Civ4 shows liberal bias?

[Bain]

Maybe, hopefully we'll stop pretecting you weakings!

lol, you know what you remind me of?
These 13 year old retards on battle.net forums going "OMG we kicked your asses in two world wars" every time a EU WoW community rep posts something on the european Forums before the US WoW community rep posts it on the US forums.
What exactly are you protecting us from?

I'm not surprised some Europeans see the US Constitution as something evil that they have to call "Fascist" considering how the Child is stronger than the parent.

Hilarious, nobody said that the US constitution is fascist. The Patriot act that circumvents many parts of it is.

Fascist: "An Italian organization formed to oppose Bolshevism, Communism, and Socialism in all there forms" - Websters Dictonary

your point? Fascism is incredibly hard to define, unlike other forms of government. However, there are some clear parts of it.
Big Leader figures - Mount Rushmore?
Abolishing of Civil Rights and Liberties - patriot act.

So then calling all anti-socialist "fascist" would you not be calling Western Europe during the Cold War "Fascist"?

You should join the debate club when you get to highschool. Taking a ridiculous one-liner for definition and then making a strawman argument out of it, man.

Or like I said maybe you would have like Soviet Occupation (without the US it would have happened)

whoops, now stop the nonsense already.
the Soviets were never interested in a full european occupation, because there was NOTHING you could have done about it in the fifties. Except nukes, which you declared not to use unless they use it first. So in the late 50s, the soviets could have used these huge tank armies they had to crush entire europe within a few weeks when you announced that you wouldn't use nukes against a massive tank assault.

When this global conspiracy you worry about so much comes to pass, I hope that your collection of guns protects you from the M1 Abrams, the Tomahawk missles, and the F-16 jets at the governments disposal. Good luck.

eh, he is correct though. You won't have the military battle civilians in your own land, but these guns will protect the population from progroms like November 9th, 1938.
Guess why the first right the jews lost was to possess arms?

 

[jar2574]

Right!!!! That was my Point, To call Conservatives Fascist because of being anti-Socialist is Incorrect. That you.

That you for pointing out the one coherent thought in your entire post.

 

[jar2574]

This was a pretty reasonable discussion until SirNate joined in

I also find it suspicious how your first post was in this thread

I think everything that can be said has been said...it was interesting up to when certain people just started throwing veiled insults around

Good observations.

I think someone's bored and is just taking a piss. It's too outrageous to be for real.

 

[jar2574]

eh, he is correct though. You won't have the military battle civilians in your own land, but these guns will protect the population from progroms like November 9th, 1938.
Guess why the first right the jews lost was to possess arms?

When a significant portion of the population turn against a small minority group, and allow the government and army to subjugate the minority group, guns will not protect that minority from tanks, missles, and aircraft.

Witness the uprisings that did occur when the Jews successfully armed themselves. Brave displays. But unsuccessful.

The idea that a gun will protect you from a government conspiracy, or from the military should it decide to turn against you, is popular, but I don't think it's accurate.

 

[Bain]

well it might be possible that he only read here, because there's lots of good information on this forum accessable without even having to register.

Of course, a moderator should check IPs but it's not really "suspicious"

 

[nonconformist]

This THREAD hurts my EYES.

 

[Sexton]

The idea that a gun will protect you from a government conspiracy, or from the military should it decide to turn against you, is popular, but I don't think it's accurate.

That's a great excuse! Next time I want to have a semi-automatic for purposes of shooting squirrels, I'll just use that one!

 

[IglooDame]

eh, he is correct though. You won't have the military battle civilians in your own land, but these guns will protect the population from progroms like November 9th, 1938.
Guess why the first right the jews lost was to possess arms?

He's not correct to use Nazi pogroms as an example. This website explains it well:

A... question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

A better example might be some black communities in the Jim Crow south (just ask Condi Rice).

 

[IglooDame]

That's a great excuse! Next time I want to have a semi-automatic for purposes of shooting squirrels, I'll just use that one!

Huh? Why wouldn't you use a semi-automatic for shooting squirrels?

 

[Huang]

I wonder what people think about the fact that Al Gore's picture is on the icon for the wonder, "The Internet"

Liberal: You see, Civ 4 must have a conservative bias! They are poking fun at Gore!

Conservative: Ha! I told you Civ has a liberal bias. The game spreads liberal propaganda about Al Gore, elevating him to God-like status.

 

[Sexton]

Huh? Why wouldn't you use a semi-automatic for shooting squirrels?

Well it was just a point about some people having guns "for protecting themselves from the government" when in reality they just want to shoot squirrels or do some other totally idiotic thing with their "protection".
Didn't really have anything to do with the gun being semi-automatic or not...
People never get it when i'm trying to be sarcastic

 

[Bain]

He's not correct to use Nazi pogroms as an example. This website explains it well:


A better example might be some black communities in the Jim Crow south (just ask Condi Rice).

while it is true that it wouldn't have made much of a difference for the jews, saying that the second amendment is pointless because your handgun won't protect you from M1 tanks is just nonsense. You can't afford this type of oppression against your own people, it's too expensive, ineffective and your soldiers wouldn't pull you through it. Your handgun CAN protect you from Gestapos though.

 

[DBear]

Memo to self: Do not start a political thread at a time of day when the Euros are awake and Americans are asleep...

 

[Shylock]

the gun-totin' game-huntin' commie-hatin' type people that are the great majority of conservatives just would not be a very successful idea.

How very open-minded and sensitive of you to generalise people like that.

I wish I could tote a gun and shoot game, but my parents have been brainwashed into thinking their own son wants to commit mass murder because I hate sports and school sprit. Better dead than red and black I always say.

I do hate commies though. And I by extension hate the UN, Ill probably go looking for its code and delete in Civ4

 

[Savage Discipil]

Memo to self: Do not start a political thread at a time of day when the Euros are awake and Americans are asleep...

Lol so true....

 

[nonconformist]

Because Europe's full of Commies.

 

[Taliesin]

Yeah, I hate those "Euros". Lurking in Madrid, and Athens, and Kiev, and Oslo, and Berlin, and Paderno, and Edinburgh, and Amsterdam, and Geneva, every corner of that tiny and undiverse continent, all of them united by a monolithic hatred of freedom and America.

 

[Makaan]

5. Why FDR and no Ronald Reagan? They both defeated horrible enemies, and are both dead, but FDR gave us the legacy of New-Deal socialism while Reagan tried to reverse that trend.

maybe they wanted to make money? and Reagan did not defeat the SU, years of terrible economic policy and wasted money in the arms race did that. Reagan did defeat some democracies in Latin America though

FDR also brought the country out of the Great Depression and managed to send help to the UK way before we entered the war. he was elected to 4 terms in office for a reason

and on the UN, it would probably be a pain to make one be able to violate the UN or whatever you wanted to be able to do.

and nuclear plants melting down a lot, maybe it is buggy, the game is relatively new

and anti capitalism? the democratic socialist party in the US has 5,000 members. you have nothing to worry about, the economic system that results in a few rich and a lot of poor isn't going anywhere for a looong time

 

[IglooDame]

while it is true that it wouldn't have made much of a difference for the jews, saying that the second amendment is pointless because your handgun won't protect you from M1 tanks is just nonsense. You can't afford this type of oppression against your own people, it's too expensive, ineffective and your soldiers wouldn't pull you through it. Your handgun CAN protect you from Gestapos though.

Trust me, I never said that the Second Amendment is pointless. I just don't think it would have mattered much for the Jews in Nazi Germany. I do happen to think that it is a very useful safeguard in the US, and I try to do my part to help preserve that safeguard.

 

[IglooDame]

Well it was just a point about some people having guns "for protecting themselves from the government" when in reality they just want to shoot squirrels or do some other totally idiotic thing with their "protection".
Didn't really have anything to do with the gun being semi-automatic or not...
People never get it when i'm trying to be sarcastic

Hunting isn't idiotic. Nor is keeping a gun for self-defense. Nor is exercising constitutional rights. Nor, for that matter, is participating in marksmanship competitions, nor is simply indulging in a hobby.