Civ4 shows liberal bias?

[CurtSibling]

Well, CIV2 stands above them all.

And my dad can beat up your dad, etc, etc...

 

[Rambuchan]

I'd also like to point out that threads like these are bound to happen when the cat-o-nine-tails is not put into operation.

PS. Yes but my mum has bigger boobies than yours!

 

[CurtSibling]

I foresee OT being flooded with insane smurfs all squeaking 'LOL' and '10101'.

I'll get the flamethrower.

.

 

[Rambuchan]

Can mods perform rendition missions?

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

I find it hilarious how liberals scream about the danger of the evil government oppressing us with wiretaps and so on under the Patriot Act, but then when the issue of gun rights is brought up they claim the government is eternally benevolent and thus citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves. You see liberals are smart in this regard... you take away the guns FIRST, then you can pass whatever laws you want without fear of an uprising.

i find it ironic that u hypocratic republicans solve the problem of abortion by killing doctors.prolife my arse.Yet still u have no problem with people going to iraq to kill eachopther. pathetic, valuing fetuses over human beings

 

[Speedo]

Let me throw in my "IBTL" here.

Well, why don't they just carry hunting rifles, since they'd do the job just as well?

Three-round burst and semi-automatic are what they usually use, since fully automatic is so inaccurate. I'm sure a hunting rifle would do the trick though.

Take a look at the M1 Garand. Or the main German rifle in WW2 (the name escapes me). After Korea some brilliant person decided that it would be better to use a lighter round, which did less damage, so that the rifleman could fire more rapidly and carry more rounds.

 

[newfangle]

Jesus. This thread has descended into new realms of stupidity.

This thread indicates at what level OT operates compared to some of the other forums.
(as most of the posters in this thread are immigrants from the Civ forums)

 

[Rambuchan]

You are wrong newfangle. It indicates that the thread was started based on a totally ridiculous assumption / worldview in the first place. It's you who is operating at a low level if you expected anything interesting to come out of it.

And which other forums are you referring to?

 

[Thalassicus]

The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This amendment just ensured the right for states to allow their citizens to carry guns for the militia. I don't know how this has been carried over 200 years from frontier colonies to a modern industrial nation, but somehow I doubt we're going to be invaded by Indians any time soon.

Firearms aren't going to stop a foreign attack of intercontinental missiles, after all; laws do become obsolete. The constitution doesn't give the government the right to maintain an air force either.


A better question is if firearm laws would actually have an impact on crime. The writers discussed the reasoning behind the constitution in many other books and articles, to try and convince the states to ratify the new Constitution over the old Articles of Confederation.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

 

[IglooDame]

I cannot believe you guys and your gun fetish!

I suspect guns are no more sexually exciting to me than making pointless posts are to you, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding on both our parts.

 

[North King]

I would reply to some of the ridiculous arguments posited by some people posted here... but frankly, there's no point. Though I will say something.

Civ 4 shows an inherent conservative bias in that:

1) The new game slideshow. Haven't you seen it? It clearly shows a creationist viewpoint!

2) People carry guns in this game, which can kill other people! This is obviously wrong, because guns are evil and thus they don't exist in real life!

3) When you build your first factory, it doesn't flood the world! This is insane, they deny global warming so blatantly!

4) The fact that they use squares is... uh... STICKING TO TRADITION! Which is CLEARLY conservative!

 

[Rambuchan]

You moved my political world there North King!

 

[DBear]

I can't believe this thread is still active.... :shakehead

 

[jar2574]

I can't believe this thread is still active.... :shakehead

alive and kickin

 

[Rambuchan]

Alive and getting a kicking, you mean.

 

[bhsup]

Well, CIV2 stands above them all.

And my dad can beat up your dad, etc, etc...

Only if it's Test of Time!

 

[newfangle]

You are wrong newfangle. It indicates that the thread was started based on a totally ridiculous assumption / worldview in the first place. It's you who is operating at a low level if you expected anything interesting to come out of it.

And which other forums are you referring to?

I think you misinterpreted what I mean.

OT discussions are usually quite mature and well-reasoned. But this thread is a relic of one of the civ forums, and consequently some *cough* more interesting posters have provided us with their fascinating political views.

In other words, I was complimenting OT and bashing the turdlings on the outside.

 

[Rambuchan]

OK OK OK. There's always more room for improvement though, not to mention a little tomfoolery to stop us all from going stir crazy!

 

[newfangle]

However you want to spin it, this thread is the totality of internet retardation.

 

[Perfection]

Only if it's Test of Time!

Yeah, but SMAC still kicks its ass.