That wasn't sarcasm.

Oh, sorry, I misread you. What would Americans have to rationalize? The US still is the richest and most powerful country on earth. We aren't getting any aid or handouts from Europe.

And I'm quite sure that while Europeans consider some less developed countries to be failing, they do consider others to be thriving. Otherwise their wouldn't be attempting to get onto the markets in those countries, nicht wahr?

Europeans have been "getting into the markets" of countries they consider inferior for centuries, usually to exploit, oppress, and teach them the superior European ways. N'est ce pas?

Now I'm waiting for American intellectuals to invent all sort of rationalizations for why their supposedly superior culture keeps failing while some developing countries are thriving. ;-)

What a lame attempt at sarcasm. Yeah, Europeans have all sorts of erroneous beliefs and prejudices about "developing countries" as well, starting with the erroneous idea that they are "failing".

There are always aspects of the US that Europeans have found attractive. But those have always coexisted with a firm belief that Europe is culturally superior. Receiving aid from the US only has bred more contempt, and European intellectuals invented all sort of rationalizations for why their supposedly superior culture kept failing while the US was thriving.

A secondary effect is that the people who figure it out just pack up and leave Europe if they can, further increasing the majority of those hostile to the US.

The fact remains that from a US point of view "change your behavior or we won't like you anymore" isn't much of a threat coming from Europeans, given centuries of European abuse heaped on the US.

I don't like Linus, but apparently enough people can put up with him to keep the kernel going. As long as he delivers, I really don't care what he says or does.

Given your blanket generalization I'll retort "No, they don't". Numerous countries have been force into following the American model to compete (Europe), but that is not the same thing as "agreeing" as you so bluntly claimed.

I know it's hard to remember given how impotent Europe is these days, but in fact the US was forced into following the European model by European powers, both on copyrights and on patents. It took a while until the US managed to beat Europeans at their own game.

Perhaps you should consider why numerous countries are very hostile toward US companies, especially in the Medical and Agricultural sectors.

We have considered it and we don't care anymore: Europeans just look down their noses at Americans, always have and always will.

Then it's about time we substitute away the hydrocephalus on top of our corporations.

That's a lot of verbiage for simply saying that you want a planned economy. No, it's not time for that because it doesn't work.

No, you're simply historically illiterate. (Progressives obviously have abandoned eugenics itself, but merely replaced it with other racially discriminatory policies.)

At its peak of popularity, eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[114] Margaret Sanger,[115][116] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, [117] Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Robert Andrews Millikan,[118] Linus Pauling[119] and Sidney Webb.[120][121][122]

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

In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service.[16] White and black people would sometimes be required to eat separately, go to separate schools, use separate public toilets, park benches, train, buses, and water fountains, etc.

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

Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[84][85]

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

Keynes was a proponent of eugenics. He served as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. As late as 1946, shortly before his death, Keynes declared eugenics to be "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."[154]

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

I could go on. But why don't you read about it from a black Stanford economist, Thomas Sowell, in his book "Intellectuals and Race".

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

So why exactly do the known sunken reactors then leak plutonium and caesium and other stuff if it is 'chemical' impossible as you claim?

I didn't say it was "impossible". You said sunken reactors caused "ecological disaster" because seawater "dissolves the nice elements in a nuclear reactor". In fact, water dissolves only small quantities and does so very gradually, hence no "ecological disaster". The factors responsible for serious radiation dangers for land-based reactors, meltdowns, dust dispersal, liquid nuclear waste, and enrichment in ground water, don't happen when reactors sink in the ocean.

http://www.nationalgeographic....

Wow, up for a noble price in chemistry?

No, just basic high school chemistry. Science, you should try it some time.

Nevertheless it also dissolves the nice elements in a nuclear reactor and putting it into the food chain.

Not gonna happen. While soluble uranium or plutonium compounds are dangerous, nuclear fuel is usually either plutonium oxide or uranium oxide. Not only are they highly insoluble in water, they also prevent their decay products from dissolving in water.

The primary effect of keeping big box retailers out of an area as far as I can tell is that people drive to the big box retailer and eventually just move away entirely. As a consequence, the area either goes downhill, or it gentrifies and become a playground for the spoiled upper middle class.

The solution to insecure devices connected via cloud services is supposed to be another insecure device connected via another cloud service?

If you want secure hosting, run your own server. You can do that on your desktop, a phone (current or old), or something like the Raspberry Pi.

Next they'll complain that there isn't enough competition in the market. Whatever Comcast may be, if you haphazardly keep companies you don't like from competing, you'll also drive away companies you might like, because no business likes that kind of uncertainty.

So the corporation is never taxed, just the owners? That's silly.

Everything the corporation owns is owned by its shareholders; if you tax it $1, each shareholder pays for that proportional to their share of the company. That's why they are called shares.

False. People still invest. They just whine more when doing so.

That makes no sense. Why would I give you $1000 to invest in your company only so that I get back $900 a few years later? Few people are that stupid.

And in the scholarly pursuit of Political Science, "Liberals" are those who wish to move rapidly through new policies, and who spend money

No, that's wrong. In the scholarly pursuit of political science, people recognize that the terms "liberal" and "radical liberal" are highly ambiguous and are more precise. Because you used an ambiguous term to describe a political position, I clarified: the position you describe is what is more commonly referred to as a "classical liberal" or "libertarian".

I don't care that you want to define

I don't want to "define" anything. I'm simply encouraging you to use correct and unambiguous terms when describing political positions; the term "radical liberal" is useless in political discussions because it is too ambiguous.

Oh? So please enlighten us, which un-capitalistic mechanism sets the price of labour?

Markets set the price of labor. You simply don't understand how markets work. Decreasing the supply of something doesn't necessarily increase its price, it may simply cause people to substitute.