eodx9000
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by eodx9000
-
-
That is kind of how laws work. You threaten someone with a consequence to be sure everyone is safe and treated fairly, and to keep order.
Yes, I know how "law" works. That doesn't make it right, though.
It may not be "fair" to you for me to refuse to associate myself with you for whatever reason, but it's not any less "fair" than for you to use force in making me cooperate with you. However, at least my refusal of association does not prevent you from moving on, whereas the moment you've chosen to use force only prevents me from moving on.
You also may think it's not "fair" that I'd not give someone a dime of charity, but the idea that you think you can just force a dime out of my fruits of labor is not any more "fair" either. Likewise with the previous, I had not prevented the person from going elsewhere, but your use of force has prevented me from moving on.
In both cases though, the idea of fairness is relative except that you would use force on me and not the other way around, all because of your moral beliefs.
FDR did not expect Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Military intelligence pointed to other locations. Also once again, China was too important to ignore. -
Not to mention, in the semi decisive war with Iraq cost somewhere in the range of ~$1.8+ trillion.
I also think we need a solid definition on the word terrorist, because it seems as if everybody is referring to "some people" as terrorists with extemporization.
Oh the DHS had defined terrorism and terrorists since it was created. Pretty much anyone that disagrees with the government by now, the DHS can call a terrorist; even the founding fathers themselves have been called terrorists. I even know a few people who have been and are on the watch list.
But hey, if we were to go by the classical definition of what a terrorist is, then that'd just convict the government itself for all the terrorist acts it performs (like the TSA itself).
-
Most of those are things that were continued by people who called themselves progressives. That or people like Obama, who simply acted like a progressive to get elected. They weren't actually progressives. Democrat does not equal progressive.
Then you have not been paying attention to my use of quotation marks, but that's like most people in general anyways.
What is wrong with civil rights? Why do you consider a lot of those policies bad?Every single one uses violence to force people into complying with something that is a moral or relative issue.
FDR might of provoked Japan a bit by stopping trade and some other things, but that was due to the importance of China. Entering WW2 is not an illegal war at all. Congress approved it and Europe needed.Franklin D Roosevelt issued trade embargoes against Japan from middle eastern oil prior to Pearl Harbor, left Pearl Harbor wide open for an attack, and was racist towards Japanese people. Furthermore, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamato knew of the consequence of attacking Pearl Harbor and remarked about how they awoke the sleeping giant shortly after the attack started.
Do you think laws to protect IP are a bad thing? We require some laws for it do we not? Of course, it would help if the laws would be updated more frequently to match recent times, but that is another thing from not having it at all.Intellectual property laws also use the threat of violence in order to enforce something relative.
For the most part you seem to be confusing progressive with democrat.Like I said, I used quotes. To be blunt, I gave you the ability to disassociate yourself. Just like on the right, I'd be accused of calling all Republicans conservatives despite that I give them the same ability.
But as for me, I see no progress in the willingness to use tools of violence outside of self-defense and objective offenses.
-
I run my game on max settings and the only times I get CTD are with mod incompatibilities.
-
That poor ass, you should feel totally ashamed of yourself!
-
Am I the only one that feels like just when you use the command, the shadows around your character become darker for no apparent reason? Even if I use tcl to move up in the sky, it feels like as if the shading is intensified around the character.
Or by any chance is there a mod I can use to just change this one small factor?
-
Did "schooling" kill creativity? No, the real problem is that people believe everything requires an "education", for that's what it comes down to - the idea that you can only gain knowledge by going to school.
You don't need to go to school to learn to draw or paint, although it may help. You don't need to go there to learn English, although it may help. You also don't need to go in order to learn mathematics, although it may help. Yet, people continue to propagate this myth because they don't know any better, they don't know how there are so many famous people that never had to go to school to learn.
-
(Since I don't feel like re-editing my post just to fix any retarded HTML/BBC coding problems, I also meant to of course mention the War on Terror as being another progressive pet project nowadays.)
That's because it makes money for the military/industrial complex. I would also point out, that the two wars were started by a republican. Was King George a Progressive?
Whether started by a neocon or not is not what matters NOW. What matters is that "progressives" are NOW defending and supporting the War on Terror despite campaigning against it over 4 years ago. Of course, just like there are conservatives (like Ron Paul) that have refused to support Bush's wars, there are some progressives (2 of which are a couple of the very few politicians I like - Dennis Kucinich & Ralph Nader) that refuse to support the same wars, however, by'n'large, "progressives" support it now against their former stance.
-
I'd say the 'news' media has gotten a lot better today than it has in the last hundred years with the advent of alternative media sources.
For centuries, the "media" of the day has been controlled by the "elite" of their day and people have always needed to read between the lines to get any real information. It wasn't until recently, with the creation of the internet, that it actually became possible for individual sources to publish alternate information on the world around them. (By 'alternate', I don't mean the crap Fox/CNN/MSNBC throw out, but Infowars, Julian Assange, ACLU, various Youtube-using outlets, etc.)
What or where is the line that you should draw in such an event ?The media itself should've never drawn the line. I know you're likely to argue that "war is based on deception, etc." which absolutely is true, but it is quintessentially the duty of a free press to get information out, to ensure people are able to learn the happenings of the external world. A media drawing the line, though, is a mouthpiece that only gets out the story that benefits their own side.
-
I've always wanted to know which was a more powerful intention of those who claim to care for others. I feel that there are two types of people, who sincerely care about others, but I was wanted to discuss the idea that there might be underlying reasoning for people who concern themselves in the lives of others and how these people see those they are concerned about.
The two mindsets that I want to focus on are (1) Those who care about being needed and (2) Those who need to be caring.
Are these both legitimately concerned people and what is the perceived value are the charitable recipients to people with either mindsets
For me, the more powerful intention always comes down to doing what one preaches.
I don't care who you are, but if you even so much have the inability to do something - regardless of your willingness - that you're telling someone else to do, there is no credibility to me when you don't do it yourself.
If people want to flaunt that they've given money away to charity, I see no problem there - rather, I think that should be flaunted more often. IMO, it'd make things a whole lot better.
-
I simply define being cool as refusing to resort to force until you're physically threatened.
-
Well said, but The Bush Diiick and Colon Administration certainly, absolutely positively protected world peace by waging war on terror, which is not even a noun. so go figure...
Plus, Ole' Mit has already stated that provided he be president of USA, he Will attack Iran for some reason which I have no knowledge about. Maybe for the nuclear programme?
or Maybe because Iran has ballistic missiles. but So does SD Arabia, So does North Korea (with nuke hats on them), so Does Pakistan (with nuke hats and taqiyahs on them), so I don't see what an economically crippled country like Iran could pose a threat to world security (LOL), Mit's argument has a big 12inch flaw.
Going to war with Iran doesn't require Romney, it's just as likely to happen under Obama (just like in 2008 ~ Obama never was going to close Guantanamo nor end the Iraq war, but since he's a "progressive", people on the left almost automatically put their trust in him, just like with neocons and the right). Whoever's president, the economy cannot support all of those soldiers becoming unemployed at once. Not to mention, the U.S. is in a manner of speaking, investing in the Iranian nuclear regime (albeit maybe indirectly) through an Iranian front in Russia.
-
(Since I don't feel like re-editing my post just to fix any retarded HTML/BBC coding problems, I also meant to of course mention the War on Terror as being another progressive pet project nowadays.)
-
Can you give specific examples?"Progressives" have forced people to comply with the corporate statehood."Progressives" have forced people to associate with people they prefer not to."Progressives" have declared needless amounts of wars, just like neocons."Progressives" have forced people to pay for corporate welfare. I shouldn't really need to be any more direct.New Deal
Great Society
Section-8 Housing
Affordable Healthcare Act (the quintessential definition of corporatocratic legislation)
"Civil Rights" / "Equal Opportunity"
War on Drugs (supported by progressives with the same neocon mantra, in fact)
World War II (FDR illegally declared war on by using interventionist measures prior to invasion at Pearl Harbor)
Bosnia
Vietnam (supported by LBJ)
Iran & the Middle East (both sides are undoubtedly guilty of stirring up wars in the middle east just so their oil pals can get money)
Guantanamo Bay (4 years later, no closure)
Intellectual Property
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T.
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. 2
N.D.A.A.
A.C.T.A.
C.I.S.P.A.
S.O.P.A.
P.I.P.A.
(Whether started by, most are continued to this day by "progressives" that claim to be for progress when instead are actually for good old dictatorships.)
-
Got some examples for that last statement?
"Progressives" have forced people to comply with the corporate statehood.
"Progressives" have forced people to associate with people they prefer not to.
"Progressives" have declared needless amounts of wars, just like neocons.
"Progressives" have forced people to pay for corporate welfare.
I shouldn't really need to be any more direct.
How about just plain intimidated? I have to admit I was just plain stunned by his role reversal..never saw that coming. Though I was amused by how ten minutes before the ruling was announced he was being demonized by the left wing media and ten minutes after he was the hero of constitutional law.
I find it hard to believe he was intimidated by just political rhetoric. If that is true, and he was then he is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.
I remember when Bush appointed him, and he stood his ground in the Senate against against the Liberal critics. He came off as someone who had a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and had a professional manner about him. Came off as a very intelligent man who was calm, cool and collected. The complete opposite composure of someone you would think would cave in to political rhetoric.
I don't need to wear a tinfoil hat to put that together.
Like I said earlier, he did rule it was unconstitutional as far as the Commerce clause goes, and specifically mentioned it was only constitutional as a tax. The only problem with his ruling is it requires a smart populace to actually act on it.
-
Dictatorships are for kids, Empires are for grown men.
Oh? Like the Neo Empire that wants to annihilate the Lounge and its ways? Yeah doesn't sound pleasant does it?
The Cheesecake Wing of the Imperial Draconian Order of Chaos politely disagrees.
-
Lately I've been playing Midnight Club 2, Skyrim, and Final Fantasy XIV.
-
Savannah, Georgia, United States of America
-
This is all naked and flagrant intimidation at the ballot box.
VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE to prevent these abuses of power in future.
VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE to end the tyranny.
VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE because you never get a chance to at real elections.
We should just vote cheesecake in. Screw the naysayers and haters.
Hah! Past glories, this is the dawning of a new day!
This could very easily turn into a dictatorship rather than a nice voted-into-position monarchy. You know what happens in dictatorships? Bad things. Especially to people who talk like you. :biggrin:
Dictatorships are for kids, Empires are for grown men.
-
As a UK resident, I've never understood why one of the most developed countries in the world never had a general healthcare system in place long ago. Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.
Yeah, sure. Job security is always a good thing, like airplane security and having a cam on every corner of a street. Britain should know more than anyone though, right? Thanks but no thanks.
I've never understood this term. "The Weak" It seems to be a generic image of a victim that one side or the other throws out to justify their partisan agendas. Both the left and the right use this term, but I've never seen any of them step up to a single person and identify them as the weak individual that needs their help. Possibly, because the person would, most likely hit them if they did.
I don't think anybody is weak, but there are those that are in a situation of vulnerability that requires the assistance of others. What they don't need is to become dependent on that help. particularly because the assistance given needs to be replaced so that future needs can be met. This is why, I think that government programs have their purpose, but should not be used to provide a lifestyle for people.
Pretty much this, really. The idea of "the weak" is a tool used to invoke emotion and as such, should be ignored.
Maybe I am wording myself wrong.
Taxation is taking money from someone by force to help towards the greater good of society. Large governments have required taxation to run. It is the same concept.
If you do not wish to contribute to society and help people not as fortunate as you, you should be forced to do so in some way. Sure, it messes a bit with the freedom of someone who is rich. But a homeless man or someone just making it by is still not going to be as free as the person being forced to contribute.
Yes, we all know government needs violence to run. Too bad though, the people you want to tax, are also the people wanting the same higher taxes while dodging them altogether.
No one is forcing Warren Buffet or Bill Gates into not doing anything, yet they complain about not being forced enough. ;/
US conservatives have brought us back to the '80s on gay rights and back to the '50s on contraception. Is was inevitable they'd bring us back to the Bronze Age on taxation.
While neocons have done their fair share of damage, "progressives" have done even more while under the total mantra of being "progressive" instead. Hmm.
-
I prefer paying for a game all-at-once, but I will not pay to play a SP-online game at all.
-
"To promote the general welfare.." can be made to define anything anyone wants it to mean (which has been done for decades now), which is why I'm fairly distrusting of the constitution itself more often than not (that and the constitution grants the government the power to tax with deadly force) - the framers had to have known how it could be misconstrued one day. Though, on the other hand, even if the constitution hadn't given such authority, that'd have made it powerless to stop what has happened as Lysander Spooler has explained (as warned about when Benjamin Franklin said, "a Republic... if you can keep it", that the revolution for liberty didn't succeed when the war was won, but it's been going on ever since and will never be something that can simply be won).
Though, the idea people aren't standing for the weak because they're against being forced to pay at the barrel of a gun is quite hysterical. If you want to support the homeless, no one is preventing you from doing so (well in reality, people are often being prevented by the government). If you want to pay more taxes, you can always do so.
-
I want a multi-tiered/multi-choice story version of The Legend of Dragoon and Xenogears along with Final Fantasy's extensive bestiary, mixed with Skyrim's modability, & Dark Souls open-world/action-based combat/equipment system.
-
We have the un remember? No one exept for the government would dare to attack Washington and it would be pretty stupid to attack your own Capitol, there is no country in Europe that would have a reason to, since 9/11 it's a lot harder for terrorists to plan such a big attack, and china sell all it's manufactured goods to the us and would surely not want to have war with theme. There are only 2 countries in the world that could have reason to do so. N-Korea and Iran. Of course they wouldn't do so because they might be very strong countries, but by attacking the us they would get the entire west + possibly Japan against them.
But of course, seen that I'm a thirteen year old Dutch kid, I probably have not much understanding on this issue.
Would it really be stupid for your government to attack their own capitol when they know they can have it blamed on an outside organization while increasing the sense of nationalism through massive programming in the media that would cause millions of men/women to sign up for a war? Not when you can get away with it.
Like the 9/11 attacks, Washington, D.C. is a high-risk/low-reward target for any invading/terrorist force and everyone knows it. If you really wanted to cripple a country so bad, it'd be much wiser to attack high-reward/low-risk areas such as the Mall of America and Hoover Dam (Atlanta too, perhaps). It simply makes no sense to attack Washington, D.C., the Pentagon, or WTC unless you are completely 100% sure about your success when you can do far more crippling damage elsewhere.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Bring back the Draft
in Debates
Posted · Edited by eodx9000
http://thecable.fore..._back_the_draft
(I didn't know where to post this, so I posted it here.)
On the one hand, I don't think anyone should be forced to enter into any association.
On the other hand, by bringing back the draft, there could and should be a huge spike in wariness for war as most people would have to think twice about their own children and even themselves and that could potentially cause us to finally withdraw from the middle east (or so I could hope).