Eh. I need to stop with the rum.

> sKoE )= wrote:
Worst. Movie. Ever.

It actually made Starship troopers 2 look partially watchable.>

I had a different view.

Starship Troops 1 - Epic
Starship Troopers 2 - Absolute Suckage, with exception to the nudity and the propaganda at the end
Starship Troopers 3- Meh

Flint,

But it was not talking about the advantages of religion for population control, but rather about some scheme of secularizing America.

Btw, I need to a ride in Seattle some time. I met a girl online who lives 35 minutes away from Seattle, and I'll pay for a ride from the Air port hah.

I lost interest as soon as I saw the content about churches.

I'll write you an A paper for $500.

(I will spend that $500 on escorts)

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Then why aren't you leader of your country Justinian?

He can't be too stupid, hes already done what you never will...>

Well the simple answer is... I'm < 35 years old!

Anyway, he isn't stupid, as in intellectually inferior. But he is stupid in the sense of lacking forethought/strategy. When meritorious individuals quit your administration and your value-based persuasion methods fail, something tells me you aren't seeing the world very realistically. Something tells me that you may understand charisma and organizing an election, but you know nothing of how to maintain power and outmaneuver your opponents.

I am far from a good strategist. I'm a slothful upper middle class youth who is wasting his potential every day. But at least I understand power at the most basic level and can manage fairly well, and I can tell you that Obama is breaking several words of advice written by great strategists such as Sun Tzu and Machiavelli left and right. For example, he apparently doesn't understand that you must persuade by appealing to self interest, that you don't make yourself as publicly available as often as he does, you ignore ridicule, and you make your enemies fear you. That last point is especially important.

Lastly, I see him as a very weak president who has given in to the demands of the left-wing coalition (coalition of special interests and business aligned with the left). ROFL at him doing the noob mistake of hiring Hillary as his secretary of state, when his books clearly antagonize them. That suggests he's such a tool, which makes sense considerng his sudden rise to power.

I am going to give Obama advice.

For starters, I am going to inform him to stop giving so many speeches. I will say the following

1. The more you talk, the greater opportunity you give your enemies to blame you for saying something stupid.
2. The more you talk, the less in demand you are. The less you talk, the higher in demand you are.

Tavius,

You're on something. China would choose the path of least resistance, which is to appease the US by pressuring North Korea. It is simply more costly for them not to pressure North Korea in exchange for removing the nukes. Second, China had better reason to economically devastate the US under Bush's administration than with a simple demand of pressuring North Korea.

> Firewing wrote:

The Westphalian Peace set a new balance of power for europe, that is right. But the peace contained elements and definitions for the idea of nations. From the point of view of 1648 europe was the international system. France, Spain, Sweden, Austria and Brandenburg (and 150 other minor states) signed the peace or in the case of the ongoing war between France and Spain accepted the terms. Of course the Westphalian system developed after time, but the system started 1648. After that the terms of the peace were part of the scientific debates and constutional law advanced it step by step. In the same time Spain, France, Portugal and England colonized the world and exported these ideas around the world. so the westphalian system was expanded around the world, of course it was enhanced but the roots are the same.>

Ok let me get this straight. You believe that the Peace of Westphalia created the idea of the nation-state? I disagree. I think it had nothing to do with the idea of nation-states, and back then the people identified with their local village rather than their "country."

If you want to cite a war that's responsible for causing European nationalism and the idea of the nation-state, I would cite the Dutch Revolutions and the Napoleonic Wars.

...

"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

When she talked about empathy, I immediately knew she was not fit to sit on the supreme court.

I actually support censorship. Some things, like how powerful the elite are, that they sell DDT to Brazil, how cattle are treated, or the atrocities committed in the name of power, should not be released to the public. Things like that trigger people's empathy, and the resulting outcome is just bad. We don't need any more moronic campaigns against the agriculture companies that pack chickens tightly together to increase storage capacity.

> Dirty Iluvatar wrote:
Even if you do, 99% cant even pay for basic healthcare, let alone advanced treatment.

But its obvious your the kind of person that doesnt give a flying[moo] about anybody but yourself. Hell, always the patriot, untill it hurts you in the wallet, then its every american for themselfs right?>

The US has a messy, middle of the road health care system. If we got rid of HMOs, the costs would go down and people would be able to afford health care because of the free market.