Since these things all tend to be an orgy of piling on the awful cable companies, I thought I'd share my very good experience. I was stuck on TWC's pretty mediocre 20 mb internet for $80/mo, with no realistic alternatives, unless you count centurylink crappy 10mb dsl (ha!). After the merger, I was offered the spectrum plan for $20 *less*, and I am regularly getting 70 mb downstream. The difference is night and day. This is for internet only, no phone or TV, so I can't speak to that part, However, the wording of the summary implies a lot that may not be happening. "Many people paying higher prices." Were they forced to pay higher prices? Maybe the new packages offered more so they were willing to pay more. I didn't have to switch plans, it just would have been stupid not to. Also how many is "many people"? Another (just as correct) way to say "many" is to say "some". Presumably there might also be "many people", like me, who are paying less. New formula = some win, some lose. Am I saying that there isn't gouging, or that the service might be even better? No, I think if we actually had any real competition, I'd probably be getting a lot more for a lot less. But as it stands, compared to what I had before, I have nothing to complain about.

1) Count how many posts are made each day.
2) "Arrange" for 2.5 as many illegal posts to be made.
3) Remove all the posts from step 2.
4) P- You know.

What? There are no "superdelegates" in the Electoral College. Hillary pursued superdelegates to win the primary. Two separate things.

Nevermind, it didn't say what I thought it said

Even if electricity demand were growing very quickly, capacity additions don't have to exceed retirements by much in order to keep the grid functioning.

It is the new HTML5 psychic link automator that reads the mind of the original author. Your browser probably hasn't implemented it yet.

But they knew I wouldn't trust them - they expected that - so clearly I cannot drink from the cup in front of me.

That's exactly what General Gage said!

(Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.)

Quit interrupting.

He's 62. ewww....

This is exactly the line of reasoning that explains why every government program inevitably gets bigger and bigger.

Following that line of reasoning leads to jail time for claiming that water leads to dehydration.

Tell me about it.

Too bad what you just said is a load of BS. You should go to church sometime, and get a view from the ground. As someone who has been to a number of churches as I travelled, one common theme I can tell you about is help for the needy.Christians GIVE. They give their money, they give their time. Even the ones who don't have very much will put in a little. When someone in the community is in need, the good people of the parish will be there for them. Even when they don't like you or care for the life choices that put you in your situation, if you truly need help, you can get it at the church.

What they don't like to do is be enablers - perpetuating situations that lead to more poverty and desperation. If you've ever tried to help an addict, you know that you can pour everything you have into that person - all your time, money, and capacity for compassion - and until he has hit his personal crisis point, all you are doing is feeding the beast. Often in such cases, the hardest and most heartbreaking thing of all is to admit that there is nothing you can do.

But... Those who don't want to get their hands dirty, and don't care about the ultimate consequences, love to expand government programs that make it easy for the desperate and dependant to stay that way, completely divorced from any behavioural expectations, passing on their dependant lifestyle to new generations.This is not what a rational person would call a positive outcome. But, this way you get to say that you "helped" the needy, and the best parts are that you did it without having to meet them face to face, and you forced everyone else to pitch in, whether they agree with the ultimate outcome or not. Oh, and you get to demagogue against the "selfish" Christians by pointing out the programs that they do not want to be forced to fund, while obtusely ignoring the good-faith policy arguments they make in support of that position.

Jesus' commandments place personal obligation on people. He did not command governments to confiscate money from one group of people and give it to another. He commanded us to love and serve the poor and needy. And Christians do . We have skin in the game. Come and join us.