Judge Hades

Ah typical medieval scene. A castle with a small village huddled around it. How fairly quaint. No, really. It looks quaint. I like it.

Ah, the wonders of the bargin bin. It works for me!

Arcanum was good and well worth the money I paid for it. It had some very cool ideas and an unique setting. Someone should port Arcanum over to NWN 2. :D

Meta, I think you are misinterpreting what I am going for. When I mean self sufficient, I mean that the country econonic and social development progresses strongly on its own accord without the need of aid from other countries. Trading goods and services aid in that, because that brings in resources not normally availabe yet given on a more or less even playing field, depending on market forces. One of our, meaning the US, major dependency is foreign oil but if we reach a technological and resource stage which we no longer need foreign oil we will be a stronger position of self sufficiency. I think that is something worthwhile to achieve. Also I think it is necessary for other nations to work towards not needing foreign aid on a yearly basis. I think it would be a major accomplishment if Iraq became economically and socially self sufficient, meaning that its exports and imports of trade goods make it no longer needing US or any other country's assistance. That is what we need to achieve in both Afganistan and Iraq in order for those countries to be truly free and autonomous.

For some odd reason I understood that but I don't speak Japanese.

I didn't pre-order this game and have no interest init. After playing Gothic 2 I don't particularly want to play Gothic 3.

What about Israel? Do we still need to give them the biggest amount of financial aid? Think of what can be done if that money was channeled to Afganistan, Iraq, and other locations who actually have people in need.

Are we helping them for their benefit or is the US government is helping themselves more? I just think that it would have been more helpful if we stopped aid in Israel, militarily focused on Afganistan and use some of the money that once funded Israel there, then probably focus on more pressing trouble spots like Sudan and North Korea.

Now it is fragmented and a leveled playing field, thusly the death toll has increased. The question is though, is the Iraq more safe and better off with the aid of the US than it was with Saddam? Are we actually helping or are we causing more problems?

I thought this can be the spring board of a new discussion. Alanschu states: Actually I have slowly changed my views from isoloationism to self sufficiency. I see the need of the global market and the need to continue trade with nations in order to maintain our economy but I do not like the fact that we are dependent of other nations for our energy needs and labor. While continued trading is needed I do think the US needs to become more self sufficient and aid other countries til they can also be self sufficient. As for helping people, is the US really helping others or seeking to maintain its own self interests? Israel recieves the most financial aid fromt he US but has proven itself to be able to stand on its own and face aggressors in kind. That money could be better spent on helping the welfare in our own country or shifted to other poorer nations. Also the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good. It has destabilized the region, actually bolster the ranks in terrorist cells, and brought the arab country on the verge of civil war. I also think that if we pull completely out there would be more harm done than good. The US needs to work its aid more efficiently and effectively. I agree the US is one nation that has the greatest capability to help the more unfortunate in the world but are we doing so to actually help people out or is the US government just helping themselves at the cost of lives of its own soldiers and the countries they occupy?

If Uwe was competing with those of equal experience and training, no, but if he was going against Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson (or of someone similar in their prime) then yes.

No.

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYBE. I just thought to get a discussion out of this.

No, its not boxing. If it was boxing it would be two equally skilled individuals competing. This was not boxing.

Like I said-before being deleted-, people who laugh at this probably found the 9/11 attacks hilarious.

Sorry, Meta, but I take it very personal when someone is laughing at the suffering of another person. There are lines that you just do not cross.

In all seriousness, those who think this is funny sicken me. And people wonder why I have such a low opinion about the human race. Just out of curiousity, out those who think this is funny how many of you consider yourselves "christian."

DOCTOR WHO!

I like the version without the stars but beyond that it looks good.

A real stand up gentleman. Yeah. That was really funny. Oh yes, it was. Maybe it is because I am an Iowan, or maybe because I was raised a bit diiferently from you all, but I don't see the humor in someone getting beaten up to the point that they bleeding, puking, and needing medical attention.

Exactly. Uwe has a decade of experience in the ring and they made it that those who had no experience were chosen to go in, one being a 17 year old minor.

No one forced Uwe to make movies either. If the only way Uwe can find vindication through active violence on a kid then something is very much wrong with him.

The thing is, I actually respected Uwe's tenacity. What he lacked in skill as a director he never gave in to his critics and made movies as he saw fit to make them. This, is mere thuggery and nothing more. He should be arrested for assaulting a minor.

17 years old. Sorry, that is not an adult. That is still very much a minor.

Only the fact that those who had no boxing experience were chosen, where he himself had 10 years worth.