Guard Dog

I'm suprised Master Of Orion did not get any love. It was the one of the first 4X games and the first to do it in a sci fi setting. Plus I drowned many many hours playing it!

I'd love to see the Planescape setting come back. It will never happen but.... *daydreams of revisiting Sigil*

Just curious, is there anything to this other than "what if"? Obsidian has only made two titles and both have been succsesful. Not like they are laying eggs here. But if it happens, I've seen a few of you guys on other forums around the web.

Does the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" have the same meaning applied in Finlands politics and they do in the US and Canada? Also, since socialist, social democrat and green all amount to the same thing do the three factions pool to form one voting block? Or do they amount to the same thing there?

Atr0creep, you are just killing me here. I stay away from the forums over there to avoid spoilers, now you dangle the biggest one in front of me.... I hate you. PM me with a yes or no answer, is Starbuck one of them?

Where did you hear that?

So you want the federal government reigned in to conform to the limits of the Constitution when it comes to foreign policy and to leave you alone when it comes to matters of privacy (like abortion), but when it comes to social engineering and "helping" it's okay if they go hog wild? You can't have it both ways. Either it conforms to the framework or it does not. I cannot say that I do not trust the government to tell me how to invest for retirement (privatizing social security), then ask the same government I did not trust to provide health care for me. With respect, you are not asking for a government the cares abut it's citizens, you are asking for one that runs it's citizens lives.

There is an old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Hold out for a perfect candidate and you miss out on the good ones. He agrees with my views on one of your favorite subjects, medical/scinetific research. There should be no avenue of research banned by the government. But the government should not fund research either. It is not the governemnts job to block or aid in any private endeavor which includes stem cell research.

Just read it on RealPolitics.com. Fred Thompson, former Senator, radio host and some time actor is probably getting into the race. Right now he plays the DA on "Law and Order". Here is a man who had a senate voting record that impresses me. He is what I would call a contructionist and he has a reputation of being a straight shooter. He will make an interesting candidate if it is true. Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham are behind him already.

Oh I agree. But they would never win an election. Now everyone asks the candidates "What are you going to do for me?". The Federalist answer is "Cut your taxes and get out of your way so you can take care of yourself." That asnwer will not fly today and more is the pity for it. It started with LBJ and the "Great Society" programs but asking people to take personal reponsability for themselves is not politically correct anymore.

I'll admit, I know very little about Romney, but how do you come to that conclusion?

I believe they foresaw that. That is the reasoning behind the 9th and 10th amendments. If the real federalists like Jefferson and Madison were alive today the would not be in favor of taxing people to pay for Uncle Sam doing things the Constitution does not allow it to do. My opinion only of course.

I guess McCains supporters have a short attention span.

Be careful what you wish for Sand. To quote another great American "The government that is powerful to do anything for you can take everything from you". The government should only operate within the limits placed on by the Constitution.

True enough they have no political pwer. But if they see something in Clinton and Gore they like, maybe we should take a look at why. Lady MacBeth is hardly complimentary, Gorgon. . I opposed those things she stood for. Strongly, for reason you already know. Oh man do I agree with you here. Since 1980 we have had either a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot or in office. Enough is enough already. Anyway..."Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow..."

I'm not a republican and I use that word where applicable. There is nothing wrong with calling a duck a "duck". Especially if it quacks. Edwards is what we call a "Limousine Liberal". In other words he advocates the economy stifiling, freedom supressing liberal policies that he will never have to live by. Hillary Clinton is a Liberal with a very big L. She was a disciple of Saul Alinsky when she was in college, and her Senate bid in 2002 and 2006 were endorsed by the US Communist Party (as was Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000, link here is you would like to see:US Communist Party. If she gets elected, God help us all. Obama seems to be a big government democrat in the LBJ tradition. Not an appealing choice but better than the other two. I'm with Enoch, if Bill Richardson were to run, he is the one dem I would vote for. And I agree with Taks, ideally the House would have a strong dem majority and the Senate would have a strong repub majority then it does not matter who the President is. To quote Thomas Jefferson "The government that governs least governs best".

My vote right now is Third Party. The idea of Hillary as President should be frightening to everyone and I just dislike all the rest. If I had to pick one I'd say Guliani. What say you?

*note to self, don't piss off Dark Raven*

I should have done that...

Of course they have the AUTHORITY to do so. Or rather the President has the Constitutinal authority to order it. It does not assign the OBLIGATION to do so. But your example has nothing to do with your original point. As to your second point you an I are coming to a difference of opinion on the interperetation of the word "welfare". To me the welfare of a person is best served when they have the means and enviroment to take care of themselves. And no, I do not think the Constitution gives the authority to tax me into the ground to give me healthcare I do not want. If an amendment is passed and ratified, that is different.

My Vets office has it's own lab. Does surgery on premises. They have their own anesthesiologists, and even their own dispenary and pharmacy. My doctor has NONE of those things. Heck most hospitals contract out their lab work because of the amount of insurance the law requires them to carry for it. The government has made a bloody mess out of things.

There is always a legal recourse against malpractice, and against drug manufaturers if needed. Besides, as heavily regulated as it is, is the healthcare system perfect now? Are there bad drugs now? Is there ever medical malpractice now? Of course there is. So what good has come from regulation? Besdes, I tend to believe free market economics will keep prices low and quality high, just like they do in veterinary medicine.

The problem with healthcare in America is the costs. But almost 45% of the cost is regulatory compliance. So the government is creating a BIG part of the problem you guys are asking it to solve. If we get the FDA and DHHS out of the way, cost of service will drop. Add in tort reform for punative damages and it will drop again. Here is a GREAT example of how things should work. Last November I noticed one of my dogs was having trouble walking. So I checked her over and found she was in pain in her abdomen. I call the Vet, she gets me in there the next day. They examine her and find she has a hernia. Two days later they perform a simple surgery to repair the tear. The whole thing cost $450 and was over in two days. Now if that were me in pain, it would take weeks to see the doctor. weeks more to shuffle though the bueracracy, and then an outpatient surgery that will probably cost more than a used car. Why is there a difference? There is no federal and very little state regulation of veterinarians. US health care once worked exactly like my example. As the great American Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is the problem, not the solution.

The general welfare of the United States. Not the welfare of the citizens. I believe that is the duty of the citizen to take care of themselves. Not ask me, or you, to do it for them.

It does not need to be expanded. When the powers that be want to do something, they do it and the Constitution be damned. The Supreme Court has really become a political institution in a way it was never intended to. If it were worth it's salt half of the laws created by FDR and Congress during the 30's would have been DOA and we would not be staggaring under the tax burden of today. As for healthcare, we need to start another topic on that one. I have a feeling you and I will make a pretty good debate over that. But short answer, if they try t pass an amendment, fine. If it carries, fine. I'll abide by it then. But you better believe I'll vote against it. If you want to see gvernment run health care in action, look at the VA. That is what the government will do to US healthcare. No thank you.