Does that even exist ?
Lifelong liberal and I have never been there nor heard of it.

So assuming it does, it doesn't actually matter if a site filled with complete bullshit (but with a leftwing slant) actually dissapears since nobody was using it anyway.

>The 6) if false, even if a common predecessor, that of human was not an ape.

The common ancestor of all homo species was an ape. So was the earlier common ancestor of humans AND chimps.
It was the chimplike ancestor of man, and at the same time the man-like ancestor of chimps.

It was a primate without a tail - it was an ape.
Even further back we shared a common ancestor with gorrillas, further than that with orangs and much further than that with monkeys.

I did actually. Websites DEBUNKING pseudo-scientific nonsence shouldn't be getting downgraded !

When you can't find a page about antivaxxing or climate denial, you'll know it worked.

You do that already. Unless you spend your days in a Faraday cage in the dark.
You do KNOW that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum right ?

Not to mention the fact that the earth itself generates a massive magnetic field ? You are aware that this magnetic field is actually electromagnetic right ?

You may as well ask if it's "really a good idea to spend 8 hours a day at the bottom of a large gravity well".

On the other hand, a hacker who actually gave her child a SQL injection as legal name... now that's some funny shit right there !

Just as long as my kids don't have to go to Zefram Cochrane highschool.

Well if you're going to try argue that then actually so far we're pretty much following exactly the path that Roddenberry predicted. He believed that we would have several terrible wars first, including more than one world war before reaching that point.
That, in fact, before we could be our best - we would have to learn the hard way what happens at our worst.

So things being bad now, and getting worse - is, in fact, exactly what he predicted. If you watch the trial scene in the pilot for TNG it gets spelled out in explicit detail by Q as part of the accusation that humanity is not civilized enough to be allowed to explore the galaxy further.

Just saying "x is dangerous" doesn't make it so. You need to provide proof.

But what did I expect from somebody called "RightwingNutjob" ... rational response ?

Either way it DOES matter because the topic of discussion is not and never WAS whether that number is too high or not, the topic is whether Romney told the truth - and since he utterly misrepresented what that number even MEANS he clearly did not.

And he was lying.
There are 47% of the population who pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
They still pay all the OTHER taxes people pay.

He also ignored that the vast majority of that 47% are NOT welfare recipients or unemployed people.
They are the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the retired pensioners who worked hard their entire lives so they could stop working in their old age.

That statement was deceptive at best, blatant lying if you're being fair.

The maker isn't a major issue indeed, contrary to what the fearmongers say. I also run CM and never have I had a problem.
There is some backwards compatibility problems, many apps won't run on earlier android versions which is a problem for devices that aren't supported anymore and don't have good current custom ROMS either (though this is rare, most devices even if they no longer have manufacturer support has somebody, somewhere still making ROMS for them - this is how I can run KitKat on my first generation Asus Transformer tablet).

You almost can, Samsung's spin is not like what's on the Nexus and neither is like Cyanogenmod which isn't like most of the other many custom ROMS out there.
I agree it would be better if swapping out ROMS were a LOT easier, rooting wasn't needed (because they came with it enabled) and more of the big Linux Distros were building ROMS that could run on Android devices, possibly some of them could even bypass the android interface and libraries and not run dalvik code but COULD run recompiled linux apps.

That would be a pretty cool step forward. I had high hopes that Ubuntuphone would be the first step towards that but sadly it seems to have whithered while losing it's most killer-app feature along the way (the dock your phone and have a desktop one).

Now please eradicate the false dichotomy from your thinking that makes you think "anti-corporation" must equal "pro-government".
Then try answering me again and you may actually say something sensible.

Well Facebook's entire business model is to BE intrusive.
If they can save a few lives with it it actually makes them, on balance, very slightly LESS evil.

>On the other hand, for a corporation — operating in a reasonably free country — the best way to riches is through providing services and/or making goods, that people are willing to pay for.

This statement is guilty of the begging the question fallacy, in fact it's begging SEVERAL questions.
You are making numerous implicit assumptions which don't hold up to scrutiny.

1) You assume that "reasonably free country" is a representative example of the places where corporations operate, but most corporations today are global multinationals operating in all countries, and they love to make use of that by doing in the non-free countries all the evil things that they can't (as easily) do in the free countries.

2) You claim this is the best way for a corporation to get rich, but you offer no evidence to support that claim. That's not rational thought, that's a religious belief without any basis in fact. A mere moment's critical thinking and you'll be able to come up with thousands of ways a corporation can, at any moment, make more money than it could by doing that- and history is filled with examples, EVERY SINGLE DAY. A big news one recently was when Oracle decided the best way to riches was to take the MONEY for providing a service to the taxpayers of Portland without actually providing the service, and giving just a token piece of junk instead. Now when you or I do that, we get charged with fraud and go to jail, Oracle knew they would only face a lawsuit which would take many years to go to trail where it will be heard by a judge who probably won't understand the arguments and even if they lose they'll get a slap on the wrist because folks like you have destroyed the tort system. So the basic claim is clearly not true at all times for all transactions, in fact, for most corporations it's probably only true in a tiny minority of cases. You can try defend them on the basis of fearing government and since the other party here was the government but that's not logical. Logically you should say "if they are prepared to scam EVEN the government I fear so much with impunity, what stops them from scamming any and every other customer in the world ?"

3) You assume that, even when 1 and 2 are both true (which is now a very small number of cases) the people in charge of the corporations will always and without exception be sufficiently competent to KNOW this. That they will never end up doing something that makes less money but is more evil simply because made a bad decision. But corporations make bad decisions all the time, sometimes it's incompetence, sometimes it's a lack of perfect information or both - but you can't assume that even when both conditions hold and this really IS the best option the corporations will never end up doing something else because they didn't make the best CHOICE.
Enron made some really bad choices - and the directors ended up deciding the best way to riches was to pay themselves massive bonusses out of the company's debt pool less than a day before they announced the company was bankrupt and over a thousand people were suddenly and surprisingly devoid of an income.

4) But even in the vanishingly small number of cases where all three the above conditions hold you are assuming that the corporation will ONLY do the "best" thing to riches, and not the 2 best things, or the 3 best things or the 20 best things - of which ONLY the first option was one that isn't harming somebody else. PG&E was providing electricity to customers - a services they paid for while at the SAME time improving their bottom line by not paying to clean up toxic waste properly and dumping it in people's drinking water instead.

5) You assume that the way a product or service is provided to one customer cannot harm another.
Facebook is the perfect example here - their product is private information for targetted advertising, the users aren't the customers, they are the product that facebook is selling and facebook has had a trackrecord of numerous incredibly evil things done with that data. There is a reason they demand real names - it makes the product more valuable, the people it HARMS aren't that important - as long as they can be assuaded with empty press releases.
Facebook is in the BUSINESS of selling private information to the highest bidder, do you think for one second they will turn DOWN A purchase offer when the highest bidder is the NSA ?

And that is just the first line of reasoning, it doesn't even consider the possibilities that arise when companies start interfering in the political system. Like bribing the government to give you a protected monopoly, bail you out when you fuck up (after stealing millions of people's homes from them) etc. etc.
It's easy to point the finger solely at government for those but it's also false, if the government didn't exist the companies would do the SAME things, they would just be cutting out the middle-man, to prevent such things you have to restrict the ability of companies to interfere with politics, preferably to zero.
Campaign finance reform would do far more to reduce corruption in both government AND private sector than all the small-government policies in the world ever could.

The problem with your religion is that literally every single day it is NOT what actually HAPPENS. The reason it doesn't happen is because your belief is based on assertions you think are self evident but they are, in fact, quite easily proven to be entirely false.