I could even live with Viacom's stupid regional licensing restrictions if they would redirect me to the 'proper' website in this country where I can watch it, but they're too lazy to even bother to do that.
Re: Logically then, if people were paid to consume, no one would.
This asserts complete nonsense. The main flaw is the weasely "much more likely to pay"; even Mike can't bring himself to say that people would pay rather than get the same thing for free.
That's exactly what happens. People ARE willing to pay for something they can get for free. What's more, people are willing to pay a second time for something they're already paying for. Don't believe me? Take a look at the bottled water industry. People pay taxes to supply perfectly drinkable water to their houses. They then pay again to buy more tap water in plastic bottles.
The "Mike has never once come out against pirates" bullshit is officially over. Granted, it was over long before this, but I'm stamping this one as being a completely invalid argument, for ever and ever, A-fucking-men.
Not that that's going to even slow down the troll's use of it.
Electing Romney instead of Obama won`t change much. The money behind the two political parties has selected a pair of candidates. You get to select which candidate runs the country for the next four years. No matter which one you pick, you`re still picking one of the candidates selected by the people with the money to buy a political party.