Rebdragon

Humans that barely have any room to live in, can't produce enough food for themselves, can't dig up enough ferrous metal from the ground to supply their industry, and can't even cut enough timber to supply their economy? Yeah. Japan's secondary industry's fantastic. It has [bleep] all natural resources, though, and depends heavily on other countries for its survival. I forget, where were we going with proving that Japan doesn't have great natural resources?

All I know is that I despise feminists. Seriously, if you want equality give us some masculinists >_>. I think I had to make that word up. That's how annoying that is.

For the last two posts on the last page, how do you two propose this be done? How do we somehow change the lifestyles that are drilled into us and make everyone better people for the common good, people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to save those halfway across the world? Fine, have fun up on your moral high horse. The practical bastards don't mind being on the ground. Unless, of course, you can prove socialism produces more. Japan has good resources? What resources would these be? Ever taken basic microecon? Humans ARE resources. And them Japanese humans are some good ones.

You're not getting my point. I'm not saying that "stealing is bad" is a foolish statement, I'm saying "I bet it's possible we could live in a world without stealing" is a naive one.

Ya, but then I just eat some Skittles and get over it.

And what's your alternative? Fairy land where everyone can live off the chocolate buttercups growing out of the flowers? Technically speaking, there is barely enough food in this world to feed everyone one it. Not barely in the sense that's it's feasibly possible to feed everyone, but in the sense that it would require and absolute perfect redistribution of food, where everyone eats exactly the same small amount. That kind of barely. Meh, blame capitalism all you want, I don't care. Just know that expecting the entire human race to all be saints isn't going to get you anywhere.

Christ, if there was one post that really deserve the rolling eyes smiley, it's this one. Why exactly? If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least say WHY. You can't get by in a debate just by *rolling your eyes*. No, no, I'm pretty sure rolling one's eyes would suffice as a response to your post.

"Hey, I think you're attractive" "DIE"

Obama? Cut spending? And on the point of taxes, isn't everyone raving about how he's only taxing the rich? ...? Confuzed. Oh, and too economically liberal. I'm pretty socially liberal overall, much like the rest of this generation.

Hahaha. What scares me is I saw that post coming.

BRING IT.

Being a democrat or a republican doesn't mean you have to throw critical thinking into the trash bin. Countless republican politicians and newspapers endorsed Obama in this campaign, simply because he was the better candidate. Even Palin's native newspaper which is republican-leaning, Anchorage Daily News, endorsed Obama. Likewise, if the democrats field a crappy candidate in the next elections, while republicans field a popular, liked candidate such as Ron Paul, you can bet your money a lot of democrats will also endorse the better candidate regardless of party affiliation. Some people really ought to think again, just how much do party labels mean anymore? I like Obama in a great many ways, and I find that the impact that he's going to have on the US, both internally an internationally, for the most part should be good. The only problem is that my political views are just too conservative for voting for him (translating into me being a Republican). From what I've seen on this forum that somehow translates to me being a worthless [wagon] in the eyes of not a few members, but that's what I am. Hell, I was even considering voting for Obama, if only for a second. That's how good a president I think he's going. On the point of party labels, they only mean something only insofar as they represent the views of the voter. I am a Republican because of my views, not the other way around.

Uh... I suppose with the baby fat you still have this may not be a great question, but face shape?

It would be a sin to kill the one innocent person for the sake of the five. Not killing them would not be a sin. Mathematically it makes sense, but morally it does not. I would say no. Now, when choosing between killing one and five, where you actively engage in the act of killing in both cases, the choice of killing the one would be morally less sinful than killing the five in essentially all cases. Either way it's [bleep]ed up though.

When you all turned gay. So... what, about fourteen years ago for the majority of you?

Agreed deloria. I've found having female friends to often be more valuable than having male friends when it comes to understanding a women, unsurprisingly :P . Apart from that though it seems much more natural and easy for best mates to be of the same sex. For guys you really need to develop a relationship first before doing that kind of thing. If you just open up to some guy who you really don't know enough about to do so, you come off as a wuss and oftentimes a little annoying (basically not strong enough to help them if/when they have a problem). An observation (being a wuss) I would generally agree with. It's a "stupid stereotype", but I still follow it. Be a man, toughen up a bit if you're getting to sappy for your mates >_>.

Again, for the love of God, Christianity and stupidity are not mutually inclusive.

I totally agree. We're called Republicans. Geez.

I have watched baseball live (personally found it more interesting on TV), played for my school a few years ago too. I suppose I am exaggerating by saying there isn't strategy, but I'd find it hard to argue that the strategy required for it is anywhere near that of sports like football and soccer.

Seriously? In baseball you could basically right out a relatively short book for "when this happens do this". The simplicity of the game, with only four bases for opponents to be on, creates an unbearable repitition of scenario's that you don't see in any other sports, where the possible locations of opponents are infinitesimal. Relatively, the possiblity for strategy is near zero. At any given moment there really aren't that many strategic options, and of those options generally one is a much better choice than the others. Honestly man, when the worst choice you'll ever have in your life is choosing whether to throw the ball to second or third, mentally you're having a pretty easy life. That and it's a woosie sport when it comes to conditioning (apart from maybe the pitcher). Standing in the outfield for a while, catching a fly ball every thirty minutes. That's uber tough on the lungs.

Baseball sucks, it's boring as [bleep]. It's all skill no strategy. Soccer rocks.

Something tells me you've never broken a bone before in your life. [i.e., get over it [kitty]]

Pretty unlikely, given that getting a MD degree requires 3-4 years of prior university level study of pathology, anatomy, physiology, and human biology via a bachelor's degree. I know of one example, but because I know of only one I can not justify "16 year olds" :lol: .

The entire last page is going to get wiped by the time I wake up tomorrow, so why not let it out.

I'd post, but I'd rather not get assassinated. You laugh, but you know it'd happen if I did.