmare for everyone besides employment attorneys.
As someone who deals with frivolously counter claims to debt collection, title clearing and like every other dumb type of “sovereign citizen” filing against our cleints, I can respect that. But I am not convinced the collection of this information will increase the number of frivolously claims by any significant number. They passed a number of laws in my state regarding banks and reposed property that people claimed would cause a “flood gate” of litigation. I have yet to see it.
|
On January 30 2016 06:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On January 30 2016 05:53 cLutZ wrote:
So, in Illinois, we have this with schoolteachers, and they absolutely hate it. Every time they go on strike (outside of the City of Chicago) they get mercilessly mocked because people can see that their kid's English teacher is earning 80k. Notoriously one math teacher earned over 150k while only teaching 3 50-minute classes a day.
I think NBA/NFL players also hate that the world knows what they earn, and it really seems to serve them poorly in CBA negotiations as the public never seems to be on their side.
Also, I think it creates a dumb situation where things need to be explained that really just ends of becoming a paperwork nightmare. Employment discrimination law is already totally screwed up because of the application of "disparate impact" standards. I would point out again that the specific information about employees is not public under the requirement. They couldn't trot out someones pay when they go on strike. First, let me address your general proposition that employees are not identifiable, and its not true for large (but not mega Wal-Mart) firms, like a 100-person law firm, if the data has any meaning. Lets just say at the firm you divide between Paralegals, Associates, and Partners. And lets say it says F 25-35 Paralegal, Chicago Office, 50k, it needs to be at least that specific to have any meaning, and already it probably has narrowed the pool down to probably 1 person, maybe 2. So I'd argue with that premise on its own. Second, as I referenced, we already have a problem with too much information being given to outside groups and generating frivolous (but very hard to defend against) lawsuits based only on reporting of the racial and sexual makeup of a workforce. If we add another layer of public evidence, it will be a nightmare for everyone besides employment attorneys.
It's always the free market-leaning folks who are in favor of information asymmetries. Let's keep everything as opaque as possible so that the biggest entities with the most bargaining power and information retain their edge. (Oh btw there's no tendency toward monopoly in mature liberal capitalism).
Hey it's important that people who think they are smarter than everyone else can continue to get paid slightly more.
|
On January 30 2016 06:13 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 05:59 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 05:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 05:06 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 04:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
"Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."
Source "Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."That right there is why Obama has changed from a middling president I voted for, to a great president who will be on dollar bills within 10 years of his death. Poe's law in action people. Obama is going to leave office with a 46-48% approval rating. Presidential approval ratings go up over time (Bush2 is somehow around 40% now). Just because you hate incremental, positive, social change doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Obama never went above 64% approval rating during his 8 years in office, which is the lowest any president has had since these approval ratings have been measured. He also has the lowest approval rating among 'the other party' of any US president in history (14%). He has been the most divisive president the US has had since the civil war and it will take decades to get one half of the country working with the other half again. Thanks Obama. I think the tea party has a lot more to do with the described political divide than Obama.
The point I was trying to make is you can say Obama was a so-so president, but for him to actually end up on currency? Really?
JFK did more for civil rights than Obama can ever dream about doing, and he still had an average approval rating of over 45% among republicans. Thats why he's on the 50 cent coin. What has Obama actually done? The economy was ruined, nobody went to jail, debt larger than ever. He got a Nobel piece prize for nothing, his foreign policy actually managed to fuck up the world worse than Bush ever could.
Do black people magically live better now then before? No. Do hispanics live better? No. Gay marriage? He was against gay marriage in his first term, still basically the legal system is going around in circles. Oh, he says he is working on it but in the end all he has done is fail.
Come on people, what has he done to deserve being on currency? Obamacare?
|
"Obama care will cause...", "Increasing minimum wage will cause...", "Enviromental regulations will cause..." You would think they would get more right just as a result of the sheer volume of times they make the same argument.
Come on people, what has he done to deserve being on currency? Obamacare?
When he ends up on the currency it will likely be less about anything he did and more about America telling itself "See! I told you we aren't racist!"
|
Tackling the issue of healthcare and the ACA is a pretty big deal. I know people will cite problems with the program, but that is true of everything. That law specifically saved me and my fiancée from a lot of financial problems when she needed surgery. Like home losing financial problems. The changes it made to the system in our state allowed her to get insurance and not have to worry about being denied.
So yeah, it mattered and was a huge deal.
|
And the thus the legacy of Obama won't live on as a face on currency, but very successful legislation being forever referred to as "Obamacare."
|
One of the most poorly planned pejoratives ever.
Republicans - 2010: People don’t like thing at all. Lets call it Obamacare to make sure its always associated with Obama.
Republicans – 2014: Guys, people don’t seem to hate the ACA that much. The democrats now call it Obamacare all the time.
Republicans – 2016: Guys, we fucked up.
Wig Party – 2074: And that is why you don’t name unpopular laws after your enemies.
|
On January 30 2016 06:44 aksfjh wrote:
And the thus the legacy of Obama won't live on as a face on currency, but very successful legislation being forever referred to as "Obamacare."
Well I doubt it will necessarily live on. While I think Obamacare is a bad plan overall, I am glad he touched one of the third rails... it essentially means that it will be easier for the next administration (particularly if it is a Republican one) to change our healthcare system (hopefully for the better, although it is always possible it will be changed for the worse). So his legacy will probably not be the ACA but whatever healthcare system is finally settled on sometime in 2025 or so. (won't have his name and he may not like it, but it is a possible positive thing)
(tl;dr Because he ruined healthcare according to a lot of people, they are more open to it being fixed. and that is a good thing)
|
On January 30 2016 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:WASHINGTON -- Cable customers who are tired of paying through the nose to rent set-top boxes are about to see some serious savings, thanks to a new proposal from the Federal Communications Commission.
The new regulation would open up the set-top box market to consumer choice so that customers could rent or buy devices from providers other than their cable companies. About 99 percent of cable customers currently rent set-top boxes from their cable company. According to a survey commissioned by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), cable customers pay an average of $232 a year for those rentals -- a $20 billion market annually, just for set-top box rentals.
Set-top box fees have soared, even as prices for newer technology have plummeted. Consumer payments for set-top boxes are up 185 percent over the past two decades, according to FCC estimates, even as prices for laptops and cell phones have fallen.
Up to $14 billion of the total market is economically pointless profit for cable companies, according to an analysis by the Consumer Federation of America and Public Knowledge, a nonprofit Internet freedom group. Big cable companies including Comcast and Verizon have leveraged their market power to charge prices far higher than what would be permitted in a competitive industry.
Cable companies and their lobbyists are furious about the plan, which the commission is set to vote on Feb. 18. But the proposal didn't emerge from a vacuum. Liberal senators have been pressuring the FCC to act on cable "monopolies" for months. In July, current Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) organized a letter calling on the agency to collect a host of consumer pricing information from cable companies -- a move designed to show that in many regions of the country, households pay arbitrarily high prices due to a lack of other cable options. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Markey and Blumenthal all signed on to the letter. Source You rent those things Oo Over here you mostly get them for free when you sign up. America seriously needs to work on breaking the provider monopoly.
What i don't understand is why you would buy cable (at all, but especially at that price). You could get Netflix or something alike for half the money that you rent the set top box for apparently, and it sends you the stuff you want to see when you want to see it without ads.
I am very, very confused as to why television is still a thing with the absurd superiority of on demand programming.
|
On January 30 2016 07:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 30 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:WASHINGTON -- Cable customers who are tired of paying through the nose to rent set-top boxes are about to see some serious savings, thanks to a new proposal from the Federal Communications Commission.
The new regulation would open up the set-top box market to consumer choice so that customers could rent or buy devices from providers other than their cable companies. About 99 percent of cable customers currently rent set-top boxes from their cable company. According to a survey commissioned by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), cable customers pay an average of $232 a year for those rentals -- a $20 billion market annually, just for set-top box rentals.
Set-top box fees have soared, even as prices for newer technology have plummeted. Consumer payments for set-top boxes are up 185 percent over the past two decades, according to FCC estimates, even as prices for laptops and cell phones have fallen.
Up to $14 billion of the total market is economically pointless profit for cable companies, according to an analysis by the Consumer Federation of America and Public Knowledge, a nonprofit Internet freedom group. Big cable companies including Comcast and Verizon have leveraged their market power to charge prices far higher than what would be permitted in a competitive industry.
Cable companies and their lobbyists are furious about the plan, which the commission is set to vote on Feb. 18. But the proposal didn't emerge from a vacuum. Liberal senators have been pressuring the FCC to act on cable "monopolies" for months. In July, current Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) organized a letter calling on the agency to collect a host of consumer pricing information from cable companies -- a move designed to show that in many regions of the country, households pay arbitrarily high prices due to a lack of other cable options. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Markey and Blumenthal all signed on to the letter. Source You rent those things Oo Over here you mostly get them for free when you sign up. America seriously needs to work on breaking the provider monopoly. What i don't understand is why you would buy cable (at all, but especially at that price). You could get Netflix or something alike for half the money that you rent the set top box for apparently, and it sends you the stuff you want to see when you want to see it without ads. I am very, very confused as to why television is still a thing with the absurd superiority of on demand programming.
Sports and TV is how a lot of the stuff that ends up on netflix is made. Also internet infrastructure cannot handle everyone streaming services. Especially there are areas that have very limited data, but cable.
So yes, it works for you. My home town doesnt' even have cable TV, let alone high speed internet. Everyone uses dish network.
|
Most of the time tv and internet cable are bundled together.
|
On January 30 2016 07:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 30 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:WASHINGTON -- Cable customers who are tired of paying through the nose to rent set-top boxes are about to see some serious savings, thanks to a new proposal from the Federal Communications Commission.
The new regulation would open up the set-top box market to consumer choice so that customers could rent or buy devices from providers other than their cable companies. About 99 percent of cable customers currently rent set-top boxes from their cable company. According to a survey commissioned by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), cable customers pay an average of $232 a year for those rentals -- a $20 billion market annually, just for set-top box rentals.
Set-top box fees have soared, even as prices for newer technology have plummeted. Consumer payments for set-top boxes are up 185 percent over the past two decades, according to FCC estimates, even as prices for laptops and cell phones have fallen.
Up to $14 billion of the total market is economically pointless profit for cable companies, according to an analysis by the Consumer Federation of America and Public Knowledge, a nonprofit Internet freedom group. Big cable companies including Comcast and Verizon have leveraged their market power to charge prices far higher than what would be permitted in a competitive industry.
Cable companies and their lobbyists are furious about the plan, which the commission is set to vote on Feb. 18. But the proposal didn't emerge from a vacuum. Liberal senators have been pressuring the FCC to act on cable "monopolies" for months. In July, current Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) organized a letter calling on the agency to collect a host of consumer pricing information from cable companies -- a move designed to show that in many regions of the country, households pay arbitrarily high prices due to a lack of other cable options. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Markey and Blumenthal all signed on to the letter. Source You rent those things Oo Over here you mostly get them for free when you sign up. America seriously needs to work on breaking the provider monopoly. What i don't understand is why you would buy cable (at all, but especially at that price). You could get Netflix or something alike for half the money that you rent the set top box for apparently, and it sends you the stuff you want to see when you want to see it without ads. I am very, very confused as to why television is still a thing with the absurd superiority of on demand programming.
Because internet in large parts of America is as shit and expensive as their television.
The price you pay for trying to get corporation to do your infrastructure work.
|
On January 30 2016 06:38 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 06:13 ACrow wrote:On January 30 2016 05:59 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 05:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 05:06 zeo wrote:On January 30 2016 04:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On January 30 2016 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
"Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."
Source "Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."That right there is why Obama has changed from a middling president I voted for, to a great president who will be on dollar bills within 10 years of his death. Poe's law in action people. Obama is going to leave office with a 46-48% approval rating. Presidential approval ratings go up over time (Bush2 is somehow around 40% now). Just because you hate incremental, positive, social change doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Obama never went above 64% approval rating during his 8 years in office, which is the lowest any president has had since these approval ratings have been measured. He also has the lowest approval rating among 'the other party' of any US president in history (14%). He has been the most divisive president the US has had since the civil war and it will take decades to get one half of the country working with the other half again. Thanks Obama. I think the tea party has a lot more to do with the described political divide than Obama. The point I was trying to make is you can say Obama was a so-so president, but for him to actually end up on currency? Really? JFK did more for civil rights than Obama can ever dream about doing, and he still had an average approval rating of over 45% among republicans. Thats why he's on the 50 cent coin. What has Obama actually done? The economy was ruined, nobody went to jail, debt larger than ever. He got a Nobel piece prize for nothing, his foreign policy actually managed to fuck up the world worse than Bush ever could. Do black people magically live better now then before? No. Do hispanics live better? No. Gay marriage? He was against gay marriage in his first term, still basically the legal system is going around in circles. Oh, he says he is working on it but in the end all he has done is fail. Come on people, what has he done to deserve being on currency? Obamacare?
Serious false premises going on in this. Wherever you are getting your news does not mark to reality. Check out Wikipedia some time.
The economy was ruined -- USA is a GDP/employment growth standout amongst the world.
Nobody went to jail -- record fines from DOJ. Sorry the law doesn't make risky shadow banking a jailable offense.
Debt larger than ever -- 100% GDP isn't that bad, and the T-bill markets suggest we could go much higher.
He got a Nobel piece prize for nothing -- what about the Iran deal? We aren't nearly-at-war with them anymore and we have their Uranium.
His foreign policy actually managed to fuck up the world worse than Bush ever could -- like what? Obama isn't in charge of weak Arab state institutions. USA does not have to govern the Arab world. Obama has wisely limited the USA-MIL to only engaging targets we can actually take on (see the 25,000 sorties against ISIS); instead of tasking them with building up Arab governance like Bush2 did (see Bush2's sorry effort at building a new Iraq).
Do black people magically live better now then before? No. -- I shouldn't have to spell this out but the medicaid expansion in ACA helped a lot of people near the poverty line.
Do hispanics live better? No -- Actually the Obama immigration enforcement slowdown has improved many lives and kept a lot of families together. Don't discount people getting to keep their family members in country.
// And on the JFK thing. This flier was found near the parade at which he was assasinated. Do you recognize any of the rhetoric?
![[image loading]](http://www.claireconner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/300-wanted-for-treason-best1.jpg)
http://www.claireconner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/300-wanted-for-treason-best1.jpg
|
On January 30 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:
One of the most poorly planned pejoratives ever.
Republicans - 2010: People don’t like thing at all. Lets call it Obamacare to make sure its always associated with Obama.
Republicans – 2014: Guys, people don’t seem to hate the ACA that much. The democrats now call it Obamacare all the time.
Republicans – 2016: Guys, we fucked up.
Wig Party – 2074: And that is why you don’t name unpopular laws after your enemies.
Meh, still a net win for Republicans. My mother-in-law as well as various facebook "friends" have all pointed out to me with disgust that Obama is so full of himself that he named the healthcare act after himself. When I point out that Republicans named it that, I get the standard "yeah, right" and the usual unwillingness to even just google the topic. Wouldn't want to upset their belief systems with biased accounts from the MSM and liberal Wikipedia. :o
|
On January 30 2016 07:07 IgnE wrote:
Most of the time tv and internet cable are bundled together.
Yes, for example, right now you can get 50mbps for $59.99 or 75mbps and 140+ channels for $69.99.
Usually it comes down to wanting to watch live sports. $10 (especially without having to rent a box, which is never included in the advertised price) is still cheaper than what it costs to buy HD access to sports without it. Plus you get an extra 25mbps.
|
On January 30 2016 07:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Do hispanics live better? No -- Actually the Obama immigration enforcement slowdown has improved many lives and kept a lot of families together. Don't discount people getting to keep their family members in country.
TBF, apart from his injunctioned effort to halt deportations on a subset of illegal immigrants, hasn't the raw quantity of deportations under Obama been higher than any previous President? This when immigration from Mexico has swung to a net negative thanks to the economic downturn at the start of his Presidency. Of course, listening to a Republican presidential candidate you might think Obama is bussing in narcos on Air Force One himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
