taks

yup. that is, assuming their reforms continue. they've already dumped their largely communist approach to economics (can't support 1.3 B people on the income from 100 M or less), which is a start. they'll need to dump the remaining aspects of communism to continue... if they don't continue their reforms, we will see a decline in their economic growth sooner than later. taks

none of which has anything to do with creationism. finding evidence that things appearing in the bible actually happened merely supports the already known concept that there is some fact in it as an historical record. nothing more, nothing less. taks

per capita income is also about 1/6 of the US. such figures are somewhat misleading since most of their population consists of farmer types. i've heard estimates that their actual "workforce," i.e. middle class, numbers around 100 million, which is about half that of the US. of course, their estimated population of 1.3 B may be low as well. hard to say with that many in general, and so many undocumented in the numerous villages throughout the country. taks

they aren't considered one, though i suppose they are fast approaching a position to be considered as such. it is somewhat of a subjective classification anyway. militarily i suppose they are close, but economically they're still about 1/6 of the US. the US ~2/7 of the total GDP at official exchange rates (the EU is about the same as the US, for comparison). that puts china at about 5% of the world GDP (which is currently estimated around US $48T). taks

btw, using the ultimate form of logic obtained from several frustrating years posting at the codex, obsidian and atari would be able to claim "from the creators of the original baldur's gate games..." simply because a few of their numbers had a hand in one or more of the originals. not a whole lot different than troika's marketing push. taks

are we supposed to delineate between what we would _like_ for them to be working on, or what we _suppose_ they are working on? meh, either way, my answer is the same. bg3. given atari's insistence a couple years ago that there was indeed a bg3 planned, and now that some original bg contributors, namely JE who was spearheading the previously planned bg3 under the auspices of TBH, i would not be surprised if that were happening. hopeful as well. taks

their child could be named Nice Bin Laden-Hilton. taks

tough call, i agree. damned if we do, damned if we don't, unfortunately. being the last superpower it's almost as if we're expected to help police the world, and not police the world depending upon which day the opinion was posted. i almost yearn for the days of the cold war simply because everyone was so afraid of the USSR they largely ignored the US. taks

i'm definitely an arrogant ass, that's for sure. i don't disagree. this is ultimately a problem not necessarily with the US, but with large governments (uh, in democracies) in general. actually, the whole concept of executive power is often questioned on constitutional grounds. _most_ of it is supposed to be directed at day to day operations of the government, and that is really what happens. it just turns out that the definition is loose enough that their orders creep into micro-managing our lives, which is bad. as for the rest, i mostly concur. many of these are also affiliated with issues related to large governments (i.e., nanny state), hence the framers' intent to minimize federal power. it has become a self-licking ice-cream cone that we cannot diminish. taks

hard to say. mccain has lost in the primaries too many times. giuliani has too many skeletons, apparently, and as already noted, he's a one event platform. of course, his history with prosecution is what got him elected in NY in the first place. gingrich has been out of the scene for far too long. i don't really know anything about mitt romney, though i disagree that he's the only one that "looks" like a president. i've always thought fred looks presidential as well. i wouldn't be surprised if mitt did indeed get the nomination and he turned around and appointed fred, however. taks

you're really that stupid, right? taks

unfortunately, they don't want us to leave. they're smart enough to know that this problem is over and above their current capability to handle it. the people may or may not have the same opinion as the government, but if push came to shove, they'd probably ask for us to stay as well in spite of the rhetoric that makes it into the press. lose-lose all around. taks

it's got nothing to do with "tragedy." any unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy. you made a claim that attempted to indict the whole system based on one instance (one that doesn't even support your position), ignoring the fact that it almost always works. there are problems with every system, and believe it or not, people really do die needlessly even in the vaulted european system. we just don't hear about those because sicko isn't about their system, it's about ours. sheesh. taks

which is another matter altogether. way to dodge the bullet! i don't disagree, btw, at least not anymore. the problem now is how to get out without creating more havoc. neither the dems nor the repubs seem to have any legitimate answers. taks

we invaded on ONE false pretense, and that was one that everyone agreed upon post-invasion. granted, had the intelligence been better, or maybe not even nearly as "forced," it would have changed the eventual vote, but we still would have gone in. it was only one of many pretenses, most of which were clear violations of the treaty saddam signed after the first invasion. obviously, given the outcome, other methods may have worked better, but we got what we got and none of your hatred for bush can change that. taks

none of which had anything to do with why she died, hence my point. you simply assumed that "if you aren't insured, doctors don't care" then noted a case in which someone wasn't insured (actually, that's not even stated in the article nor anything i've read) then said "she, she died because she wasn't insured." it's a logical fallacy and, in this case, not even what happened. as i stated, do you have any information on how many uninsured have been saved? hospitals are legally, and ethically, not allowed to deny care to someone with life threatening injuries. you have one case which isn't even a valid assertion of your entire argument, compared to the tens of thousands of cases which support mine. taks

i suppose you meant to say "any more right" and you are correct. however, you've also drilled down every other reason for the war into one statement, which was _originally_ only a minor point prior to the war. the media hammered it, and the bush administration picked up on that suspecting it would be the final selling point. WMDs were only mentioned once in his original statement that we were going to invade. heck, they even gave saddam another 4-5 months to extricate what he had, or comply, before they went in. taks

affirmation of the consequent. her death had nothing to do with "corporate greed," and, even it you could somehow _prove_ a connection, however minute, one case does not prove your argument. people die all the time even in socialist medical states from negligence. should we post every single case in which someone is saved, minus insurance, by the very same ERs you indict with your simplistic argument? taks

you apparently have not read the countless posts i've made, in response to sand (esquire), that simply state: your logic defies. corporate greed actually drives products, and services, that benefit man. if there were no benefit, we would not buy them, and hence, there'd be no profit motive and the product would go away. by the same token, if something needs to be done (or a product developed) that does not fall into the very limited role the government _should_ be playing, that creates demand. if there is demand, there's profit motive and hence, a product that will benefit. simple econ 101. actually, at my school it was econ 110 or 111 (macro vs. micro). taks

proof, please. even with it, a rather immaterial point. you're suffering from calax syndrome, sand. taks

tough task given that most terrorists originate in foreign countries as long as the US is the economic and military superpower, that can't happen either... congressional law can solve all of that, not the president. congress is primarily to blame here, though certainly a history of a lack of enforcement by the executive branch shares the blame. the president alone cannot do this. in fact, this isn't within the president's power anyway. congress is responsible here, and constitutional problems abound to say the least. also, the last thing the rest of the socialist world wants is for the primary source of corporate profitability to follow suit. the economic impact to the _world_ economy would be staggering, as well as the impact on further medical research. again, not within the president's power to do so. if congress wants to mandate scientific policy, it is up to them to pass laws to do so. the concept of any politician not basing decisions on religious or political preferences is, well, naive at best, ludicrous at worst. taks

doubtful. the very thing he campaigns against is what will keep him on the fringe. taks

i should add, one of the things i've always disliked about bush was his lack of foreign policy knowledge. in fact, had his opponents been other than gore and kerry (both waaaay too socialist for my tastes), i could easily have voted democrat in both elections. truly abysmal he is. taks

for past presidents, yes (uh, yes it is impossible to restrict them), but not so for current. if it was deemed unconstitutional for the president to meet secretly while in office, it would be a rather simple task to prevent it. getting that designation would be the hard part, though a hard push under FOIA may be possible. doubtful something like that will ever happen. keep in mind, the president is also granted power to negotiate treaties, though the CFR hardly qualifies as a state with which he could enter into a treaty agreement. taks

uh, he's not. unless of course he's one of the "ad-hoc" appointees (as i've surmised) solely based on the fact that he's the president of the only remaining superpower. whether he's good at foreign relations or not is immaterial as he is technically in charge of the dominant force in said relations. taks