Rapid Christians aren't killing people in relevant numbers. So... it is a false comparison.

The issue is not that the Islamists are fanatical about their religion. It is that they kill people that offend their faith.

If Christians did that your the tolerant and largely polyglot society we have today would never have come into existence. Look at Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran. That is what our civilization would look like.

It doesn't. So... *yawn*

it was the perfect end to the day... the event couldn't have asked for better if they had planned the whole thing.

Seriously, if we could get a few of these violent loonies to out themselves daily to suicide by cop... Every day.

Obviously I don't want to provoke a terrorist attack... but dead terrorists is in the common good.

An aspect of material support is that I have to know they're terrorists when I help them. If you randomly define some person as being a terrorist and don't tell anyone until our day in court... then you can't cite me for material support. I have to know BEFORE I help them.

As to your cynicism about the government, I sympathize however hyperbole in this issue is not constructive. We must choose our battles and not just kneejerk react to everything.

First, why is informed consent relevant here but not relevant elsewhere in contract law?

I can make a multimillion dollar contract stick on a napkin. But you say you need a doctor for informed consent here? I'm calling bullshit.

If you wanted a notary that would be one thing. But you're not asking for a notary. And what is more, doctors are not trained to be notaries.

As to verifying that no one is tryign to get around the state child support laws... how? How is the doctor verifying that? Is he performing a background check? He is in now way preventing that. If I wanted to get around those laws and brought my lady friend into the doctor exactly how would you doctor figured out what I'm up to? He wouldn't.

As to verifying health, since when do you have to be healthy to have a baby? Fucking crackheads have kids all the time. This is just desperate grasping on your part.

As to binding contracts, very little that can be binding in ANY contract is not binding on a napkin. You might want a notary if there is a lot of money involved but it is merely a hedge against future lawsuits. Assuming the napkin does accurately express the intentions of the signatories, it is quite binding.

I didn't say I didn't understand. I asked why you felt it was a problem. I feel I understand what material support means. The term doesn't seems vague to me at all. I know material support when I see it and I know when I don't.

As to human rights groups working with terrorist groups, the issue is that a fair number of them are fronts. The Palestinians are big fans of using charity and relief groups to mask the logistics for their terrorist networks. So giving charity groups a pass is not acceptable without serious oversight.

As to freedom of speech, bullshit. Material support does not silence you. If you want to say you support the terrorists that is not material support. Saying something is not material support. Speak all you want and it won't qualify.

As to freedom of thought... wait what? Are you claiming the US government is going to mind probe you to find out what you're thinking and make sure you only Goodthink? Hyperbole isn't helping you.

As to freedom of association, here you are correct... associating with terrorists can be construed as material support. However this is a gray area. Going to a bar and sharing some beers with them won't be material support. However buying them dinner might be. So it is a a very fine line there. Best recommendation is to not associate with terrorists. Honestly, I have a hard time grasping why you people think you'd get away with something like that.

During WW2, if you were associating with some Nazis in the US exactly how long do you think that would be allowed to fly? And you can try that in WW2 England, or Australia, etc. Don't be silly.

We're at war with these fucksticks. And they've absolutely no honor so we're not allowing them to hide behind Western conventions like aid relief because they just use the vans to move weapons into the area or do other perversions.

On the one hand you have an indigenous population that basically had their land stolen from them and their country coopted by the US.

Nothing new for the US only it happened a good deal later than usual. But most Americans believe we should be respectful of these people and do our level best to see that we do what we can to make the nastiness of whole situation more bearable. To that end, they were given exclusive control over one of the smaller Islands along with a lot of rights and subsidies etc. Does that make up for what happened? Nope. Nothing short of leaving the islands and making restitution can really make up for it. But that isn't going to happen.

Then you have the issue of how the islands are used now that they are a US state? The natives are blocking a lot of stuff that makes things difficult. They have some sort of religious connection to the volcano and that makes using it for anything difficult. Geothermal power for example could power all the islands. Instead we tank in diesel fuel to run diesel generators. Some sort of compromise needs to be worked out there. Maybe let the natives help design and then operate the power plants and telescopes? I think the power companies and scientists would be happy to make them administrators of these facilities etc so long as they took up the positions in good faith.

It just seems like these things are hitting impasses for no good reason. The natives aren't getting their islands back. But they can take a leadership role in various controversial projects if they are worried about their sacred spaces being desecrated. No one wants to offend them. Help us not do that and offer a more constructive solution besides banning vital technology.

As to the distinction between legal and ethical corruption, I am referring to ethical corruption which stands indifferent to the law. One can be both legal and unethical.

As to strawmen, my unwillingness to take the 180 degrees opposition to your position is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty on my part. My argument is my argument. You can't define my argument. You can define your own and I am able to define mine. You do not get to say "you're not taking the 180 degree opposition to my position so you're breaking some rule"... that's just stupidity.

I am talking about corruption and you are talking about influence. So be it. However, our issues intersect at several key points and on those issues we're talking about the same thing in that context.

You say the Canadian system has fewer legal opportunities to apply influence? That may be but I'd need to do an in-depth analysis of the system. A would not expect a foreigner to understand the US political and legal system in detail and I am a foreigner to Canada. So I can't speak to their corruption or influence peddling. I am cynical on the subject and unless I have evidence to the contrary, I will assume they have lots of issues.

That is my bias and I am entitled to them.

As to the meaning of republic... How can someone have so much education and be so fucking silly? I am literally giggling now.

Explain what is a "public thing"... what does that mean. Process "public thing" into a contextually coherent concept.

You're going to come up with law. And then I'm going to laugh at you because you apparently took a big course in latin and some jackass on the internet... which is me... was able to process the meaning more clearly.

I know I know... you're full of lots of retard rage. I get that. The spittle flowing over your lips is apparent and does not impress me. Please... tell me what public thing mean, little one.

And while you're doing that, lets look at the definition of the word Republic:

"A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body[1][2] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. "

So, the first part of the definition is the same as a democracy where in everything happens by some sort of majority vote, but what is this thing we find at the end? Law? what the fuck!

Go through some other definitions of governmental models and you'll find that they stress something else with "law" often not even being mentioned prominently.

As to your final statement that you'd prefer daughter slaying and dictators... I gathered that from your previous praising of centralized power.

You're a funny little monkey. :D

*gives cupcakes*

Run along and play nice. :)

I'm sorry, I can't hear you with my dick you mouth. It sounded like you wanted to have a point but couldn't stop commenting on the salty goodness.

If you'd like to make a rational comment, first take my dick out of your mouth and try again.

We're not going to get anywhere with your tongue wrapped around my member. :D

Look, shithead... I'd honestly like to have a reasonable discussion about this. But the problem is that the progressives see this as a quasi religious issue. It is their fucking faith. And anyone that doesn't bow down to their pathetic failed god is an infidel.

Well, guess what... that means I don't have to treat you as anything more than a religious fanatic. And that's how you'll be treated unless you back off that bullshit and make a coherent rational argument.

Just saying "tax the rich" is stupid. That's like saying "if we need money we should get more money" and you don't understand that your problem is not a lack of money.

We have literally infinite amounts of money. Money is an artificial construct used to measure value. What you want is STUFF not money. If I put you on a deserted island with big bags full of money, what would you do with it? You'd probably burn the crap to start fires because it has no inherent value. Even gold is totally fucking useless in nearly all contexts.

What you ACTUALLY want is stuff. You want food, housing, medicine, various services, etc. And all those things are not something you can just add more of with the press of a button.

And that means those goods and services have to be rationed. And how do you want to ration them, comrade? Possibly the way the Venezuelans do it or the soviets? Because that's looking really fucking effective isn't it? That's sarcasm. I'm explaining that because you're stupid.

So you're going to have to ration anything that is in anyway scarce. Food, water, electricity, housing, medical care... all them are scarce. Its sad and it would be awesome if there were enough to go around but there isn't.

The genius of capitalism is that it encourages production when people consume. This causes supply to increase which brings down prices which means more people can get more stuff.

It really isn't that complicated but the people that think "doh, lets just tax people more, durrr" are the sorts that think "money" is actually what anyone actually wants.

It isn't. Money's value is that you can use it as a medium of exchange for what you ACTUALLY want. Hookers and cocaine... submarines and skyscrappers. It doesn't really matter.

But you do not improve the lots of the common people by inflating currencies or taxing the wealthy because your real issue is a lack of supply.

I could give everyone on earth 1 billion dollars and they couldn't all have a Lamborghini because there aren't 5 billion Lamborghini on the planet. They literally do not exist at ANY price. You could offer 1 trillion dollars per car and you still wouldn't get one for every person on earth.

Which means giving people money is not the problem.

The first issue asshats like you have to grasp is that this is a production crisis. All the capital and labor markets are completely fucked up mostly because of people like you and it causes imbalances in the production system.

Companies are cutting back production and cutting back hiring and that means stuff is going to cost more because there is less of it and everyone in the middle of the economy is going to have less money to buy stuff which is going make money more expensive. But then the government is going to come in and inflate the currency which causes the value of savings to go down... and it is an endless cluster fuck of stupidity.

But by all means, presume to not be an empty vessel for whatever bullshit your likely marxist teachers dumped into your fucking head. *yawn*

He's just pocketing the campaign money which is what he does every time. He runs every time and all he does is soak up campaign money.

You can see examples of that not working in practice.

The French just tried your little theory and it caused a capital flight of investment out of France while at the same time elite interests were able to exempt themselves for most of it. Which meant the bulk of the costs would land on the middle class pushing them into the lower class thus expanding the lower class thus increasing the money needed to subsidize the lower class thus putting more pressure on what remains of the middle class, etc...

It doesn't work.

You people are like that monkey that keeps pressing the red button that causes him to get an electrical shock. Press the green peannut button, you fucking retards.

There is no easy answer to these problems. This notion of just tax the rich fails to keep in mind that it isn't money people want anyway.

People want food, housing, various goods, various services... and all those things are in limited supply and cost X because they are in Y supply. If you give everyone more money to buy Y it just causes X to increase proportionally because Y is a finite thing. The money we can just make by pressing buttons on a computer. Everyone want 100 trillion dollars? we could do that tomorrow no problem.

That would not change Y however. All you would have done is inflate the currency by changing the ratio between the money supply and Y.

If you want to help poor people, then you need to improve supply of good. That is you need to make more stuff. That means more housing, more factories, more farms, etc. And all of that will increase the supply of Y while reducing the cost per unit of Y which in this example is X.

How then do we increase production? Well, you need to encourage people to make stuff... that means business. And encouraging business to be make stuff means encouraging business in general.

And guess what one of the dumbest things you can do if you want to increase business is? Raise taxes. Because businesses generally do not expand in hostile tax environments.

The core misunderstanding you have is that you think "money" is actually a real thing. It isn't. It is a measure of value. It is like saying I have a 12 inch penis. The inches are the money but they're just numbers you write down on a piece of paper. They're not the throbbing dick.

What you want is that dick. And just redefining "inches" to mean something different doesn't actually get you any more dick when it comes to your turn. Lets say we redefine miles to mean inches such that I now say my dick is 12 miles long. Are you getting any more dick then you were getting before? Nope. Dick is the same length. You've just changed the unit of measurement.

So no, you cannot just raise taxes on the rich, you fucking ignorant peasant.

First off, any objection you can't explain has no business being in a court of law or a legislature.

So either be able to explain it or shut the fuck up because you literally nothing to contribute.

Second off, you did actually explain your problem... you just were so busy trying to claim superiority that you didn't realize you contradicted yourself. You say the term is nebulous. THAT is a relevant complaint. You want a more specific definition for the offense. That is ENTIRELY reasonable.

Can you give me an example of material support being used inappropriately so I can understand your complaint?

I would further agree that the capture should be defined as read rather than read only being cited when the data is examined by a human being. I agree with you.

Don't assume people are your blood enemy and start mouthing off at them, please. And also grasp that being able to explain yourself is a prerequisite to even having a discussion. If you can't explain yourself... then you're making animal noises.

You've cited no material point to the doctor visit. Absent that the requirement is arbitrary.

Your reason boils down to "the state has deemed this to be the right way to do it"... that doesn't answer my question. I asked for a material difference. I have further cited you for tautology several times and I don't think you know what that means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You're basically saying "this is justified because the government deemed it to be justified.

That is textbook tautology.

As to napkins lacking the agency, they are perfectly valid for legal wills, perfectly valid for legal contracts of pretty much any nature, and perfectly valid therefore as legal documents.

I have personally won small court cases in my own favor on such documents. You can write whatever you want on any bit of paper or even a fucking clay tablet. It doesn't matter and you don't need a lawyer. The document just has to show intent. And if the document backs up intent then we can assume intent as of that point.

Now excluding intent, as intent is handled by the napkin, what is your doctor visit accomplishing? I argue - nothing. Contradict me with something that isn't more tautology. I fucking dare you.

... We've had droughts in Cali for generations and all the science says they have happened for time out of mind.

Defend your position immediately or be righteously labeled a twit.

I didn't say anyone should go back to the kitchen nor did the person in the article.

My point was that women's studies programs had become ideological cesspits that need to be audited by someone not of the ideology.

What is more, they should restrict their conclusions to women unless they involve some male input.

Their studies often read like 19th century anthropology papers about "black people".

The work is frequently bigoted and lacking scholarly rigor.