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.

Identifying him as the owner was surely something he could, potentially, have made a privacy claim about.

If I were to hack slashdot's servers to find the IP of some AC poster and find out his real name and identify him as the poster of something he may get fired for - he'd have a legitimate claim that I violated his privacy.
On the other hand, if he turns out to be an elected representative and his AC post was a screed on the need to nail all black people to burning crosses the public interest would outweigh his privacy claim.
Generally voters would be correct in thinking they have a right to KNOW if their elected representative is a closet KKK member. Why should other objectionable publications by politicians receive any less scrutiny ?

I agree, it ought to be illegal, but while it isn't everywhere yet, it makes sense to support private citizens who try to act with what we both agree is the most respect for the rights of other people even if those rights are not protected by laws.

But from that thought it logically follows that it's probably good if private website owners choose not to provide a platform to facilitate things they obviously do not agree with.

Nobody thinks it's censorship that most churches will not let you put a link to buy the satanic bible from Amazon on their websites.
There is nothing illegal about the satanic bible, there are plenty of ways to acquire a copy - including buying it from Amazon. No Christian church is obligated to facilitate the spreading of a message they find objectionable.

>I'm sure it's legal to post your credit card details and bank information. I would very much like you to post that using your freedom of speech.

Actually, you can improve this analogy. For him to be logically consistent with the stupid argument he is making - he would have to agree that if *I* steal his wallet and post his credit card details on reddit and then return the wallet - he would be quite happy to let reddit leave the details there ?

Ironically - that is a much lesser violation of his rights than what he is actually defending. Money is not worth nearly as much as a person's right to ownership of their own bodies.

Tell that to the tabloid who took snaps of Brad Pitt boning that chick from Friends that nobody remembers and published them.
Pitt and Aniston sued, and won. The judge ruled (correctly) that freedom of speech and freedom of the press does NOT give you the right to violate somebody else's right to privacy.

This can, on rare occasions, be superceded by public interest. Anthony Weiners dick pics had public interest since HE was a public servant. That clause can never apply to a private citizen however.
There is no way anybody will convince a sober judge that Brad's junk is so important for the public interest that his right to privacy should be superceded.

Actually your cawk would still be allowed on reddit (which is probably MORE likely to kill the site than this decision is) - after all, if you upload it yourself (and I find it impossible to contemplate a world where anybody ELSE would want to look at YOUR cawk long enough to take a picture) that is clearly consent for publication.

Free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Your freedom has ALWAYS ended where mine began. Your free speech rights ENDS where it would violate my right to privacy.

Protecting the right to privacy is not censorship. Your freedom ENDS where mine begins. Your right to free speech ENDS where my right to privacy begins.