Valsuelm

Spoken like a happy serf. I signed no contract. No such contract exists, even for the people who believe in such a thing. The concept of the 'social contract' is a myth generally perpetrated by those who look to self-justify the force they would use or have others use upon those who would not participate in their imagined world (often a wannabe utopia), and/or by those who would subjugate their fellow man, or by those content or even happy with their serfdom and prefer that their overlords squash any attempt by others to break or ignore the bonds that would be placed up on them. There are many fundamental rights that are inherent in your very existence, whether you acknowledge that or not is within you. Whether you would stand up for yourself and your rights or not is within you. Regardless of that, this thread is about the mid term election results in the USA. A nation that was founded on the idea and concept that government does not grant rights and that rights are inherent in the individual. 'None but ourselves can free our mind'.

My main issues with religious freedom are the following: They grant special rights to people depending on whether they believe in something, rights should be for everyone, if there is a draft (something I'd disapprove strongly of, and refuse to acknowledge), whether you're affected by it shouldn't depend at all on your beliefs. Government acknowledges that certain religions are realer than others, there's no reason random religion A should be considered real where as random religion B should be considered a crazy cult by the government. I've yet to see any real scientific examination as to the chance of religion A being correct vs religion B vs religion C, all of them could potentially be correct, but there's been no examination, it's discriminatory for government to take a stance on what is and isn't a potential god. Government then proceeds to interpret each religion and decide which freedoms which religions want, when that should clearly be the duty of either the individual worshiper or the central human figure if the religion has one, there's no legitimate basis for claiming life is objectively holier for an Amish guy than a catholic guy, or hell, even an atheist like me. Finally government goes on to give tax exempt statuses to whatever the hell they consider churches, if government takes a percentage of all income for anyone else, why shouldn't government take a percentage of all income from churches? Being a member of a church is basically like a gym membership, you pay a fee and then you get to use the services they provide. Essentially freedom of religion is government making arbitrary decisions about what it considers religions, then making arbitrary decisions about what people within those religions want, giving certain clubs tax exemption which I feel is unfair, and then finally, declaring that people are above certain laws provided they believe in certain things, it's not whether you believe contraception is wrong, it's whether you're a catholic or willing to pretend you're a catholic, it's not about whether you think it's amoral to kill another man, it's about whether you're [insert random small religions that strategically wouldn't make up a considerable percentage of our army anyway], I feel this is wrong. There are better ways to go by protecting individual freedom than this. The first amendment already protects your right to free speech, so you can pray to whoever you want. But when it comes to whether the healthcare your company provides should provide contraception, the law should either give everyone a right to opt out, or give no one a right to opt out, it's just plain unfair to give people different rights than other people based on what they believe in, you can't possibly believe that's fair? I don't know what nation you live in, so what I'm about to say may not apply where you live. In the U.S. it is thus: They do not grant special rights, as I mentioned above: Not only that but at a fundamental level the U.S. Constitution an the majority of those who crafted it recognized that government doesn't grant rights. Rights are inherent in the individual, God given (or pick your favorite deity or whatever). You get them simply because you exist. The U.S. Constitution was designed, and pretty well to make sure that the Federal government doesn't infringe upon those rights. Much of the U.S. Constitution is ignored these days, or interpreted in a massively warped way (ie: the Commerce Claus as has already been mentioned in this thread) to justify various power overreaches and infringes upon individual liberty. The vast majority of what the Federal government does these days is unconstitutional. You have a problem that others are not suffering as much as you are under oppressive law X, and are making the mistake that so many others do in that you want to see them suffer as you do rather than work to get rid of oppressive law X. This line of thinking gives us more infringement upon people's rights, not less.

Not really. In the U.S. it's pretty straightforward. The Federal government isn't allowed to make any laws in regards to religions. As things are these days it's a pretty good litmus test that if a law is bumping up against religious groups it's probably a bad law that infringes upon the freedom of others.

I miss when MTV was this fun. The first video of the year award went to: MJ had a lot of great songs and videos, but this was always my favorite video by his: BTW: Sledgehammer is to this day the video that won the most awards, and the most played video of all time on MTV. Land of Confusion probably would have won most of those awards had it been released in any other year than the same year Sledgehammer came out. 1987 might have been the best year in the history of music videos.

Another amazing song by the above's ex-bandmates, another groundbreaking video, and lyrics that are as relevant today as they were then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pkVLqSaahk

Amazing song, groundbreaking video.

That's true, but it's still a violation of property rights. At any rate; some one who would actually exercise that right would likely go broke anyway so... Oh well. I know it's unlikely to convince you, but American legal precedent has clearly rejected this view. It took over 140 years before legal precedent that so blatantly disregards the words and intentions behind the Constitution such as that became the norm, and to do it the decisions that set that precedent ignored most of the previous 140 years of precedent. The giant hole in freedom as well as justification for pretty much limitless expansive Federal powers that's been created through the commerce clause in the 20th century is a good example (and a somewhat infamous one amongst those familiar with U.S. law) to cite in how the U.S. seriously lost it's way on the liberty road, and found it on the feudalistic/socialist/technocratic/fascist Oligarch run highway for serfs. It is never something to hold in high regard if you at all value freedom or the ideals that this nation was founded on.

There should be absolutely no licensing fees or licenses period. This nation shifted into high gear on the going to sh*t road when we started having to get licenses for everything and anything. In a free nation the government doesn't give you permission to open business X, and it generally doesn't even know what you do for a living. One of the reasons the U.S. economy is perpetually in shambles and so many people live in poverty is that government has so many roadblocks in place, most of which have a monetary cost to them, to keep a person from starting a business. Detroit, upstate New York, and the rest of the rust belt are great examples of this. Your home state is starting to become one as well (following almost exactly in the footsteps of my home state), as company after company are fleeing Cali for states (or even other nations) with less roadblocks.

When you run a business, you are subject to non-discrimination laws. Religious organizations can get around this, but I fail to see how a for profit business deserves a free pass here. Would it be fair for your local bar to only serve white people? Non discrimination laws are bull**** and discriminatory themselves. People and businesses discriminate all the time, and they always will despite the utopianist idea in the minds of some that they won't. You cannot get more fundamental than the right of association. Denying someone that right is evil. Forcing someone to adhere to a certain behavior they fundamentally are opposed to is evil. In regards to the example of a local bar serving only white people. This happens all the time in practice, and it happens all the time that some bars only serve blacks, or gays, or lesbians, or wealthy people, or people who wear certain clothes, or people who have a certain amount of money, or people who live in a certain neighborhood, or people with a certain level of cleanliness, etc. People can, will, and do come up with reasons to deny people service all the time. Most people generally don't want to go where they aren't welcome either so it's almost never an issue. Step outside of pop culture and visit the real world and you'd see this. There are consequences for such discrimination, some would say they are good, some would say they are bad, smarter and more realistic folks would say they are situational and dependent on one's point of view. Discrimination is definitely not a black and white (and I don't mean skin color here) issue. To throw a few similar examples back at you, would it be fair to deny a brother and sister a marriage license ? Would it be fair to deny a man who wants to marry a thirteen year old a marriage license? Would it be fair to deny a person who is swearing up a storm service at business X? Would it be fair to deny a pedophile service at business X? Would it be fair to deny 'pick any behavior out there' service at business X. Some would say no to all, and on some philosophical ground I'd agree, but a great many won't, and there's nothing wrong with that. In the real world discrimination is normal, and ok. People do it all the time whether they admit it to themselves or not. That discrimination and 'judging' has become a pejorative of sorts is part of the brainwashing perpetrated on people through the media and 'education' in order to keep them from thinking for themselves. A mind that doesn't discriminate or judge is a mind that isn't capable of higher or even medium levels of human intellect. The Constitution guarantees legal equal protection and rights under the law, it does not guarantee that one is treated equally everywhere they go. On a realistic level it cannot do that (no law can), and trying to twist it to mean that it does do that is pie in the sky utopian lalalalaland thinking at best, but evil really when you get down to it as at the end of the day some people are still deciding what is acceptable or not and forcing their view with the force of government guns upon others. To sum it up. Your line of thinking gives us the thought police, and empowers them with the ability to confiscate property. The thought police are more evil than any thought there ever was.

It's definitely not a libertarian victory, except perhaps if you're a Reason magazine type libertarian. A real libertarian victory would have been the abolishment of marriage licenses and government getting out of the marriage business entirely. Neither Kansas nor South Carolina wanted same sex marriage. Federal Judicial overreach, and one heck of a stretch of a misinterpretation of the Constitution is what gave Bruce his happy day. The propaganda is overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage these days, and one really has to try to ignore the overt anti-religious sentiment behind it as well as the 'conform or die' sentiment (doubt it? go read some of the comments in Bruce's most recent linked article, or reference what Guard Dog mentions in regards to the lawsuits). Whether one is for or against it, one should be wary of some of the ways it's becoming the law of the land, especially when Federal Judges are overruling voter and state legislative wishes, and on what many (who are both for and against gay marriage) would say is shaky ground. The end does not justify the means in this case, and most of the people cheering these decisions are ignorant of the legal implications. This subject doesn't really belong here though, unless we want to start listing things where what the voters wanted was ignored or overturned. That could fill many many threads.

But now you do. And that's exactly what a spoiler is.

It's nice to see shots from the game, however I almost think too much was shown. Either way, there was nothing spectacular about this trailer. Paradox better do better. If they don't do something as good as their Crusader Kings 2 promotions, which are really the only good promotions I've ever seen them do, I'm going to say that Obsidian never should have partnered with them. Most of the stuff we've been shown comes from the backer beta. The only new things are maybe the dragons, the plant creatures and the Gilded Vale. Pretty little, if you ask me. And I specifically didn't sign up for the backer beta as I didn't want to see that much of the game before it was released..... Didn't think I'd have to avoid watching trailers, but I guess I do.

there's a difference between hardworking and ambitious though. I agree that someone who works his ass off builds a business etc should have a higher standard of living than a burger flipper, but someone who works his ass off as a burger flipper shouldn't have to live in poverty. It all depends on how productive he's being. If a guy works his ass off but achieves next to nothing; then he deserves next to nothing. It's not about effort; it's about results. Eh... in principle I agree. However the world is a bit contrived in many respects, places, and situations, for it to be that simple. One example: Put yourself in the shoes of a sweat shop slave factory worker. Who is working their asses off for a ubercrappy wage, doing the same work as someone in pick your favorite 'well to do' western nation, yet seeing a lot less for it, and with no reasonable avenue to earn more. While the reasons for this are varied, communism isn't the answer, capitalism isn't the problem. But at the end of the day, there is something wrong here, and I think most of us would agree such a person should earn more for their labor.

Will this physical copy come with a DvD (with the game on it) and manual? Or is it going to be like Wasteland 2? It pains me to even ask, but apparently InXile thought it was okay to sell boxes without a manual or even the actual game in it. Read reviews on Amazon if you're not familiar with this: http://www.amazon.com/Wasteland-2-PC/dp/B00NA6LH58/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I completely agree, I see how totally lazy and unmotivated some people are on a daily basis. Why should they now have the same benefits that people who work hard and are productive have? I think (I'm no expert; any commies feel free to correct me) that they intend to force people to work. Thus everyone will work hard and be productive. Well. You're supposed to be enlightened enough and 'caring' enough to know and want to contribute to the greater good as determined by your intellectual betters. If you are unenlightened or if you're of the uncaring sort then you'll be deemed a thought criminal and assigned to one of the many depopulation programs, and yes of course likely to suffer in a forced labor camp while you await your ultimate fate for the better of society. Your average commie would never admit this, and in their defense they likely didn't think far enough ahead or just plain weren't smart enough to see what's on their glorious utopian horizon. The term 'useful idiot' applies to well over 90% of them I'd say, with the remaining folks earning the term 'evil mother@#%(ers'

It's nice to see shots from the game, however I almost think too much was shown. Either way, there was nothing spectacular about this trailer. Paradox better do better. If they don't do something as good as their Crusader Kings 2 promotions, which are really the only good promotions I've ever seen them do, I'm going to say that Obsidian never should have partnered with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=302YMeiDSrI

Figured as much from the previews. A number of my historically inept and propaganda yumming up friends loved it though so I guess it's good at what it does.

Communism on a national scale requires a government to enforce it's doctrines, capitalism does not. Comparing the two is comparing apples and frogs. Real capitalism is essentially what you get without government interference. It's what people naturally will generally do on their own, if left alone. Capitalism gets a bad wrap it doesn't deserve as so much of what's negatively attributed to it is not capitalism, but in fact symptoms caused by fascist or socialist policies. It's another example of calling a pot a tiger. The west's economy is not primarily capitalist. It's primarily socialist/fascist, and has been for the better part of a century now. You have people constantly talking about 'free trade', 'free markets', and the benefits of capitalism, but the reality is that the people at the top have been benefiting from socialist/fascist policies that they bought and paid for a long time ago, and we don't really have 'free trade' or 'free markets'. The only people engaging in free trade or free markets are the people who engage in illegal activity, as real free trade and markets have been outlawed in most or all of the west. When the government gets involved in the market (and I'm talking the market, not the 'stock market') you don't have capitalism. The government is and has been heavily involved in the western markets for a long long time now.

Pretty much. Which is why people call it socialism these days. They are one in the same as socialism is communism when applied on a national scale. Despite many people, including people on this forum thinking they are different. It is astounding to a degree just how easily many people are fooled. Get enough people to call a pot a tiger and many people will think that a pot is indeed a tiger and not a pot, especially if a trusted government official or the news says it is. There's a great many examples of this in modern real world politik, and other places cultural marxism has touched. The corruption of ideas and ideals is widespread.

I've heard it's like what a Kubrick Fantastic Four would be. Is that accurate? No. It's really not comparable to 2001 other than they are both movies set in space. The plot, ambiance, characters, pretty much everything is different. It is it's own movie. Comparing the two is like comparing 'Django Unchained' and 'The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly'.

So its really so good? I was afraid of too much melodrama and political messages but maybe I will reconsider trip to cinema then.. I was weary of the same thing going in. I was pleasantly surprised.

...and you if one wants they can go from these videos and educate themselves. Or as most will, not.

Communism ideals when they're applied on any scale larger than 100% voluntary participation (which is to say, pretty much anything larger than a small commune of people wanting to live together under those circumstances) are evil. Communism is definitely not dead though, that's one heck of a myth as it's probably never been healthier than it is today. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.'

I imagine that will be about as accurate as the BAC breathalyzer, which is to say: not accurate at all. But that won't stop folks from using them, or government contracts aplenty being made to commission their construction. I will find humor in whatever is deemed the 'legal limit' of THC on the breathe though. That will truly be amusing.