Ask500

I haven't watched commercials since the invention of the VCR, except for live events like sports, which the DVR fixed. So, answer D applies; I have no idea what is being advertised these days, except on Hulu.

Another tautology, with which I have already agreed. But again, not of parallel construction to the original question.

Agreed that it is common, although there are many motives for murder. But when the question is about what qualifies someone to be something, a parallel construction involving something else must also be about qualifications; whether the two topics have tangential similarities is rather irrelevant.

We could just as easily compare the question to "People who like people because they are friendly are friendly." Who would argue the transformation is valid because some racists occasionally act friendly toward some people? If the transformation is valid, it is for other reasons.

The question "The Left objects to tax $ being used to kill people. The Right objects to tax $ being used to save people" probably measures Ask500's bias: http://is.gd/2oWm8

Currently about 64% left, 21% right, 14% center, 1% rounding error.

Edited to add: Seems to be the sample was too small. Results now are closer to the site's ideological bias: 56% Obama, 26% McCain, 18% switchers.

Obama is being criticized by different groups *both* for "changing the system" *and* for "not changing it enough" toward more government spending and control. So, I disagreed with the "not/but" wording.

I'm not denying that racists can murder. I'm just saying murder is not a minimal qualification for being a racist, but dislike can be.

It is a matter of threshold requirement, not degree. Merely disliking someone *can* be enough to make one a racist, while merely disliking someone is *never* enough to make one a murderer. So, changing "racist" to "murderer" while leaving "dislike" constant fails to result in a parallel construction.

It's just that "successful" can mean different things (wealth, contentment, achievement, personal vs. social, etc.) So, we cannot answer the question without bringing our own perceptions of what "successful" means, and that makes for good discussion.

The demographics of this question are interesting, even by gender, age, income, education, and team, not just by country. Worth clicking the tabs this time, if that's not usually your thing.

Many early tech CEOs were going to college when they launched companies that provided employment for people with college degrees; if they had waited around to finish college before cashing in, some other company would have grown "too big to fail" selling BASIC interpreters, repackaging QDOS for IBM, bundling productivity software into suites, reverse-engineering the Mac for use on clones, etc.

In some rare cases, it can be preferable to skip college on your way to (economic) success, but not usually as a general rule.