>>I never advocated limitless power to the government.<<

The U.S. Constitution does not give its government the power to socialize newspapers. Discussion closed.

>>Some things (like health care) are better left to a body that consists entirely out of elected people rather than the free market.<<

There's a reason I had a million dollars of medical work done in the USA. And it's not because your country funds the best healthcare system in the world. It's because the free market does. Your statement that "some things are better left to a body that" blah blah blah blah is ignorant garbage at best. You're an ideological child [/young adult, the physiology is the same], and so long as you choose to attack me rather than my statements, I don't really care to embarrass myself further responding.

>>No, if you claim we're all indoctrinated for merely supporting the idea that state funded media isn't so bad after all....<<

That isn't the reason I gave, nor did I claim you were _all_... if you aren't going to respond to my statements but only strawmen _repeatedly_ even after I call you on it, I'm not going to engage in some distorted bullshit contest where you repeatedly respond to comments I never made. I point out that you're responding to statements I never made and you can, in response, respond to more statements I never made, but I'm going to lose interest in responding. I have. If you had any interest in a real exchange, you'd have responded, rather than twice-over responding to straw-man arguments I never made.

>>Time and time again, people turn to insults when a different approach is suggested. <<

Good point. You, alone, did just that.

>>Then it's not me who blows up the discussion, but then it's you.<<

Again, any 5th rate language or logic teacher will point out to you that, because you did it, you did it. Law of identity. Nobody disputes this law.

>>but that post you made, lade you look like you slided off into the more common style that gives me diarrhoea.<<

Blah blah blah. As is evident in this response, I'm not into the garbage exchange you're starting here. My last post made it clear I'm not interested in the pseudointellectual drivel you're giving me here. I pointed out that you ignored content and resorted to personal attacks, and in response you claimed that I was the one resorting to personal attacks... It's just awkward, weird, embarrassing, and stupid. I'm not a child. I'm not uneducated. And, though you describe me as "American right wing" (I added the caps, cause that was beyond you), I disagree with the American "right wing" on a number of issues.

This is embarrassing child's play, and I'm not interested in it. So long as you want to REPEATEDLY attack straw-man arguments and project upon me your ignorant remarks, I'll go make babies with Lisa and not respond.

I believe there's plenty of room for debate on this topic, just like on socialized healthcare (I've repeated ad nauseam that I'm not against social welfare, and advocated for its reform that it may be continued in the future, giving MORE to those who need it. Without reform, its expansion will bankrupt our country like it has [and will continue to] bankruped European countries, at which point it will FAIL to provide the social welfare which I, repeatedly, have suported).

Blah blah blah blah. I get more and more ignorant children responding to posts with straw-man posts ad nauseam. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a [Amerikan] Republican. You can't show your inability to read [my posts] and expect me to respond like the ignorant Amerikan stereotype you respond to me as if I am. When I call you out on doing something, saying "YOU DO IT" doesn't confuse me into thinking you're right. It just tells me you're a dishonest idiot without the dignity to have a real discussion. It doesn't insult me. This is an internet discussion board. I've seen all the worst retards (we know "Decimus" is still around) call me names. They only make me thankful I live a monumentally better life than they do. I'm not going to bullshit with you as if I'm as ignorant and stupid as you are. I never engaged in the "US vs EU" thread because its very premise seemed to me pretentious and ignorant. But you can't just respond to me with relativist claims that don't even hold face validity (and obviously not even know what that means) and project your shortcomings on me and expect some sort of response that treats you as a legitimate poster. You're spamming disrespectful, insulting, ignorant drivel. Don't shit on my lawn and accuse me of the crime. That's just f****** stupid. I have better things to do than to lay out my case that I didn't shit in my lawn.

It doesn't "automatically" mean anything. And it doesn't have to to be a potential problem. And we know what happens with potential problems in the hands of politicians: they become real problems 100% of the time. You referenced audit bureaus as "working well," but I beg to differ. Waste is rampant across the board in government, often starting with union contracts and extending up the management ladder on every single level.

The point is that it opens the door to exploitation that privately owned media in a free market doesn't have to deal with. So long as people want legitimate news sources in a free market they'll exist. Government propping up competition is only bad for the consumer, even if government never exerts any influence on coverage; which is impossible over time, however directly or indirectly.

This isn't a socialism is evil by default attitude, Commander Christ. Though I do believe that tyranny is evil and you obviously disagree. I simply don't admire the BBC's quality particularly much. Perhaps you've grown used to propaganda and indoctrination in your news media as many on your continent have. I don't desire to move in that direction.

There are no benefits to state funding such media. It's effect is to give an edge to some companies over others, which, in case nobody ever educated you, is bad for the free market and bad for the consumer. It's bad for the consumer. This isn't a theoretical argument about the free market. Of course I don't want my hard-earned money being taxed from me and spent on something that's bad for me and everyone else.

Which is why I said you are clearly wrong. He called me ignorant while posting ignorance I'd already called him on. I was just enjoying a victory lap.

is used to that sort of thing where he comes from

farts in your general direction

is so high you couldn't reach him with a f****** antenna

School you, Einstein? Where is your citation that such a tube transfers kinetic energy faster than C? Without that, you've got...

Relativity has the farthest parts of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light anyway. It's not like that concept shatters the theory. You're telling me to look at websites, but it sounds like all you're working with is what 5th graders put on websites.  "ftl" and relativity are not enmass. Perhaps you need to expand beyond websites where amateurs discuss relativity before you try to "disprove" Einstein's field equations regarding spacetime, gravitation, etc. It's complicated stuff. It's not intuitive. Here you are claiming to have pwned Einstein (oh the irony) but you can't even cite us anything supporting your claim that any substance transfers kinetic energy instantly (an infinite distance, no less).

Why you think your pretend tube disproves general relativity theory is beyond me.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

What does their moving at the same time have to do with C?

I'm not following what you think you've established, because you mentioned a bullet or other projectile, and their energy is never distributed faster than C, whether you tie a string to it or get hit by or anything.

The only thing you've proven is that you can jump to conclusions.  If you had anything of substance you'd be able to explain clearly how it disproves relativity theory. "The energy will reach both ends at the same time if you start it at the middle! OMG!" isn't much of a show stopper for relativity theory. It's more like duh.

Are you saying that such a tube transmits the kinetic energy faster than C? Citation?

We can always prove relativity to Einstein with a nuclear bomb. I suppose the only way to really PROVE it to him would be for him to experience it firsthand. Ready for science?

You shouldn't have allied your house with the losers of a war. Truman decided he could do whatever he wanted with your house after that. You should have taken it up with him. Oh, wait. He didn't care what you thought about the matter. And neither do we.

Even with the damage Obama is doing, America will not sit back and lose ground to ignorant, deceitful barbarians. We'll take back whatever he gives you. And sooner or later, your leaders will fail to keep you ignorant. A free nation has created a standard of living the world has never known before. And truly free nations don't war with each other or commit genocide.

Welcome to the 21st century. We're here waiting for you. You're going to have to stop intimidating your peoples and abusing and mutilating your women. We don't approve of that here.

It requires an educated populace that cares. Which nobody seems to have.

I think those who support authoritarians and tyranny just need hugs. They want their government to love them like their families should have and expect that they can legislate this love if they just depend on the government for everything.

So hug a liberal. They're just unloved. Which is understandable, because they're unbearable. But it leads to a terrible cycle. So hug a liberal!