213374U

Hit a nerve? You must be new here. That's just how I am, what with my chronic allergy to bull**** and all. Now, for the "substance" in your post. The key measures Hitler took to dismantle the Weimar Republic are precisely what I mentioned: the Reichstag Fire Decree and the 1933 Enabling Act, nullifying popular, media and communist opposition, and investing Hitler with legislative power, respectively. The "closest" Dubya ever went to that is USAPATRIOT which, while controversial, was passed by an overwhelming majority (and reauthorized in 2005 and 2006). Further, parts of it were found to be unconstitutional, and had to be struck from the law - which indicates that the system is working as intended, and safe from from turning into an Orwellian nightmare. Care to explain where those obvious parallels are? The fall of the Roman Republic was the result of a centuries-long power struggle between the optimates and the populares, which culminated in a civil war due to the Senate's fear of Julius Caesar and their (and Pompeius') inability to deal with him or find a solution otherwise. Again, I fail to see where the parallels are. The bottom line is, the only slippery slope present here is the fallacy in your arguments. You're right, I'm probably not as knowledgeable on the matter as I think, but at least I'm basing my arguments on real historical events, as opposed to pop culture and new age religioun claptrap. I don't know man, but if anyone's posting fluff and squirming when presented with concrete details, it sure as **** ain't me.

Faceless bureaucrats? You know this is the candidate endorsed by Sarkozy and Merkel, right?

Battle Pope is the only Pope I respect. "When he's not leading mass, he's out kicking ass" You said it's a slippery slope, but failed repeatedly to show how it is actually so. And then, for extra comedy, you accuse me of not having a grasp of history, when in fact it's you who, clearly, has no idea what he's talking about. Read up on how Hitler turned the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian state, and then show me where the analogies lie between W's policies and Hitler's Enabling Act and Reichstag Decree. And the RSHA and the dept of Homeland Security. And the FBI and the Gestapo. Or perhaps you'd like to substantiate your frankly mad theories using the good ol' Soviet Union as a starting point? Because, you see, that's the stuff we're talking about when discussing where that slippery slope of yours would lead. Your lame e-psychiatry doesn't work on me, bub. Next time try an actual argument instead of an appeal to emotion based on prefabricated tags and fearmongering. Funny, because that's exactly what you accuse others of. Much like with that Pope business. Guess it isn't me who's in need of some e-psychiatry. Nobody asked you anything. You felt like rubbing your wiccan/neo-pagan/druidic beliefs (you're so cool!) in our faces, and used the chance to deflect a valid point (yes, sometimes even Hades makes those). Care to try again?

The only thing you'll inherit are headaches.

Alts are boring*. What's the point of putting a mask on top of another mask?

Blame my lack of knowledge of the details of these matters. Still, both the FBI and CIA directors are directly appointed by the President, which links both agencies politically to the government. You said it yourself, all it takes is for either agency to "suspect" that there is illegal activity going on, but now they could do it without judicial warrant. If there's the smallest legal loophole that allows that, the loophole will eventually be found and exploited. The press would have a field day as you say... or not. We're talking legal methods this time around, and the folks that caused the Watergate ****storm had an inside source. State agencies are much more difficult to investigate, and unless I'm mistaken there are legal mechanisms in place to prevent it. That's why you have Senate hearings for that sort of thing, right? But what really bothers me is that the State already has the means to do that sort of thing, with a reasonable degree of accountability. The chief argument adduced to support these initiatives is one of efficiency. So what I can't help but wonder is, the only way to improve efficiency is giving the State carte blanche to spy on people? Really? Er, it's a movie (an overly pretentious one at that), not a BBC documentary. Everything is exaggerated for dramatic effect. You still have to concrete exactly which of these implemented or proposed measures will inevitably lead to a collapse of the rule of law and a totalitarian State, and precisely how will this happen. Of course that may require that you step down from the moral high ground you are so fond of and actually look at issues and people as they are instead of placing tags on everything and everyone and working from prejudice and mantras. I seriously doubt that everyone but you and yours is such a coward. And no, it's not your (or anyone else's) beliefs I'm dismissive about. It's attempts to use arguments from Faith to justify or condemn this or that policy that rile me. Because, you know, that's exactly what that infallible douche in Rome does.

The problem with that isn't that they are going to eavesdrop on the average joe - there's a lot you can do to take advantage from a surveillance system, politically, for example. Think Watergate... only it would have been as legal as Nixon needed it to be. Union leaders, businesspeople and small time politicians more or less unable to maintain their independence, you name it. Better not open that can of worms. Black and white thinking much? A few reforms here and there isn't the same as abolishing the rule of law and adopting INGSOC. Especially considering that the republic you so love was designed in a time where the enemy within and asymmetric warfare weren't real issues. Everything is rendered obsolete eventually. Do you think your republic is somehow timeless? Indeed. Look, I have this nice bridge in London you may be interested in...

Learn to write in complete paragraphs instead of dissecting every single sentence and typing a lame one-liner as reply. Just because English isn't your first language it doesn't mean you can butcher people's posts at your leisure - text cohesion isn't a characteristic of English exclusively, but inability to master it is probably a good indication of serious mental handicap. BTW, I'm not a native English speaker myself either, but I don't hide behind that when I'm being called on my BS. Be more creative, or get a refund on your IQ tests.

That's called mouse acceleration and it ****ing sucks. It makes pinpoint aiming so much harder. You can probably find a .ini tweak or somesuch to activate it if you really want to... but I can't see why you would want to make the controls less responsive.

In your head. No, I think he means it will be, literally, awe-some: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awe

Cry me a river. You are also grammar impaired, it would seem. A most perplexing occurrence, especially given your self-proclaimed overwhelming mental superiority. As for "insulting" the Ottoman Empire, you should be aware that such a thing is impossible, for two reasons:

There goes the next six months of your life. Check out some of the mods for it. Yeah, without mods the game is a bit... soulless. Or maybe I'm just spoiled. Don't forget to set "unit size" to the max, for increased awesomeness. Downside is you need to start a new game for the changes to take effect.

Anti-Onur team? Don't flatter yourself, chump. You aren't that relevant. I came to the conclusion that you may be an Ottoman jingoist by the generally sufficient tone of your comments, your remarks about the Armenian massacre, and that utter idiocy that "your country could easily rule the world", when in fact, you can't even seem to rule your own turf properly. But you're right, I was wrong about you. You aren't an Ottoman jingoist - you are merely disconnected from reality, and the fad is wearing thin fast. Have fun in Wonderland!

But that's exactly the thing - you are assuming that scholars are "on a side", based on where they were born. That's not serious. Conversely, nobody has suggested that Russian accounts of events are dismissed, just because they used to be dirty commies. What "side" are academics that study economic models in Antiquity on, exactly?

Somehow I can live with a purely defensive military. Maybe it's because I'm not an imperialist?A counteroffensive is still an offensive.

And lack of competition is a progress killer. Just how "efficient" you want things to be, anyway? Anarchists in Spain lost the war, and the popular Soviet militias were soon merged into traditional command structures so the revolution could stand a chance against the staggering odds it faced. Democracy in warfare is a placeholder at best, a catastrophe at worst.

Man, you guys suck at discussing the important stuff. In other news,

I would recommend that you read up on how historical research works before taking the "everything is propaganda" route. Of course, you aren't saying that everything is propaganda, only that IT COULD BE. And that is not your opinion, but IT COULD BE, right?

Tell me about it

http://www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Ex...fe-is-imminent# Discuss.

Heh, I thought you were kidding. No, the problem with Garrus' face is that they somehow forgot to add in the hi-res LOD texture. And after a year and a half of NERDRAGE on the boards and failed patches, they gave up and announced that they weren't going to fix it.

Except for Garrus' face.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ "Consensus among the desired freedoms of the people" is a notion as easily abused as the unlimited powers of whatever tyrant you wish to appoint, though. And once in motion, it's much more difficult to stop because, well, they are more numerous than the opposition. You use the word "freedom" to refer to different things, namely political power (1), unrestricted physical movement (2), and civil rights or prerogatives (3). And yet, by grouping them under the umbrella of "freedom", you create (consciously or not) an obfuscation. However those things do not guarantee (and are not in themselves) freedom. At any rate, a causal relationship between a specific political configuration and freedom has yet to be formally established. And the link between the trivialisation of political privileges (that's what universal suffrage amounts to) and greater individual liberty is even weaker. This is patently false. There's plenty of examples that show that compatibility between states depends on nothing but compatibility of interests. Dictatorships can get along with democracies just fine (Franco and the US, the Allies and USSR, etc), and democracies are not exempt from fighting other democracies, either. (*)

But is it? Aristes seemed to be pushing the idea that "democracy is necessary and sufficient for freedom". You suggest simply that it is necessary. I contend that it is neither as, for starters, the concept of freedom predates democracy. Your analogy is only valid as a rebuttal to the sufficiency relationship - having legs isn't sufficient to go jogging, even if it's necessary. But I think you are narrowing down the terms to make a point. In a broader sense: it's no longer a matter of jogging, but a matter of simply moving around, and so having legs isn't necessary anymore - jogging isn't the only way to change places possible for man. Likewise, I think that for your argument to work, you need to concrete what "freedom" means exactly in this context. If you mean "the natural right to have one's expressed political opinion count for something", then yes, democracy is necessary. But that's a bit of a circular argument, don't you think? Democracy is necessary and sufficient for democracy.

Freedom is a state of mind, not a political or administrative configuration. People today are "free" to choose which car to buy or what college they want to attend, but they have a hard time thinking freely - we are constantly bombarded by opinions of alleged "experts", political loads of hot air, and outright false data and lies. I take offense at this obstinately Western-centric mentality that democracy has a monopoly on "freedom". Consider yourself glove-slapped, good sir. One of the arguments used to defend the lack of transparency and accountability in the Euro exec organs is that the matters they deal with are of a highly technical nature, and the decisions they must make have to reflect that, which makes them ill-suited for popular consultation. And, to a degree, it's difficult not to agree. But it's the ages-old question: "I'm better than you, so I call the shots and you shut up". Only they aren't appealing to a birthright to back that, but to a professional career. That is both decidedly undemocratic and sensible. Do we place ideology and PR (which, don't kid yourself, is what decides elections) or capacity higher in the hierarchy of importance for traits that leaders should have? No need to worry about Euros becoming a credible rival to the US anytime soon, though. As you said, we're far too provincial for that. A shame, but the question is whether the US is better off being the sole superpower, or they could benefit from the help of a strong Western Roman Em... er, European Union.