Err... really? Sixty million American Bison disappeared from the Great Plains because they were big? Then why did the passenger pigeon over the same period go from the most numerous bird in the world to extinct? It's true that the largest baleen whale -- the Blue Whale, is listed as "threatened"; but the smallest baleen whale, the pygmy right whale is either extinct or very close to it.

It's not as simple as big == headed for extinction. Sometimes bigness is a factor in extinction, sometimes it's a factor in survival.

Wow. Sunday, and we already have a winner for the week's most non-sensical analogy.

And you're telling me you and your friends never did anything stupid? When you were 15 you were as sober as a 30 year-old?

This is what is called a false dichotomy. You don't treat kids like adults who have misbehaved; you treat kids like kids who have misbehaved. Or do you think that a 12 year-old who starts a fire playing with matches should be treated like a 40 year who starts a fire playing with matches, because in the end they did the same thing?

What I'm saying is take the age of the offender into account in how you punish them. This isn't some kind of radical new liberal idea. It's how this country operated until the end of the 20th C.

Yours apparently has some way to go. Or maybe it's too far gone.

The brain isn't one big ball of mush. It has different parts that perform different functions. You get injured in your Broca's area and you won't be able speak or write. I've seen it in stroke patients; it doesn't matter that the rest of their brains is just good as new, they don't have any expressive language. Likewise if your orbital frontal cortex is damaged or not fully developed yet, you're going to act like an ass. Doesn't matter how smart or well-meaning you are.

Teenaged brains can be misleading, because in some ways they're at their lifetime peak. But at the same time they suck at certain things. A smart fifteen year-old can explain the difference between right and wrong, between a smart and stupid action. But he can't be trusted to act in accordance to that kind of knowledge, because among other things the OFC isn't finished yet. This is why parents get fooled into thinking their wonderful children won't do dumb things. You simply cannot expect a teenager to act intelligently because he has knowledge. The knowledge helps, but it does't determine behavior in a fifteen year-old as it does in a thirty year-old.

That's just a straw man argument. The actual problem with treating him as an adult is that that is contrary to fact. He is not an adult.

In the state of Georgia a fifteen year-old cannot vote; he cannot purchase liquor; cannot obtain a driver's license, cannot hold a full-time job. The rules we have for minors assume they're incapable of making adult choices. It's logically inconsistent to believe minors are not competent to make responsible decisions, but then claim we should treat them as if they can decide responsibly because they've failed to do so. When have you ever used reasoning like that for anything else? I had a housemate once who decided to become her own herbalist. She went to the herb store and bought a lot of herbal shit and promptly made herself sick. By your logic I should go to her for medical treatment because (a) I previously had reason to believe she was not competent to practice medicine and (b) her subsequent actions proved my suspicions correct.

You don't need some namby-pamby PC mumbo jumbo to know that most teenagers have a penchant for doing spectacularly stupid things, but that *most* of them grow out it. That's common sense, and the law should take that into account. And science actually backs up common sense here. Most people's brains go through a development spurt in their "executive functions" (acting according to long term plans, inhibiting impulsive actions, directing attention) when they're around fifteen. That means there's roughly a 50/50 chance someone under sixteen is neurologically incapable of not acting like a jackass.

So both science and common sense tell us that treating children as if they were adults is irrational and serves no useful purpose. That doesn't mean you do nothing when kids commit crimes. That's a false dichotomy. It means you do something different.

Ha. When I saw what I'd written, my first thought was "This sounds like a Monty Python skit."

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.

I'm just waiting for drones that will simultaneously cut my lawn and deter burglars.

According to Gary Larson, that would be robodog Ginger featured in "You call that mowing the lawn? Bad dog! No biscuit!" Well, you might have to put a beanie prop-hat on the dog, but it would be pretty close...

I was eight years old when Neil Armstrong stepped off the LEM onto the Moon. It was an overcast day but the thing I remember vividly was how quiet the city was; aside from a few trucks in the distance and the wind blowing between the buildings there was simply nothing to be heard. The street was utterly deserted, more deserted than it would have been in the middle of the night. I'd gone out to find someone to play with, but gave it up for a bad job. I came in just in time to watch Armstrong step off the LEM. Cronkite couldn't make out what Armstrong said -- later it turned out Armstrong had bungled his line.

The only thing since then that has come close for shared amazement was 9/11.

The thing is there will never be another moment like that, not for manned space exploration. For those of us too young to remember WW2, the Apollo program was the biggest, most exciting thing that had happened in our lifetime. Older people had grown up with the Moon as the very symbol of something that was impossible to obtain. Every human being who'd ever lived and who wasn't blind had looked up in the sky and seen that big fat Moon hanging up there looking so close you could touch it.

Mars isn't like that. For most people it's just a name. More people have seen fake Mars in movies than have seen the real thing. So I'm guessing that few people will interrupt their lives to watch the first step on Mars. Maybe some of us will, but there won't be the same amazement, that sense of witnessing a once-in-a-species event.

Speaking of movies, one of the things that happened after 1970 is that production values on sci-fi movies went way, way up. Most people today have grown up watching representations of humans traveling to the stars; that's the new milestone for the human imagination. So I don't think there will ever be the kind of adulation for real astronauts that we had in the 60s. Actors are more photogenic than real astronauts and they don't spend their time doing tedious and inexplicable things.

But I don't think it's impossible to get people interested in space exploration; only that it's folly to put men up there and expect the public to automatically get excited. Henceforth space exploration is only going to matter to people who've been educated enough to find science interesting. That in itself is a worthwhile goal.

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've been a Democrat since 1979. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders if he weren't an abrasive, self-righteous prig who'd inevitably do more damage to his allies than to his enemies. But despite that I'm almost 100% in agreement with the man. And I haven't seen any rampant Republican agenda here. More like rampant laziness, if there were such a thing.

If the editors spent a whole minute between the moment they opened the story and the moment they hit "post" I'd be flabbergasted.

When hardline socialist parties gain power they tend to become more pragmatic. Such parties usually still consider themselves socialist and think of themselves as working toward eventual socialism.

The Socialist Party in France is a good illustration of this. Go back and look at the history of the Mitterrand presidency. In 1984 he abandoned nationalization of industry so that France would qualify for the European Monetary System. The subsequent collapse of the leftist coalition forced him to "cohabit" with Chirac's conservative RPR. Since then it'd be fair to characterize PS as a center-left party.

Technically a "socialist" is anyone who believes in "social ownership" of the means of production. A "communist" is someone who believes in the common ownership of the means of production. This may sound like a distinction without a difference, but "social ownership" is a broader concept than common ownership. Common ownership is just one form of "social ownership". Worker cooperatives are another form of social ownership.

Logically then, all communists are socialists, and not all socialists are communists. Some communists see non-communist socialism as a desirable intermediate step toward communism, others do not. Some communist and socialist ideologies fit within the umbrella of "social democracy", others do not.

Socialists and especially communists tend to be idea-fetishists, and so often display a peculiar mania for mutual ideological excommunication.

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*