I want teh kotor 3

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

The difference between the level of education at, for example, Princeton and a smaller school like Rowan isn't much. The education is what you make of it, if you put in the effort to excel in your field, then you will. Plenty of graduates from community colleges are making more than the Big Name School graduate. But if paying 200k for 4 years for the name of a school is up your alley, I'd say go for it. But at least do yourself a favor and pick a nicer school than Princeton. Great education or not, you won't be having much fun there. While the level of education is obviously related to what you put in, a great university helps too. Besides, a diploma that says "Princeton" opens doors... And I think I'll have plenty of fun at Princeton, seeing as though it has one of the best physics programs in the country, and a pretty damn good mathletics team.

To each his own, I guess. I'll be up there at Rutgers with two very good friends, though we opted not to dorm together freshman year because we'd probably end up hating each other. We also wanna branch out out and meet some new people as well. Princeton is my second choice, and my best friend's first, so there's a chance we may end up doing something similar to that... unless you're getting a scholarship I'd pass on Princeton. 40k for a school is just ridiculous. Save yourself the money. I don't care about the money so much as about getting the best education possible.

To each his own, I guess. I'll be up there at Rutgers with two very good friends, though we opted not to dorm together freshman year because we'd probably end up hating each other. We also wanna branch out out and meet some new people as well. Princeton is my second choice, and my best friend's first, so there's a chance we may end up doing something similar to that...

Double major in pharmaceuticals and business? good luck balancing that workload while trying to maintain any form of a social life. Meh. Social lives are overrated, but, then again, I want to go to MIT, so I don't really expect to have one... Wait... Double majoring at MIT (what I plan to do if I get in)... That sounds suicidal... Uh, social lives aren't overrated. I'd take an average paying job and a great group of friends over a 10mil a year job and no one to spend it with any day. I'm... Definitely not a people person. So yeah, I would rather have a nice job at CERN than a bunch of friends... One or two people is more than enough...

Double major in pharmaceuticals and business? good luck balancing that workload while trying to maintain any form of a social life. Meh. Social lives are overrated, but, then again, I want to go to MIT, so I don't really expect to have one... Wait... Double majoring at MIT (what I plan to do if I get in)... That sounds suicidal...

So double major if you can't decide.

You know what I'm about to post... K3K3K3K3K3K3K3K3K3K3

I didn't like Bioshock 1, so I avoided the sequel altogether. Anyway, I decided to re-play Halo 2's campaign.

I was going to post "not remotely sad" until I saw the joke, at which point I lol'd.

This. Just in case you haven't figured that out yet.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you read a bit more on the subject of WWII before making your ignorance public so casually. The theoretical foundations of the science behind nuclear weapons were laid out in the early 1930s, more than a decade after the end of WWI. IT WAS A TYPO. I know full well that the Manhattan Project was completed dueing WWI, not WWII. I'm not stupid. No point, huh? Taking out the Nazi leadership (or a great deal of it) quickly and decisively would have been useless? Nukes destroy cities. When the military command is in said city, there is no more military command. War becomes far easier. Civilians die, but better their civilians than our soldiers. I fail to see how WMDs come into the equation, there. The IDF has a history of success against overwhelming odds. When did nuclear weapons become the sole option for preemptive/defensive strikes? And, more pertinently, why on Earth should Israel attack Iran?! Iran is trying to obtain nukes. Their leader has previously expressed a desire to destroy Israel. When Iran gets nukes, chances are they'll grow a set and attack Israel. To prevent this, Israel needs to attack first. Nukes are necessary because Iran has 'em, or will have them.

The Hurt Locker did and IMO it was a better movie. Not to say that Inglorious Basterds wasn't great, but from a technical standpoint the Hurt Locker awards were well deserved. Christoph Waltz was excellent on that movie though, he stole the spotlight from everyone else. I never saw Hurt Locker, perhaps I should...

I think Wilson may have been planted by the collectors.

I think Inglorious Bastards should have won everything it was nominated for (and even stuff it wasn't) and that Brad Pitt deserves an Oscar for his role.

Who, me? Why was it interesting? I'm not backing down from my opinion, just deciding to use my energy elsewhere, and by that I mean stop procrastinating.

Certainly, he was better than Obama is. Either of them are better than someone who has advocated nuking two different peoples in the past week or so for the crime of being Iranian or German. If your ultimate "point" is that Mahmoud cannot be trusted with nukes but "we" can then you haven't so much shot yourself in the foot as self amputated both legs. I said we should have nuked Germany during WWI, when we were at war with them, as I thought it would have been a better tactical decision than Hiroshima. I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

I'm procrastinating.

It looks more like two sumo wrestlers with wizard hats on.

I'm playing the award-winning game of "procrastination." The AI keeps on screwing me over.

Ya know, that's a valid point. This arguing is never going to go anywhere. LoF sure as all hell isn't ever going to be able to convince me that I should trade in my (admittedly rather unique) worldview for Commiedom, and vice versa. Why waste my time?

I believe its Tali.

China and Venezuela are closely economically tied to the United States and would be unlikely to pursue war with us. Iran is only a regional power, and no threat to the US proper. Russia is more busy worrying about things like 15% unemployment than to try to invade the United States. With what navy would they do so? Would they nuke us? (No) The Taliban, ooh, real scary, a bunch of bum**** goatfarmers on the other side of the planet, real threat. And terrorists can't be beaten by tanks and bomber jets, you lunatic, nor can they pose any realistic threat to the United States. China is a real enemy precisely because we have such strong economic ties. They own a great deal of America's treasury, and so any aggression by them towards us could conceivably lead to violence.

Sorry, but what he described was as much Libertarianism as it was Anarchism seeing as Libertarianism advocates both the maximization of individual liberty and rights and the minimization, or in some cases abolition, of government. In the more extreme forms those titles are interchangeable. I was referring to more moderate Libertarianism. Sorry, I should have made that clear. EDIT: @ DN (below me): They'd probably both work well, but I think we need some government, just a very minimal amount.

Yup. There are too many states, and too much discrepancy between laws. Personally, I think the entire country could be best served with 4 criminal laws and no more, but nobody would ever agree to that other than me.