Zork

I respect that. I decided not to post anything in the obituary in the other thread for the same reason. China is the one you should fear most in the long term. Your military already knows that and most of it's projections take china into account and what would happen when and if they overtake you in military spending/capability. And sorry about the "naive americans" thing. I don't mean it in such a negative way nor was it meant to challenge you.

And for the love of God i don't claim that the russians are "angels" of any sort, they are actively fighting with Assad in the form private mercenary paramilitary groups. Also this source is for McCain from French reuters for you that can speak French. It's from the McCain obituary. Fervent soutien des rebelles syriens La même année, alors que la Syrie est également secouée par des protestations, John McCain prend position en faveur d'un départ du président syrien Bachar el-Assad. Pour parvenir à cet objectif, il se fait le partisan d'une aide militaire aux rebelles syriens (en grande partie islamistes) restant ainsi fidèle à sa ligne en matière de politique internationale évoquée une décennie plus tôt. La crise se mue rapidement en guerre et l'influence de Daesh dans le pays se fait grandissante. Là encore, John McCain se rendra sur place pour rencontrer les insurgés, appelant à leur fournir des armes lourdes. Après avoir diffusé un cliché de ses rencontres, il sera accusé dans la presse d'avoir pris la pose avec des rebelles ayant participé à l'enlèvement de 11 pèlerins chiites en Syrie. Pas à une polémique près, John McCain accusera le président Barack Obama d'être «directement responsable» de la fusillade d'Orlando en 2016, revendiquée par Daesh. «Lorsque [Barack Obama] a retiré tout le monde d'Irak, al-Qaïda s'est rendu en Syrie, est devenu Daesh et Daesh est aujourd'hui ce qu'il est grâce aux faillites de Barack Obama», justifiera-t-il. https://francais.rt.com/international/53554-vietnam-irak-syrie-qui-etait-vraiement-john-mccain-heros-regrette-executif-français

Ironically it doesn't. I am not saying things are not better, but the end result of the situation that has already developed could be a war between Russia and the US. We both know it is not something both sides should strive for. This isn't about what obama believes. US foreign policy isn't fully dictated by the president. You know this better than me. The US was never invited to act on the soil of a sovereign nation. There is also no UN decision. By what right are you still there? I don't. You have to. ISIS grew in parallel in Iraq and Syria. It was already there when the islamic state in IRAQ collapsed. The difference is that the russians are fighting ISIS by the invitation of the syrian goverment. US has no right or jurisdiction to act there. Typical american. Very well meaning and very naive... Obama gave the weapons to the rebels with the ultimate goal to oust Assad. They just didn't care if the weapons ended up in the wrong hands. The late McCain was caught there in an incognito visit talking with heads of the rebels which included top ISIS members and Al nusra front members. And before you say anything about fake news, the reporter who first found out about it was french... By your other comments you just prove that the only reason for the us intervention in the area is Israel and the alliance between the two states. Blind alliances like that are what triggered the 1914 incidents which led to WW1. You are actively meddling with the power spheres of Russia and France. Unless you get out of there, war is inevitable. I don't care about what happens to you next or the russians, what bothers me is what will happen to the rest of us who won't take part in the conflict but still take the fallout.

You aren't. It's for the sake of debate. But Syria is also a good example of a country like Serbia in WW1. There is a huge chance that a serious conflict will arise there if you consider the direct and indirect involvement of too many foreign powers. Sure but this was already happening for at least 40 years. Why get involved with Syria now? The way i see it, nothing has happened to Israel's detriment in the area (the balance of power hasn't changed) so the problem isn't Syria or Iran. Not true. ISIS is using US vehicles like Humvees and US anti tank weapons. They also have been trained to fight in a way that is very similar to US infantry tactics. See a pattern there? So that basically rules out US involvement to battle terrorism... I didn't like Obama but this isn't true. And you prefer to face russia in their natural playing field with danger of getting involved in a nuclear conflict? This doesn't make sense since Russia isn't trying to do anything with Israel. Modern Russia isn't the USSR. Israel isn't in danger. That's one of the false excuses some powers use to get involved in the region. Israel has so much air power that it can take on the whole NATO airforce by itself, it laughs at minor air powers like Iran or Syria. Syria doesn't have oil reserves. At least not any to talk about or fight for. Yes but what does all this have to do with politicians and power? Syria was one of most stable and peaceful countries in the region. Now it's unstable and war-torn? How does this situation increase your power in the area. The way i see it the war on Syria has cemented Russian presence in the area.

Sure, but what has Syria for example have to do with American power? Why do your politicians have become involved in that country and almost gotten themselves to war with Russia for? At this time there are active undercover forces of Americans and Russians in the area that exchange fire. Syria was never that important or even part of the American influence sphere. It still isn't important in any conceivable way when viewed in an economic way. I chose Syria because it is a good example that doesn't make sense when examined by the view that politicians want power.

It doesn't have to do with human beings per se. Only in an indirect manner. Eg.What is your conflict Marblehead with the average farmer in Siberia? You have never met and you have nothing to settle between yourselves. Yet your states are in conflict because they are trying to exercise control in the same parts of the world. Conflicts happen between states which themselves are superorganisms. They have they own drives which sometimes come in conflict with the motives of some individuals which they are the sum of.

WW1 was the culmination of the antagonistic behaviour behind 2 great imperial and industrial powers. The alliances and the extent of the colonies are what resulted in a global war. Erroneously ww1 wasn't the first global war...

You answered your own question. What is the point of having a short journey? Take buddhism for example. Achieving enlightenment tommorow or at last day day of your life has the same end result.

The point of the poem is to enjoy the journey. Once you reach your destination the journey will be over and you will have nothing more to gain. That's why you should wish for it to be long.

Watch it carefully. There is a version with the lyrics available. It's an allegorical poem about the odyssey and ultimately the journey of life.

Sure no problem. But i still don't understand why a teenage boy wants to have his libido reduced. Have fun, get laid. The years aren't going to come back.

If this is still an issue, try eating a lot of coriander, corn flakes (not any cereal, specifically corn flakes) and tofu. All three are massive libido reducers.

Mo pai is pretty much a dead end and Kostas doesn't teach or answer questions about it. There were instructions for the levels 1 and 2 in this forum but without learning how to store qi they are useless and harmful.

@zerostao since you have clairvoyant powers of the future can you tell me the numbers of the lottery? seriously guys some proof wouldn't hurt.

You should mention that it's in Chinese only.

Yep. That's why I mentioned that UBI should be evaluated first and then implemented. It might be a terrific or terrible idea depending on circumstances.

More strawmen. no proof. What you are saying isn't worth mentioning because it will apply to any case of social policy. The state is there to ensure that they pay their taxes. Your problem is that your state can't enforce laws not whether the UBI with which you have no experience whatsoever is bad or not.

Yes. In capitalism you aren't guaranteed access to the market. That's why you have unemployment. That goes both ways. You aren't mentioning what makes it bad by itself nor making cost/benefits analysis. It's just your opinion. I don't give a bleep about your opinion. Give me some facts about it's applications and we will talk. Again this is the wrong question and it can be applied to any social programs. You should be asking yourself what the gain is. You are diverting the thread. You mentioned Nazis. I pointed out that the example was a strawman because it is not what you claim to be and you keep reverting to strawmen examples.

This is nonsense. Aktion T4 Google it.

Thats socialism right there. I rest my case. The examples are from communist countries. You just prove that most people don't know wtf they are talking about when mentioning socialism. It also occurred to me that you are asking the wrong questions. It doesn't matter if UBI is socialist or not. You should be asking yourselves what UBI is trying to achieve, what are the alternatives, the cost/benefit ratio and the side effects on the economy.

Also for the non economic minded it looks that the government is spending money when in reality it is increasing GDP indirectly by increasing consumption (and taxes through VAT etc).

That's a strawman right there. You still haven't answered what you believe the weakest members of your society who have no other choice should do. Ironically not providing them a safety net in the form of money is what Hitler did in Germany.

Genuinely curious: which part of "if" didn't you get? I didn't say it's easy.

UBI could be a good or bad idea depending on how it is implemented. If you manage to somehow redistribute the money gained by billionaires to the poorest strata of society, it could work. If you don't it will fail eventually because it will increase the dependence of the government on taxes imposed on the middle class. There must also be an incentive to make people depending on the UBI to reintegrate themselves back to the workforce. What they do here is simple. You must be unemployed and actively looking for a job to ask for UBI. You ask the employment office to find a job (any job). If you refuse the job when they find you one, the UBI gets cut. I am not saying it's perfect but it kinda works. Basically it works as a safety net for the population that is near destitute. Look at this another way: what do you do with people with severe mental retardation that can't work?

Here is an example of what happens when you don't have access to a teacher. This is an image from a medieval book on hand to hand, knife and sword combat. The 4th technique presented here is common in japanese martial arts as a disarming technique. Assume you were trying to apply it to someone or even practice it. How would you know that you are executing the technique correctly? The 2nd technique is impossible to figure out if you lack a background in martial arts. That's what@Earl Grey is trying to tell you. You lack the substrate to use the stuff you are given here and it's better to have access to a teacher. Books help as a reference if you already know what they are talking about. Believe me he is giving you terrific help by referring you to a proper teacher. You have no idea how hard it is to find a decent one.