Sinavestos Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Starting a thread here so as not to mess with the one on shout-outs that sparked this thought in my head. Does anyone else find it at all humorous that as the U.S. government has started getting a bit of a reputation as being uh ... how to put this as to not offend ... ****ing evil (bwaha) ... the FL government has seemed to mirror it? Kinda interesting ... we even have this dastardly evil vampiric overlord figure everyone wants to see disappear ... and then the same thing in FL, too ;P Even more interesting is that it seems to have happened over the same span of time ... was this planned or something or did fantasy just mimic reality in some weird group subconscious kinda way? And no, I don't do drugs. Anymore ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Hrmm... Same span of time. I believe our vampiric evil overlord was elected (by mistake the 1st time I say!) a long time ago... Then again (by evil dark magics!). So i'll say our reality(FL) mimics the other reality(IRL) with a big delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Smites and slays will be forthcoming. George Bush governs with the vote and consent of Iru, therefore he must be good. And hey, don't trust anything the god of Chaos says against him. (seriously, I don't mind political discussion, have fun, but keep it civil or I WILL smite this thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 At least he's more moral than Clinton. That's all I've got to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Bush gives military bigger budget, pay raises, and housing that doesn't need to be condemed. Bush = Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Bush anti-gay. Bush = bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfytheelfy Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 can we not get into political discusions? Like the post above, little of what you say you understand. and no, im not anti-gay, I have ALOT of gay friends, im in the theater..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Bush = war, arbitrary detention, tax cuts for the rich. Martineius = peace, rule by law, taxes to support the cities. Martineius > Bush. Also: Bush = draft dodger. Martineius = awesome PKer. Martineius > Bush. Finally: Bush = 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed. Martineius = 200 criminals captured. Martineius > Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 the 30k civilians you are talking about where also trying to kill american soldiers, I figured that vital piece of info was left out ya now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 If you havn't been to war, you arn't qualified to comment on it. Thats all I'm going to say about Iraq/Afganistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 This is exactly why I tend to stay away from political, religious, or moral debates. No one is going to believe all the facts, no one will ever come close to having all the facts actually, no one is going to change their mind, someone will undoubtably take something said personal, and no one will ever admit they were wrong. We'll, at least that is how I look at it from my experience of North Americans debating. Oh, and on a side note... Anyone hear the news awhile back? Bush's approval polls have hit an all time low? a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 emp_newb the methdology is here: www.iraqbodycount.org Bush himself has admitted to the 30,000 figure. It counts all who died as a result of the war, including those killed by insurgents. It does not include civilians who were fighting against U.S. forces. Bush himself has given the 30,000 number. PC last I checked the U.S. was still a democracy, as in rule by the people. While some soldiers may have more information than some civilians, making war is still a function of government, hence all are entitled to debate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 PC last I checked the U.S. was still a democracy' date=' as in rule by the people. While some soldiers may have more information than some civilians, making war is still a function of government, hence all are entitled to debate it.[/quote'] Actually, it's a representative republic. I think that's the correct term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Federal Republic of States is the correct terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Is it just me or is the recent note by Martineius really funny after reading this threat? Martineius = tax cuts for all Bush = tax cuts for the rich Martineius > Bush Bush is against pro choice, gay marriage, and peace. Bush = bad -EDIT: Thread not threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Federal Republic of States is the correct terminology. Awesome. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 If you havn't been to war' date=' you arn't qualified to comment on it. Thats all I'm going to say about Iraq/Afganistan.[/quote'] So...people who have never been a part of organized crime can't objectively comment on why they would prefer it did not exist? So...people who protest something, and are totally 100% against it in moral, ethical and political bases should first indulge in their respective evil before being able to comment on it? Should cops do cocaine before arresting a drug dealer? Should a father commit rape before hating his daughter's rapist? I have a very in depth and debatable theory on democracy, but I think the attitude of "Lets not talk about it" or "Its not our place" is total and absolute bull****, sorry. If you live in the united states, you live in a nation where the power is derrived from the masses, and it is the responsibility of those masses to use that power wisely. Each time something terrible happens in our country, who should we blame but ourselves? We have the power, even if we don't want to use it. We have the power to say we're willing to pay more taxes to buy new books for schools, we have the power to turn down tax breaks that will deprive our nation of funds its needs. The power is truly in the hands of the people, and to quote a great movie, "With great power comes great responsibility". Taking the power you as a person have and placing it totally, 100% in the hands of another, is not doing honor to that responsibility, but destroying the system on which it rests- democracy. Now, to the -actual- subject. I don't think I have to see 30,000 people die to know something went wrong. I don't need to see their corpses to know they have families, or are lying next to them. I don't need to see all of the 30,000 men, women and children to know something has gone terribly wrong. And, Emp_Newb, "the 30k civilians you are talking about where also trying to kill american soldiers, I figured that vital piece of info was left out ya now." Yes, those 30,000 soldiers did not lie down and die when we came to their border in tanks. They did not sacrifice what patriotism they for their goverment, in sacrifice for patriotism to our goverment. They did not see the inherent greatness of a nation that overconsumes, undereducated and murders. They did not look at our nation and see these great things we seem to, but maybe...just maybe its not just the way we see things that matters. And yeah, AG, Bush's approval rating is in 20s, which Chenney's is in the teens, its the lowest of any president since Nixon, who was impeached might for the people here who aren't familar with american history or were taking extracirricular medication() during high school history class. Martineius has cut off all taxes entirely recently, but FL economics isn't much, so that's pretty acceptable. However, there are similarities. Bush has pissed off a lot of people. He uses tax breaks to hide the damage he has caused to the economy. Martineius is eventually going to be overthrown. Look at the 20s and 30s in ranks, what do you see? Ranger, Ranger, Thief, Ninja. Its all I've hunted with in forever. He is a vampire, he should be hated by Knight and Watcher. He is a Tribunal, which should warrant hate from Syndicate, but he still has one thing going for him other than his brutish strength- people. People like tribunals being strong, generally. They like being able to run to the cities and be 100% safe. So, to apiese the people, Martineius needs to keep them on his side...make sure he has enough allies for when it REALLY comes down to it... Bush isn't an evil vampire. He's someone who has too good a grasp of economics and a poor economy to deal with. He realizes the economy is next to crashing, and he has to keep the public distracted, so he uses things like war and gay marriage to disract them. He places conservatives on the supreme court. He does what the people have been Wanting for SOOO long because he knows that as long as he does, that is what he'll be remembered for, and it keeps his dedicated voters happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Brother Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Hey...so if Martin deletes, Bush will get voted out? Somthing most of us want on both ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Not exactly....but hey we are all family right?!? We don't care what we all say? No grudges right? Remember! Unite and conquer, conquer and unite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Hey...so if Martin deletes' date=' Bush will get voted out? Somthing most of us want on both ends. [/quote'] Martineius... For the good of the country.. Just DELETE;DELETE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 If you don't...your a communist...and probably somehow gay. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Nixon resigned, for those of you who REALLY don't know American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 It's a democracy. A representative republic is a kind of democracy. It's not just a federation of states--that question was settled in the Civil War. Warpnow the 30,000 number does not include Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invasion or insurgents who have fought against the occupation. It's just the civilians (i.e. non-combatants--a civilian who picks up a rifle and fights is not a civilian, he's a combatant) who were killed. The number would be much higher if the soldiers and insurgents were included. It's hard to find that number--I don't know what it is. The U.S. military says they don't keep track. The number of civilians is derived from careful counting of public media reports. I think the real question here is, is there any link between Behrens's support of the Bush administration's policy and the development of Tribunal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinavestos Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 It's a democracy. A representative republic is a kind of democracy. It's not just a federation of states--that question was settled in the Civil War. Heh it's funny to see where this thread has gone. When I originally posted I was just commenting on the phenomenon of a fantasy world (that a group of human minds are constantly shaping) tending to mimic the overall atmosphere of the real world at large. Popular opinion shifts toward an overall distrust of the powers that be, and (granted not at the *exact* same time, but over the same general period) the FL government becomes a shade more evil and totalitarian. I shoulda known this would spark a political debate (which is never a bad thing as long as people can manage to stay civil, IMHO). But instead of giving my opinion on the whole hairball that is global politics atm, I'd just like to point out that if our country was in fact a democracy, we (the civilian population) would be required to vote on every bill that is introduced for it to become a law. And, in my opinion, that form of government would be a Very Bad Thing. Most people do not have the time or the inclination to learn enough about political issues to make informed decisions about matters of state. Popular opinion is swayed easily enough as it is by propaganda and spin doctoring of countless issues, that to put every issue that currently faces congress to a popular (national) vote would be not only incredibly time-consuming, but most likely disastrous as well. And as far as the Civil War goes (*cough*warbetweenthestates*coughcough*), all that was proved was that an individual state (or group of states) does not in fact have the right to secede from the rest of the country; this 'realization' also ended up giving the federal government an enormous boost in authority. Personally I have always been a strong advocate for states' rights (comes from growing up in the South ;P ), as it seems to me that a local government is much more suited to deal with the needs of the populace than one that tries to apply blanket laws to a nation of 250 million (or however many we have now) people that generally have significantly different wants and needs, depending on both cultural and geographic differences. Imagine how many national issues could be resolved if individual states' laws superseded the national ones. Your state wants to post the ten commandments in schools? Fine, your citizens agree that's what they want, you can do it. You want to allow gay marriage? Fine, your citizens want it, they got it. Abortion? Government-funded health care for everyone? Concealed carry laws? Lower taxes, higher taxes? The death penalty? Legalized marijuana? Prostitution? Whatever the issue, your state would be able to decide what statutes fit *your* populace, allowing for a much more diverse country. In fact (granted this is open to interpretation, and has been debated over the past couple centuries to death ... we even went to war over it ... shame my opinion got slaughtered ), it's always been my belief that this was the original intention of the founding fathers of our country. A diverse system, as anyone who's taken basic biology knows, is much more survivable than one that is not. And as far as the Bush vs. Martineus comparison, I was more pointing out that both seem to be able to rule with an iron fist, and try as anyone might, no one seems to be able to put any serious hurt on either. Granted, from time to time, someone or something comes along and knocks one of them down a few pegs (go Mashik! go Dubai ports deal! ;P ), but in the end, they still seem to come out on top, continuing to wield an incredible amount of authority over the populace, despite being unpopular and, in the case of one, being a creature that thrives upon the blood of countless thousands spilled to feed an insatiable hunger to leave some sort of twisted legacy behind. The other one is just a vampire ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 So if there's an elected legislature it's not a democracy? You seem to be agreeing with me about the Civil War as far as I can see. States' rights was the sovereign principle of the Confederacy, which lost, putting the theory to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.