While We Wait: Part 5

[LightFang]

Hey, I thought we were all cool hip liberals? What happened to "LET'S TOLERATE EVERYBODY'S BELIEFS!!!!11one~"?

 

[Daftpanzer]

Intrude (about PC games) - I’ve finally gone and ordered Civ4 complete (currently only got original civ4 with early patch). I’m also looking at getting some version of Galactic Civilizations II in the near future. Anyone got that game? I’m a bit confused about all the expansions and stuff. I would like to try a ship builder/editor that actually has impact in-game, not just for looks

All this is spurred by playing lots of older games in last few days, resulting from thinking about how Spore could have been better…

Also, anyone taking an interest in these upcoming games - Civ 4 Colonization and Empires: Total War?

(I’m asking because the opinions of the people here on this forum matter to me more than anywhere else on the web, due to similar interests for one thing )

 

[Masada]

I'm a classical liberal; I’m all for beating up Union strikers with pinkertons, replacing them and then burning down the Hoovervilles…

Yes my name is C. Montgomery Burns!

EDIT: I shall be buying the new Colonization the day it comes out, find it wanting compared to the old version, and only ever play the old one stuck in a fit of nostalgia.

 

[Luckymoose]

@Daft: I will give you info if you update.

 

[LightFang]

Why don't you stop worrying about games and tell me if I unify China or not?

I'm pretty interested in Empire: Total War though.

Though, to be honest, I'm rather more on the lookout for Mirror's Edge and EndWar.

 

[alex994]

Empire Total War II totally; I'll be waiting for Colonization to decrease in price though.

 

[Dachs]

Intrude (about PC games) - I’ve finally gone and ordered Civ4 complete (currently only got original civ4 with early patch). I’m also looking at getting some version of Galactic Civilizations II in the near future. Anyone got that game? I’m a bit confused about all the expansions and stuff. I would like to try a ship builder/editor that actually has impact in-game, not just for looks

I am almost certain that das owns GalCiv II.

Also, anyone taking an interest in these upcoming games - Civ 4 Colonization and Empires: Total War?

The latter. I'm sick and tired of playing RTW mods to get my Napoleon on, and besides that means I can't play Europa Barbarorum easily. Been lurking/some posting on the Guild and the Total War Center in ETW threads for awhile, and so far it looks really awesome. CIVC I might look at too, depends on whether I can get my CIV install disc back or not.

(I’m asking because the opinions of the people here on this forum matter to me more than anywhere else on the web, due to similar interests for one thing )

 

[Masada]

I have Gall Civ II havent given it a whirl in quite awhile... apparently its significantly better than it used to be.

 

[a_propagandist]

Why don't you stop worrying about games and tell me if I unify China or not?

I'm pretty interested in Empire: Total War though.

Though, to be honest, I'm rather more on the lookout for Mirror's Edge and EndWar.

I freaked out when I heard about it. Reason enough to upgrade my comp.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

You know there's the small problem of regulating the ban on vegetarianism. Whats the govt going to do? Put a camera in every home, buisness, and restaurant to make sure people are eating some meat? How are you going to stop someone who's not eating meat? How would you even find out? And what would be the penalty for this? So yeah your idea is retarted and I feel stupider for even considering it seriously. If anything the government should ban you for lowering our collective IQ by many points.

Are you going to STFU about this ******** . .. .. .. . now?

The penalty would be jail, and enforcement would be through large monetary rewards for handing somebody in.

Hey, I thought we were all cool hip liberals? What happened to "LET'S TOLERATE EVERYBODY'S BELIEFS!!!!11one~"?

I am not a liberal, so that doesn't apply.

EDIT:

Ah.. a person's expectation of a right to privacy? I'm pretty sure that will be enough to have the SC strike down any laws banning vegetarianism

I didn't think of that (though privacy isn't actually in the Constitution- the Founding Fathers obviously didn't intend for it to be). But countries other then the US should ban vegitarianism.

 

[silver 2039]

The penalty would be jail, and enforcement would be through large monetary rewards for handing somebody in.

 

[Dachs]

I didn't think of that (though privacy isn't actually in the Constitution- the Founding Fathers obviously didn't intend for it to be).

That's why God - or the United States Supreme Court, take your pick - gave us Griswold v. Connecticut.

Also, at silver's post.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

That's why God - or the United States Supreme Court, take your pick - gave us Griswold v. Connecticut.

Also, at silver's post.

A Constitution should be interpreted as it was intended to be intrepreted- otherwise constitutions are effectively meaningless.

As for silver's post, it hardly had any rational arguments.

 

[Symphony D.]

A Constitution should be interpreted as it was intended to be intrepreted- otherwise constitutions are effectively meaningless.

Yeah man, George Washington and Co. were totally hip to nuclear Armageddon, global free markets, women's rights, race relations, cyberwarfare, digital information rights, automatic weapons, stem cell research, cloning, and being the world's leading superpower. Hey, you know, it was originally said--in the Constitution!--that blacks only counted for 3/5 of a white person? That was the original interpretation! Who are you to question its meaning? Living, breathing documents that are actually applicable to modern legal circumstances?! Filthy lies by bloated government that wants to take away your liberties!

Just like Windows 95 was the last OS anybody ever really needed, amirite?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Yeah man, George Washington and Co. were totally hip to nuclear Armageddon, global free markets, women's rights, race relations, cyberwarfare, digital information rights, automatic weapons, stem cell research, cloning, and being the world's leading superpower. Hey, you know, it was originally said--in the Constitution!--that blacks only counted for 3/5 of a white person? That was the original interpretation! Who are you to question its meaning? Living, breathing documents that are actually applicable to modern legal circumstances?! Filthy lies by bloated government that wants to take away your liberties!

Just like Windows 95 was the last OS anybody ever really needed, amirite?

I remember a quote from George Washington somewhere pointing out that if the people don't like the Constitution, they can make an amendment. That's what the amendment clauses are for- it is not the role of the judges.

 

[flyingchicken]

Neverwonagame3, dude, please stop it with your anti-freedom BOVINE EXCREMENT and let those among use who live in free countries live our INTERCOURSE-ENGAGING lives. It is bad enough that you are a hypocrite (not following the SENTENCED-TO-NEVER-ENDING-UNHAPPINESS format guideline for RiskNES is a clear sign that you do not believe in the anti-freedom BOVINE EXCREMENT that you are spewing), but you have to be a really loud-mouthed hypocrite at that!

Shut the INTERCOURSE-ENGAGEMENT up, seriously!

(P.S. Also, I was just trying out... "politically correct swearing"? Don't bring the banhammer unto me!)

 

[Symphony D.]

I remember a quote from George Washington somewhere pointing out that if the people don't like the Constitution, they can make an amendment. That's what the amendment clauses are for- it is not the role of the judges.

Uh... huh.

Yeah, destroying the system of checks and balances in the Federal government is a truly awesome way of ensuring liberty remains forever secure and sacred.

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances.

Which is why, when it assumed that role during the lifetime of the authors of the Constitutional Framers, there was not sufficient drive from any corner to stop it whatsoever, and why most of them supported it. Because it was evil.

Yeah, you know, the FBI, NSA, CIA, NAFTA, ATF, DHS, IRS, SEC, Social Security, all that junk isn't in the Constitution. Neither is a Department of Defense, or a Department of Justice, a Department of Energy, or the Interior, or Education... nothing about the Capital being in Washington D.C. Nothing about there being five branches of the military. Hey, Washington also said entangling alliances are bad. Maybe we should go burn down NATO headquarters.

Clearly the US Government we all know is an impostor that just plum stole the country way back in 1803 and has been adding on to its list of heinous crimes ever since by doing all these things that aren't in the fundamental legal text. The Founding Fathers themselves sold us out to a corrupt bureaucracy!

Or maybe such an incredibly dim and narrow minded interpretation of the law is fundamentally ignorant of what the actual practice of governing a country is like over the course of centuries. I wonder. This wasn't a vast experiment to which modifications and improvements have been made over time, no...

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Neverwonagame3, dude, please stop it with your anti-freedom BOVINE EXCREMENT and let those among use who live in free countries live our INTERCOURSE-ENGAGING lives. It is bad enough that you are a hypocrite (not following the SENTENCED-TO-NEVER-ENDING-UNHAPPINESS format guideline for RiskNES is a clear sign that you do not believe in the anti-freedom BOVINE EXCREMENT that you are spewing), but you have to be a really loud-mouthed hypocrite at that!

Shut the INTERCOURSE-ENGAGEMENT up, seriously!

(P.S. Also, I was just trying out... "politically correct swearing"? Don't bring the banhammer unto me!)

No- it was simply that I failed to notice. Annoying lack of attention span is a justified accusation, but you need more evidence for a charge of hypocrisy to stand.

Uh... huh.

Yeah, destroying the system of checks and balances in the Federal government is a truly awesome way of ensuring liberty remains forever secure and sacred.


Which is why, when it assumed that role during the lifetime of the authors of the Constitutional Framers, there was not sufficient drive from any corner to stop it whatsoever, and why most of them supported it. Because it was evil.

Yeah, you know, the FBI, NSA, CIA, NAFTA, ATF, DHS, IRS, SEC, Social Security, all that junk isn't in the Constitution. Neither is a Department of Defense, or a Department of Justice, a Department of Energy, or the Interior, or Education... nothing about the Capital being in Washington D.C. Nothing about there being five branches of the military. Hey, Washington also said entangling alliances are bad. Maybe we should go burn down NATO headquarters.

Clearly the US Government we all know is an impostor that just plum stole the country way back in 1803 and has been adding on to its list of heinous crimes ever since by doing all these things that aren't in the fundamental legal text. Or maybe such an incredibly dim and narrow minded interpretation of the law is fundamentally ignorant of what the actual practice of governing a country is like over the course of centuries. I wonder.

There is an argument that one should break the law, and there are also good arguments that the Founding Fathers had bad ideas for running a country. But your arguments are refutable.

First, that James Madison quote assumes that judges will at least attempt to uphold the constitution AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE- not to strike down parts of it.

Second, countries as small as Luxembourg and the Vatican survive. It may not be as efficent, but every individual state could run the likes of Social Security. In modern times, many things could be amended into the Constitution- they have enough support.

Third, I was using Washington's view in an attempt to ascertain what was intended by the Constitution. Leaving NATO is different because a foriegn policy conducted by CONGRESS would be in the spirit of the Constitution. (It worked in Ancient Greek times to have a people-driven foriegn policy, so why not Congress? I've read much of The Peloponnesian War, which I source for the claim)

It is bleeding obvious that the US government subverted the intentions of the Founding Fathers- therefore your mock view of the US government is actually fairly close to the truth. You can't just assume it is inherently absurd.

 

[flyingchicken]

Yeah, the Founding Fathers of America must be responsible for the USA's meteoric rise to power in the past few centuries...

Also, you are a hypocrite. You cannot substantially prove to me that it was a lack of attention and not your deliberate anarchist ways.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Yeah, the Founding Fathers of America must be responsible for the USA's meteoric rise to power in the past few centuries...

Also, you are a hypocrite. You cannot substantially prove to me that it was a lack of attention and not your deliberate anarchist ways.

1- Rulers should not seek power, but the good of their people. But they should achieve this within moral principles- like actually keeping their own Constitution...

2- If I seem so stupid, doesn't it seem plausible I could make a stuffup like that?

EDIT: To be fair, even Thomas Jefferson broke the Constitution (the Louisana Purchase).