simpletone

> IMO it's still fine to subsidize

Of course it is.

> everyone else (Taiwan, SK, China, MY) is doing it against WTO regulations, so we may as well

You have it backwards. The US was/is/will be doing it so taiwan,sk,china, MY) is doing it. The biggest violators of WTO regulations is the US. And the WTO is pretty much defunct because of the US. The biggest and most egregious mercantilistic country is the US. Not china or any of the country you listed.

The sad thing is, the rest of the world should be subsidizing far more to offset unfair help US corporations get.

Not to mention people have always complained about taxes in california. Every decade or two, it's the same story about sf, la or california imploding, but nothing happens.

As long as california isn't physically moved to the arctic, the colleges leave, tech industry leaves, hollywood leaves, etc, people, especially those who want high incomes, are going to be drawn to california.

California has the weather, landmass, pacific ocean, colleges, industries ( from tech to media to agriculture ), etc... Regardless, in 10 or 20 years, no doubt we'll be talking about the decline of california once again.

> The fundamentals of biology are not difficult to grasp.

The fundamentals of biology are extraordinarily difficult to grasp. Not only that, the fundamentals aren't set in stone and are subject to change. The rise of epigentics being a recent example. The only people who claim the fundamentals are not to difficult to grasp are people who have a superficial and incorrect understanding of it.

> Sorry to bite your head off, but the reason that I'm passionate about this topic is, and I'm not joking, young earth Creationism

So you got triggered because you have a political agenda? It's my experience that people who know nothing argue with or feel threatened by creationists. I say this as an atheist.

> "Well you see how biology is like a computer; somebody built a computer; therefore, God created us in six days, 6000 years ago."

The biology-computation analogy has been used since the founding of computer science. Everyone from Turing to the commenter you attacked has used it. Heck, even biologists view biological systems are biological machines.

You are fundamentally no different than the creationists you argue with. I'm almost certain you know nothing about biology or computer science other than pop culture nonsense.