213374U

That's simplifying a tad too much.

You are obviously not cut out for politics, my friend.

Yeah, sounds OK to me. We can offer membership to China, too. They might not be so close, but they sure are a juicy market. Phear the power of the Afroeurasian Union!

And they are as much a part of Europe as Israel. Is Israel the next candidate for EU membership?

I'm inclined to agree. But it can be argued that in a communist society, there is no room for charity since there should be no need for it. Often what happens IRL is that the individual can't give away any of their resources for charity, but charity would be needed anyway.

OMG you pissed Sandra Bullock! Lawsuit ensues... "

Words of wisdom. This "tactic" is enough to beat the whole game.

General Grievous and all the Jedi he effortlessly slaughtered would probably disagree. Now THAT is siggy material.

Yep. It's always nice to know that my old skool trolling style still attracts new fans. Oh, and that toothless smily reminds me of my grand-grandma. :ph34r:

I'm not going to give you a speech on this subject, but women usually find being thrown off-balance at least intriging. And getting their attention is half of the job. What I do know is that playing the nice guy will get you nowhere. Nowere near the bedroom, that is. Also, don't mistake being c0cky and funny with being a f*ckhead. Women LOVE self-confidence. What role does Jar Jar Binks exactly play in all of that?

Um... Wil Wheaton. Sorry, couldn't help it. I read his blog once, too. But calling him a celebrity is like calling John Kerry "Mr. President". I mean, what has that guy done since "the most hated character in all of ST"? But anyway. It would be nice if people could actually interact with (or at least get to know) "celebs". But unfortunately, I don't think such a thing is possible. Those people's living depends on their images, and while mr Wheaton is probably working on a McDonalds now and can post whatever he feels like, I don't think you are going to find a lot of truth about that person in say, Jude Law's Blog (if such a thing exists, anyway). It's just a part of their imposture, and it should be taken with a pinch of salt. But then again, I don't really care that much for celebs. They are just flesh and bone like you and me. [/cap'n obvious]

I still think it had strong socialist elements, from a economic standpoint at least. Perhaps you are seeking to apply a by-the-book definition to that situation, and as I stated before, I don't think you are going to find pure theory applied in a verbatim way, in any real world situation. No, not really. In fact it would just need for people to demand just what they need, and at the same time work for the common good, without any perspective of selfish personal improvement from a material standpoint. However, people are not ants. It can be argued that such a society would in the end stagnate and die because it assumes that every single individual is just another block without any chance of promotion, in any way. And while there are other many motivations, personal gain is the ultimate engine of progress, as it has been proven through History. In fact, History proves otherwise. But at any rate, all extremes are bad. A society in which capitalism runs rampant is bound to suffer worker revolts, as it happened in 19th century Europe. A society in which the individual has no room for growth in a material way is doomed to fall because the lack of enthusiasm of its members. I suggest you revise your figures. And don't mistake socialism with a bad management. Having social care in exchange for higher taxes doesn't mean killing the market system, or suppressing the law of supply and demand. Granted, the balance is difficult to achieve and you have to be absolutely ruthless when dealing with the parasytes of the system, but it works. We europeans are living proof of that, and we aren't any closer to economic collapse than the US are. On a side note, I am somewhat puzzled by your discourse. You seem to be a reasonable person with a good knowledge of economics theory, but for some reason, your prejudices towards any "left-wing" economic policies blind you to the facts and drive you to assume some rather extreme stances. Perhaps you could illustrate with facts what forces you to display such opinions? And... um, I was a bit drunk when I wrote all of that, so don't be too hard on me.

Um, no. Not all of my 2000+ posts are about SW, mind you. There are discussions here about plenty of other topics, not all as trivial as this particular one. But at any rate, this thread just proves how seriously I take SW. And you are quite wrong about my postcount being an investment of precious time. You see, I only post around here when I have nothing better to do. Therefore, it's not "precious" time. It's just time I can't find anything else to waste on. But thank you for a totally unwanted and rather clueless analysis of my personal situation and your fine disquisition on the intentions of posters in trivial threads and their effect on the coherence of the discussion of a completely irrelevant subject.

Um, so? Are you really trying to imply that a debate about which fictional character is the most adept at a fictional fighting style with fictional weapons in a fictional universe is something to be taken seriously? Don't make me f*cking laugh.

This is interesting. From the moment that nature itself makes us all different, any theory, philosophical or otherwise, that is based on the concept of universal equality is bound to fail when applied on a real world situation. We have had plenty of examples through History that illustrate one point: trying to rearrange reality into what we, in our human conceptions, think it should be is a lost battle and the process usually yields unpleasant results. The fallacies known as "innate rights" and "justice" are proof of that. Sure, it's better than living in a cave, but it's in no way what it was conceptually supposed to be. The same can be applied to communism. Carry on with your on-topic discussion.

Yeah, I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And then some dude dropped a spoon and the ninja went and killed the whole town. This is so sweet. We finally drove the thread to a truly interesting subject.

I was going to say that. But I thought it might ruin my serious and literate poster fa

Mace does that in the Clone Wars cartoon. I guess it would not only be anti-climactic, but it could be considered evil to use the force to grip him to death.

No. When fighting like that the Jedi might be putting at risk others' lives (not to mention his own), which is obviously unacceptable, even for the Jedi. The Jedi are as proficient in the killing trade as the Sith. There was an explanation for this, I think I read it in one of the D20 books. "If the Jedi are pacifists, why do they carry such lethal weapons as lightsabers?" The answer was that the lightsaber should only be used as a last resort. But once the lightsaber is drawn, the Jedi must be ready to take a life. Yeah. Only Dooku's choreography wins by default. Mace's is a bit awkward from what we see in AotC. And Yoda is just a green ball leaping and spinning around. Dooku is graceful, and deadly.

Elaborate.

I think that's it. Socialist policies are defined by a strong intervention and overseeing of the economy by the state, in a protectionist sense mostly. In this sense, since the USSR was a planified economy, it was socialist. Combine that and a totalitarian regime with an emphasis on propaganda, and you have real world "communism".

And I'm still not convinced that he was weakened in any way. He just tried to drain you dry... and failed because there was nothing to drain. Nothing more. That gave the PC a chance to fight him, but it doesn't mean that Nihilus should be absolutely incompetent with a lightsaber or the only Sith Lord that can't spam Force Lightning.

Star Trek is a good example of a truly communist society. A society like that is as likely to happen in the real world as photon torpedoes. That is, very unlikely for all of you Star Trek analphabets out there. In the USSR something that begun as the people's revolution turned into a totalitarian regime even worse than the one they had rebelled against. Was it communism? Well, it depends on who you ask. Probably if you asked a low rank soldier or a peasant they would tell you to shove it... even though they had to suck down the hardest part of "communism" (rationing charts, collective restrooms, etc). While if you asked someone in the higher echelons of the military or the Party, they would gladly give you a speech about the wonders of communism and then drive home in their Rolls. It sure as hell worked for them. The USSR was the perfect example of why utopian societies can't exist. Russia had everything to make it work: plenty of natural resources, a large population, and most importantly, the willingness of the majority. It only took the greed and powerthirst of a handful to bring it all down. But let's not forget that it wasn't only these people that brought down the USSR. The western world had a hand in the downfall of the soviet block, and it was our late Pope's personal obsession to bring it down. Bottom line is, the USSR was as communist as it can be in the real world. That's what happens when you try and put a philosopher's ideas to the test. "

You post here, too. It doesn't mean you do it well. ) If he was toying with a padawan and then got owned, he wasn't only weak with the saber, he was stupid as well.

Well, Dooku managed to beat both Anakin and Obi-Wan. Granted, Anakin was still a padawan at the time, but Obi-Wan was a fully fledged Jedi master, and a good one at that. Not even Yoda could gain a clear advantage against Dooku. I'm curious as to how Anakin manages to best him in EP3. And on a totally unrelated note, I doubt you could hit the broad side of a barn with your B/B bat. ) EDIT: Oh, and you forgot to add General Grievous as well.