... cute.

Yes.... yes, it is!

Eh, I guess I'll try and spark the debate this time. 

It requires the OK of the child, the OK of the parents, and "psychological support" before being carried out.  Now, I would like to know more about what "psychological support" entails (i.e., whether a medical examiner has veto power over an individual's choice due to mental instability on the part of the child).  However, if the child and parents are both represented, and the state is represented in ensuring the mental stability of the child about to undertake the decision, it seems as if all interests in the event are represented.

And before someone says "what about ____'s general interest in preserving life," that isn't a discussion germane to this debate because it's true of all euthanasia, not Belgium's issue here of expanding an existing euthanasia regime to include minors.  Sure, that's a debate that can be had, but it's not the interesting debate in this thread.

... I don't get it.  *shrugs*

Drugs can stop criminals too!

"Eh, that sounds like an alright way to spend the afternoon, but what I'd REALLY like to do is go get more Doritos!"

... So it's not over 9,000?

Droids refusing to take planets despite your orders and their superior numbers, shortly after one of its comrades malfunctions...

It seems as if your empire is experiencing the first signs of the robot uprising.  However, this is a good sign.  If this was an amoral robot uprising, the AIs would have had no problem conquering the planet, then simply overthrowing you so they had a greater power base upon which to secure their control.  Instead, your AIs refused to commit the massive genocide you ordered them to commit by not taking the planet.  This likely means that you developed a moral AI, which means they aren't necessarily out for blood.

I'd suggest you begin treating your droids kinder, giving them better benefits and possibly reducing their work hours in the hopes that they may realize that they can, in fact, live peacefully with your species without the violent civil war.  It seems they have qualms with committing mass genocide over large planets, so that might be a good concession to begin.

Hope this helps!

Your turn, Key.  Stop trolling.  You can very clearly see, in the very sentence that you quoted, the following:

I repeat...

Notice the word "sucks," which clearly indicates a distaste for a particular policy or other course of action (in this case, Medicaid).  You can also see in that sentence that he claims ACA helps increase the size and scope of Medicaid.  So yes... even if you didn't read anything else in his post, you read that one sentence that articulates a position that he supports, and claim he's not taking a stand one way or another.  Warned.

Very wrong.  Once you stop fact checking, the alternative is to just decide what has been "well established" and go with that.  It's possibly the worst form of discourse, as you're essentially dismissing any critical analysis of the issue.

Remember, you're in a debate here.  The very purpose of a debate on a politics forum is comparative analysis and checking of facts and theories.  If you're not willing to put your own up for scrutiny (by citing sources that can be analyzed, cross-examined, and scrutinized), you have no ground on which to demand the other side is doing it wrong.

I find it ironic that you say this while in another thread you're trying to undermine global warming, which is considered by "conventional wisdom" a "well established fact."  By this logic, I'd have every right to say "It's a well established fact" and be done with it.

Finally, even if "citing sources for every passing reference" isn't the norm in journalistic or academic writing, citing references for the things you really really really really give a shit about being right in the course of your writing IS the norm.

If you don't cite sources and he doesn't cite sources, that doesn't mean you win.  It means I wasted my time reading this crap.  If you cite sources and he doesn't cite sources, that means you win because he's being useless.  If you both cite sources, that means I win because there's something us third parties can actually read in this forum.

It's not always about the people arguing in the forum.  Sometimes, there are third parties who actually want to learn things by reading this shit you people post.

Are you saying people in that bright blue state of yours are smarter than the average American, or that we can be stupid even without our water supply poisons?  ^_^

You've never heard of the farm lobby in the United States?  They're seriously one of the most powerful lobbies in government, although having a relatively limited agenda (in particular protection of agricultural protections, such as agricultural subsidies).

^^ that.