Actually, the term engineer as it applies to electrical, mechanical, etc engineers does not derive from the term used for those who drive trains. If the two terms are related, it is the other way around. My suspicion is that the term railroad engineer for the guy who drives a train derives from the fact that the first men who drove trains were the same men who designed trains. And even long after that stopped being true, they were men who knew how trains were designed (in detail) so that they knew how to fix them when something went wrong.

Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...

Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...

Maybe you should look at places that have already implemented such systems. Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die. They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living. As far as I have been able to find, there have been no prosecutions for such acts, even though they are technically illegal. In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".

Well, yes, everyone who wanted to see, or wanted to be perceived as wanting to see, Iran reduce its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons said that the negotiations had succeeded in getting them to agree to do so. Interestingly enough, the Iranians have said that they have NOT agreed to reduce their nuclear program...so, exactly how is that working out well?

The problem is that people often use the two terms interchangeably. When someone uses the term "capitalism", they usually mean free market economics. If that is not how you are using the term, you need to define what you mean by it (those who use "capitalism" as something other than "free market economics" mean a wide variety of things).

Such as?
At this point in history, free market economics has delivered more goods and better lives, by a wide margin, to a greater number of people than any other economic system tried by mankind. In the last century we have seen why it has worked this way. So, please lay out your alternative economic system in a way which does not contain the flaws so clearly demonstrated in every other attempt to organize economic activity.
Here is the flaw in a nutshell: People are greedy and almost always use any power they have to improve their position at the expense of others. Any system which relies on one group of people controlling everyone else's desire to take advantage of others is open to that group using their power to take advantage of others.

Because the Constitution explicitly states "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right ." In other words, it is unconstitutional. Various studies of the legal interpretation of the time tell us that "limited times" means 99 years or less (which is why, for example, the British lease of Hong Kong only lasted for 99 years).

Well, yes, that is a possibility. Of course, various studies have shown that in trade between countries with highly restrictive import rules and high tariffs and countries with limited import rules and tariffs, it is the latter which fair better economically. Trade restrictions appear to have greater negative impact on the country imposing them than on the country they are applied to (exceptions being in those cases where the country imposing the restrictions has a much larger economy than the one they are being imposed on).

When has a lack of legal basis stopped Obama from doing what he pleases in the past?

Then they will move some place else. Of course, you could always make it so that a company pays a tax in every country they do business in on all of the money they make any where in the world, with a tax credit for any tax paid in any other country (meaning that only the country with the highest tax rates actually gets any money). Of course the result of this will be for companies to separate into lots of smaller companies all owned by the same holding company. The holding company would be based in a low tax country and would charge each of the subsidiaries a fee for "managing" their relationships. That fee would be equal to, or exceed, whatever taxable income each subsidiary would otherwise earn.

Or to put it another way, yet more capital would be tied up in finding ways to avoid taxes rather than being spent on productivity.

Without knowing the wording of the question, there is no way to evaluate these results. I have seen too many polls reported in ways which distort what the actual results say to buy this one.

I do not misunderstand my place. I think you misunderstand how it works when the mob picks up their pitchforks. If you live comfortably, You seem to think that when the revolution happens that you will be left alone.
There seem to be two mistakes that you are falling into. First, you overestimate how much money it takes to be in the 1%. Second, you think the mob will limit itself to attacking the 1%. When the mob gets started, they will go after the 10% and probably the "30%". I am quite confident that we both fall into that last category.

Further down you leave the impression that you believe that when the revolution happens and the mobs start going after the wealthy they are going to stop with the super-rich. That's not how it works. When the mob starts going after the rich, they are going to start with the merely richer than themselves and the obvious targets among the super-rich. The merely well-to-do are much easier targets than the super-rich.

Guess what? When the mobs start going after the wealthy to redistribute their wealth, you and I will be among their first targets.

Except of course, that he did not speak at an event where David Duke spoke.