a 6?

Where the hell are you from? I would give her an 8.

To let you know who I consider 10s, I am going to use Trish Status and Heidi Montag as examples.

Canada has hot girls... like Theodora!

Theo, can you email me some pics?

420,

Beyond a basic legal understanding of what you can and can not do, all an American needs to know is to exercise their 5th amendment right by refusing to talk to the police.

I love the 5th amendment yay!

I'm talking about what's said on tv, while behind the scenes you are standing strong but showing your willingness to make concessions in order to put the distribution of power back in to balance.

Primo,

China would back down, because it would be costly for them not to. Secondly, the US would be making concessions in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, which is the source of much of the tension anyway.

What China and Russia are doing is really taking advantage of an opportunity, like Russia did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK got hard, but there was no threat of war because realpolitik calculations guaranteed it would not happen. It was a PR campaign if anything, and in exchange JFK also made concessions with nuclear weapons nearby Soviet borders.

My threat of war with China is also a pr campaign, not an actual war with China or Russia that would never actually happen.

Canadian,

What the world needs is a US president who doesn't make short-sighted decisions that disrupt the balance of power by extending military control in a geographic location rich in natural resources and is essential to the economies world wide. When Empire1 extends its power in to richland that is nearby Empire2 and Empire3, what does Empire2 and Empire3 do?

What is preferable is cooperation not some military conflict and proxy war.

No one cares about morality and international rights. It's simply dismissed by me. If they did, then where are the troops stopping the genocides that take place in Africa? Where is the outrage to the fact the US sells DDT to third world countries? Where is the outrage that western pharmaceutical companies perform tests on people in third world countries? Where's the outrage huh?

If you look at history, morality in international affairs is only brought up when it's convenient. Rarely are things actually as they appear.

Elliot,

America's behavior is partly guided by moral ideals. It doesn't make sense to institute a democratic government in a country where the conditions are not favorable for democracy to thrive. If Bush were being pragmatic, he would have installed something more adaptive to the country. However, there were more ulterior motives in Iraq, mainly for political advantage and control of Iraq's oil resources. However, they are short-sighted. Reading many of America's realpolitik thinkers, you will find them criticizing Bush's administration as being short-sighted as well.

As for realpolitik, it is the most empirically correlated theory of how states operate.

Soth,

Actually Hitler's political brilliance can be attributed to his advisers. He was actually politically and strategically incompetent. As a matter of fact, toward the end of the war he centralized power and consistently made n00b screw ups.

Selur,

And that's the way the world has worked for the past, uh, since the beginning of civilization?

The way I see it, you can waste your life trying to advance moral causes. Another thing you can do is embrace reality and profit from it.

Nonetheless, it's in much of the world's best interest if the US remains a major power in the world, rather than someone else filling the power vacuum like Russia, China or whoever else. It's also essential to American power to maintain its political grip on South America. You can argue it's wrong to do so, but the other powers in the world aren't going to change their ways either.

The problem with the US is that Bush is acting like Wilhelm II. In pursuit of moral ideals and short-sighted goals, he is creating tension to the balance of power. Though unlike Wilhelm II who caused an ugly arms race, Bush got us entangled in a real nasty proxy war. The US needs someone more strategically minded to preserve the balance of power. It's essential to world peace and prosperity.

esa,

Sometimes I wonder if Obama is just saying that to gather support, but the US has major leadership problems I agree. Nonetheless, we must do what what I said and more.

You're right the Iraq war has cost us trillions, and it's immense cost and no strategic value is every reason we should exit asap.

Very misguided.

Fahrenheit 451 is an awesome classic though.

Acolyte,

Hehe thanks .

> gendai wrote:

> i have a question for you evolutionists.... where did the so called chemicals to create life come from? and if you answer that where did that come from. what came first? i believe their is a God and that evolution is bad science. watch expelled.. then tell me that evolution isn't laughable. even the evolusionist top dogs contradict theim selves.>>

You're talking about amiogenesis. We don't actually know how life emerged. There are theories for how that happened, but none have yet been empirically verified.

Evolution actually explains the diversity of life, not the emergence of life. Evolution has also been observed. Consider dogs. Breeds of dogs are artificially selected, meaning we find two dogs (male/female) with a desired trait and then we have them reproduce. Do that long enough and you'll create a breed of dogs. In evolution, the mechanism for selection is natural selection, whereby natural conditions favor a species with certain characteristics. For example, lets say that black trees are taking over the white tree population. This means that black moths have a survival advantage over white moths over predation, and consequently the black moths will over time thrive and the white moths will be reduced in population.

Evolution also considers the mechanism of how unique genes can be acquired. There are genetic mutations, where genes are not correctly copied in an offspring from the parents. This means that an offspring can acquire a unique gene(s), and sometimes that gene(s) may prove advantageous for its survival. Then that offspring can pass on its genes to subsequent generations, giving them a survival advantage. The mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutations can consequently over time cause a species to diverge and become an entirely new species or subspecies. Over millions of years, these divergences can result with great diversity in the living organisms that descended from a single common ancestor.

That is evolution.

Ben Stein misrepresents evolution, and when he talks about the moral consequences of evolution they don't actually apply. The reason is it commits the is/ought fallacy. What is has nothing to do with what we ought to do.

Spam, close

High school doesn't count.

Always fear the charismatic people.

But it's going to be amusing if Obama wins, just to watch the world go up in flames.

Detroit has had a major change in demographics since the automobile factories left it.