?

(A) Someone who does all they can to get their country to behave well to its citizens and earn respect internationally

(B) Someone who supports their country wholeheartedly however vilely it behaves internally and abroad

Think he might be saying "Look guys, I was trying to describe the beginning of things to a bunch of ignorant, sem-literate nomadic tribesmen. I gave 'em a story they could understand.

"Do you seriously think I'd try to tell them about the Big Bang I did, and quarks, and black holes, and string theory? Really?

Look there is stuff in there for you people who know a bit more than nomadic tribesmen for multiple thousand years ago, but you've got to stop pretending you're as stupid and ignorant as they were before you will get it."

I do.

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/02/stephen-fry-exp...

Recently on here I've seen right-wing European politicians, the Pope and others described as "communist". Even President Obama, which would have anyone who owns a dictionary rolling on the floor with laughter.

Does *anybody* know how a communist is defined?

This idiot, speaking on Fox News said "There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims simply don't go." He also claimed there were parts of London where "Muslim police" beat people for not dressing in Muslim attire.

Of course he has had to apologise on his website since, and has completely withdrawn this crud under a barrage of raucous laughter. But has Fox apologised for offering this nonsense as fact?

If torture and persecution are what we're doing instead of what we're opposing, what is there left to believe in?

For those who aren't why is that part of the second amendment fine to ignore while the other part isn't?

We nearly all use online handles that conceal our street identity, so as far as I can see the only reason people would go by "Anonymous" is that they are not prepared to be judged by their answers on here as a whole.

For instance my answers show that I am an economic Thatcherite, but way to the left of the US mainstream in social politics. I support the UK attitude to armed citizens, I think the war on drugs has failed abjectly and was a stupid idea in the first place - did nobody learn anything from Prohibition? And so on. Read my answers and you know what I think.

All "Anonymous" does is prevent that. Why would this be a good thing? Anybody enlighten me?

I'm pretty damn' sure I know where I stand with Edward Jordan on this matter.

Circumstances change, and what was practical in the 20th Century is no longer a realistic proposition for anybody - unless the world economy collapses and stays collapsed, which looks many many decades off at present if it will ever happen at all.

To ask, for instance, whether there might be a world war over the Crimea, or Syria, is to ignore just about every factor relevant to those situations. Nobody cares enough about either one to destroy their own economies over such matters.

Nor, indeed, about anything else.

Several times recently I have noticed that people have posted important questions - in the sense that they expose an idea or belief that really needs to be challenged and corrected - and these questions have been removed. Often this has happened with a number of very pertinent answers, challenging the idea behind the question, already posted. A recent example was a question about "Mandela Necklaces" that really should be addressed, but was cut.

I object to this very strongly - how can we hope to educate, if people cannot express the ideas that need to be challenged? So how,on Y!A do I go about objecting to the removal of a question?

I live in UK. The daughter of some friends of mine has just married a very pleasant young man. Both of them are 17. They are living with my friends until they are 18, when they will get a place of their own (in UK 18 is the age at which you can sign contracts, etc, but the age of consent for sex is 16).

They were all planning to go as a family to California for a holiday later this year, but I have just seen that the age of consent in California is up at 18. Seems rather high, but California's business not mine.

Question is, if these folks all go to California, and the two young lovebirds have sex (chances of not are tiny, to say the least, it currently takes a hydraulic press to get them apart for meals!) do they get arrested, despite the fact that they are married? If so, there might be a distinct dip in California tourism when that gets publicised, but either way they need to know before confirming the bookings, because of course if so they will go somewhere less strange.

Yes the ruling party call themselves communist, but that's just historical. It is very clearly and obviously a bullish, no-holds-barred capitalist economy, almost entirely market-driven. Just go to Shanghai or Hong Kong - you can't miss it.

To be communist...

* The government (the "people") should own the means of production. True in China? No.

* The government should manage all labour and its rewards ("from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"). True in China? No.

* Market forces should have no impact on management of the economy. True in China? No.

* There should be a concerted move towards collectivism in all fields. In China? Moving away towards a classic capitalist model.

Certainly there are some socialist concepts in their government model, but that is true of many of the private-enterprise, market-driven economies of Europe as well. I know thre are a few strange people who would call them communist too, but they are people who don't own dictionaries - and have zero understanding of economics.

So... why do people keep calling China communist? Don't get it.

And if they did want to, why do you think your armed forces and civil police would support that as opposed to, for instance, arresting them?

This has confused me for the longest time. No significant number of citizens of other Western countries believe this. And of course over hundreds of years we have been right. Is it that you think American politicians are uniquely evil, or what? They don't seem to be from the outside.

I'm only a Brit, so I don't understand how it works in the States. Can you get a replay or something? Because where I come from we have the election, shout at each other about the result for a week or so, then get on with it.

What are all the folk whining about Obama (which they either can't spell or have this childish thing going, not sure which) actually expecting to achieve? Or should they just get a life? Will somebody please explain?

Anybody know? It was legal for centuries, then suddenly not. Makes no sense to me, but surely somebody out there may know the relevant history.

Citizens of other countries don't worry about this. The UK and French governments, for instance, haven't fought their citizens in many hundreds of years. In fact they seem rather to think it's their business to protect them. (and when they did fight, centuries ago, the citizens won in both cases). Why do you believe your government is so different and untrustworthy?