Let's look at the numbers:

1 Billion Chinese

5 Billion World

Answer: No.

It forgets to mention, the land where we give huge corporations bailouts funded by the taxpayer when times get tough but tell those same middle class taxpayers to "fuck off" if they need affordable healthcare.

But yeah, I agree with the sentiment.

Can't you do that just about anywhere with a rural area? Thoreau did it here in the U.S. and then wrote a fine piece of work called Walden.

I would say go to the American Midwest or Appalachian at least where you can speak the language in case shit hits the fan and the government is much more stable.

But if you're going to live like a hermit, doesn't that render the country having a high literacy rate and being multilingual moot?

With the Neo-Islamic Empire expansion into Europe again, I'm staying the hell away from that continent.

And they also are totally broke, interest rates are around 18%, and their coalition government completely collapsed.

You can be the star in Hollywood's new apocalyptiic hit movie, "Escape from Reykjavik"

Seriously...people are running away from that country.

For statistical information Wolfram Alpha is better. I saw the presentation on ted.com and was very impressed. For general subject matter information though, I would say Google is better.

I agree for the most part with this rule except one qualification: If you wish not to be bashed for your religious beliefs, don't assert them as a basis for an opinion in a scientific debate.

If Jesus did exist, I would go a step further. He wasn't just a "radical liberal," he was bat shit crazy.

Erm...and what if this supposed "pedophile" has been wrongfully convicted? Too bad, so sad, we execute involuntary volatile tests on a potentially innocent person as a form of punishment? And if the person is a pedophile and rightfully convicted, isn't jail the punishment?

This is the kind of thing dumb people advocate for because it makes them feel warm inside without thinking about the proposition full circle.

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to equivocate two things that are not the same thing: war and terrorism. Just because war may cause a psychological effect of "terror" to a bystander does not make it terrorism. War is traditionally defined as "the use of violence and force between two or more states to resolve a matter of dispute." Terrorism does not require a formal declaration of war nor a State (ex. Al Qaeda). Terrorists are not bound to the rules of warfare as outlined in the Geneva Convention. (ex. Signatories to the GC cannot intentionally target civilians during warfare nor totally disregard their presence). While war may be terrifying, it is not terrorism.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r;-"i-z&m;Function: noun

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r;-'is-tik/ adjective

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

No, intentionally targeting or having little to no regard for civilian casualties is not an acceptable form of warfare.