atinymonkey

Ah, I just read the 'only the US violated the WTO' part. I missed the 'only' when I first read it through. It's less random when I read it all. Sorry about that

*Sigh* or it may' date=' in fact, not shock me. I'm well aware of the origins of the UN, and the funding structure that is based on it's conception. I'm even aware of the League of Nations funding stucture. You are not just missing the point, you are creating your own point and missing that as well. I hesitate to call your grasp of US economics vauge, as it's probably too strong a term. Considering that 2 out of three developing nations are tied to national debts owed to America that outstrip the GNP, causing a rather crude economy fostered to provide cash crops to the vastly decadent consumer culture of the US, I don't feel much bankrupcy would be rampant. Rather the opposite, in actual fact. It odd how you would class the country with the largest debt in human history as the country in a position of economic power, and yet keep from laughing out loud. If the US severed ties from the UN, the first thing to occur would be economic regulation on the trade pressed by the US on it's 'bread basket' third world countrys. Within weeks of that occuring, the US would suddenly become fully aware that they do not produce enough food to feed one tenth of the US population and are unable to buy food at current market rates. The words 'rats', 'ship' and 'sinking' would be used to describe the stock exchange at that point. I could go on and on about the levels of import of the US outstripping production capabilitys, and the positive impact this drain on resources being removed would have on trade, but I'm tired. I may pop back tommorrow and explain in laymans terms just how precarious an economic position the US is in, or even how economics works on basic levels, as I find it hugely entertaining when people make assumptions based on national pride, assuming somehow that would make an economy bulletproof. The US made the UN, true. But it made it too well, supported it for too long and fostered too many countrys partnerships in it for the US to become arrogant about it's policys. China's involvement alone could crush the US out of the world markets.

The BBC radio said that Edwards excelled in the debate, that it was a contest between a machine gun and a water pistol. Cheney was outclassed and caught out at every turn, his crude attempts at pulling sympathy through patriotism were torn down and shown up as the shyster tricks they were. Funny, by all reports.

Me, thinking 'bout science, yesterday. Science is like, so deep.

For those that fancy a more in depth tase of this, why not pop to http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ronprice/21Myth.html. I know I'll be going. Party.

*Cue Gyrfalcon Maldron dropping out of a hyper rift to take your liver, explaining he bought it on Ebay while apologetically slicing your stomach open.

Because some people cannot clearly see object that are close to them and require the braille keypads to help them out. It's easier than having customer keep two sets of glasses, one for driving and one for reading, just to use a cash machine. You can call all the people you like un-American. It doesn't change the fact that any citizen should have the right to vote, regardless of social situation, stigmata or skin colour. As you yourself are an immigrant, you should feel an affinity with the immigrants. America, quite famously, is a melting pot of cultures and as such is built specifically to be tolerant to all immigrants and there language. To suggest America should become uniform goes against the very grain the forefathers set out when building America. As my own aside, I'll mention you cannot be nationalistic about the English language unless you actually are English. If you want Americans to all speak the same language, I suggest you go invent one.

6'3, when I was last measured. I may have grown, or indeed shrunk, since then. MrL still dwarfs me though.

I really don't understand what your getting at there. Sorry.

That's not true, it's not even remotely true. In face, you could call it a lie. Rebecca Peters appears on no European media searches at all, and we have had gun control since the 16 century. Australia is part of the commonwealth and it's laws and govement is the model of Britain, therfore gun control in Australia is a direct result of the creation of the Australian model in the 18th century. It seems the NRA are riling you up so you'll pay to see the 'debate' with an 'opponent' of gun ownership. It's rather pathetic to paint this one person as the reason guns have been banned in the more evolved democratic countries across the globe. The NRA has created it's own nemesis to shoot down, rather than be forced to deal with public opinion in the US which is half and half on the subject of gun control. It annoys me somewhat that the NRA paints the populations of countries that have banned guns as weak willed dupes that were swayed by one persons extreme opinion.

That's your opinion, and somewhat missing the point.

Who cares? It's not as if anyone will have second thoughts after walking past Dixons and seeing an xbox, now is it?

Well, you get to pilot a space ship. That a bit more than a wide screen TV can provide, thrill wise.

That 'idiot' is the scientist responsible for a vast paper based on extensive research on passive smoking. Your views are pointless and inane in comparison. I'd go so far as to say you are actually talking ill-informed pious garbage and you really aught to be quiet.

Probably some boring romcom, it's from the creaters of 'Ally McBeal' and 'Dawson's Creek' which is probably all anyone needs to know.

Not actually true.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

That's certainly not how I would pick my society to be, paranoid and armed.

Paranoid as well. It's not a good impression of the gun owning public.

In what possible way can that be regarded as true?

You probably think you sound sane, but you don't.

Yup, I'd probably have to go with slightly unfit as well. As people have mentioned doing a few runs after school, maybe 2 jogs a week for a mile or so, should increase your fitness levels significantly (if you can, try wind sprints while jogging to build stamina). It sound as though, at 6'3 and 16 years, the pain in your legs is related to your recent growth spurts. When I was doing long distance running at 16, I had pains in my legs strong enough to keep me awake at night after I'd done a run (I was 6'2 but a lighter build). I'd probably suggest deep heat or tiger balm on your legs after you run, to ease the pain. As VendingMenace said, you are what you eat. The staples to eat are pasta, chicken and tuna to provide the carbohydrates the body needs for exercise. One of the best things to do in preparation for a race the next day is to have a nice plate of chicken pasta, plenty of liquid and a good nights sleep. George Foreman grills are a fantastic way of cooking healthy chicken quickly, btw. If you have the right fuel in your body to start with, you'll be better able to cope with heavy exercise. There a few ways to run that will build up stamina more than a normal jog, once you have the basics. It may sound stupid, but breathing is important. Long steady circular breaths are what you need, and getting used to focusing on your breathing is one key to being able to manage exercise. How you run, move your arms and pivot your hips, can save you a large amount of energy. Hold your hands in a comfortable position in front of you and move them like a boxer would when changing legs, don't pump them at your sides as it's just a waste of energy. The legs are really hard to train, so probably best just to leave them to it other than using your height to your advantage (you'll have a large stride so try and use it). Oh, and hate the person who's making you run. Really hate them. Then run the anger out.