Namutree

I called it: Nostradamus: 0 Me: 2

Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen? What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ? The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world. Nor should we even have the worlds largest military. Why do we need it? It's just a big waste of resources. Even if it were free; it's unseemly for a capitalist country to have such a military. I would prefer that our military reflect our best ideals. We should never partake in the offensive use of force. If they don't attack us; we shouldn't attack them. If the US's economic interest are in danger; oh well. Profit does not justify violence. I will not support any US action outside of our borders unless we have been attacked. I believe America can better influence the world by creating a good example to follow. Not that changing other countries is a concern of mine, but if we MUST do something; I'll take the peaceful route.

Good point raised about being "weak " rather than broke But here is a consideration and its more about the humanitarian imperative. If you go back to the Rwanda genocide and a way through intervention that the USA could have intervened militarily to prevent that would you say they should have ? And I don't mean boots on the ground, nowadays military intervention can be about airstrikes, drones and special forces like we have seen in Libya and the campaign against ISIS So in other words the financial cost for the USA to prevent that type of genocide is relatively negligible We live in a very flawed world, but it isn't our job to fix all the ills in the world; especially since our intervention tends to create new problems. I would not intervene in foreign affairs; even in cases of genocide. That would be beyond hypocritical considering our own history. We aren't the world's police. We don't have a right to dictate certain outcomes outside of our borders. Boycott is as far as we can ethically go in terms of shaping the world. I will not support anything beyond that.

That's not possible and its not something we actually want from a Western perspective because despite the fact that some countries criticize the USA for imperialism and "interfering in there sovereignty " the world expects the USA to get involved when it comes to perceived military action. Just look at how "weak " Obama has been accused of for not attacking Iran and Syria IMO its important that the USA continues to provide the military capability to intervene militarily in various conflicts because there are valid cases for it. The world expects us to intervene all the time because we do. If we didn't; that expectation would disappear. Some people have accused Obama of being weak, but they're fools. It's not true, and even if Obama was "weak" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I'd rather be weak than broke. The level of military spending we do isn't sustainable, and I'd rather we get out of this terrible business of intervention sooner rather than later.

I just hope that America will learn to mind it's own business.

I wasn't commenting on the game's open endedness, was I. I was commenting on the fact that enemies don't scale to your level. There's really no way around this point. The game lets you take on Braccus Rex (for example) as soon as you find him, even if you're only, like, 2nd level, and it will not alter his stats/abilities AT ALL if you do. The game will let you get clobbered in miliseconds. That's right, the vile, modern day hand-holding blight of level scaling in RPGs does not exist in D:OS. This alone elevates this game above 95% of everything coming out today. No level scaling? NO LEVEL SCALING!? That's it! I'm buying D:OS!

Lost interest in making my little arcade game. So I started up Starfox Adventures. This game is pretty cheesy.

Thus what we already knew has been confirmed.

Good golly gosh. Wage-slavery, over production, uneven distribution and mass exploitation simply DO NOT EXIST because this seemingly affluent person can grow some ****ing vegetables. Hallelujah. Shame nobody informed the Russians. Could have saved us a lot of trouble. Don't get so upset that I proved you wrong. BTW, the food I DIDN'T have to trade labor for tastes delicious.

I agree that life is meaningless and I'll die no matter what. Still, I find life to be quite fun. I'm having a good time.

Gromnir/Gifted1: You guys could really contribute to this thread if you would stop spamming. Let's just call the spam war a draw.

Luckily that system doesn't resemble capitalism. I'll be having a nice salad later using vegetables I grew myself on my own land. Good thing I can own land to grow food on. Otherwise, I'd have to get it some other way. I hear in some socialist countries people are at the mercy of state to eat. Why, I think some 100,000,000+ people died because of that last century. How exactly would those people own private property if owning private property is forbidden? The only way they could own private property is if it were allowed. There is no chance that the ability of anyone to own private property is the reason everyone doesn't own private property.

From what I gather you seem to be under the impression support for property in any form is "capitalist" and to deprive others of property in any form is to be anti-capitalist. This rationale is exceptionally fallacious because the overwhelming majority of people (the "99%" if you will) do not have private property. Does this mean capitalism is anti-capitalist for depriving these people of property? For your impression: You are spot on. Capitalists believe in property. In all it's forms. This includes, but is not limited to, private property. As far as I'm concerned; anyone opposing property is being anti-capitalist. As for your your question. Not at all. I'm not sure what situation each of these people are in, but I am 100% confident capitalism isn't keeping them from owning private property. That would be like saying food is being pro-starvation since some people don't have any meat.

Evidently these government restrictions made their property null. Worthless. Can't own anything if the "government's controlling your body". Gay marriage has nothing to do with controlling your body.

Marriage in the US is a financial institution. One cannot separate such an institution from property rights. The social consequences of marriage are meaningless legally. It is likely that your definition of capitalism is different from mine. My definition is obviously the American variety most often exported by objectivists and libertarians. Abortion too is intertwined in property rights, but that is a can of worms I'd rather not go into detail with. Edit: Spelling mistakes!

Wat. Are you under the impression a woman's body constitutes private property? Do you know what private property means People's bodies are personal property, and yes; I know what private property means. No. How could they be wealthy AND poor? They did however, have less property rights than they could have. If they would have been allowed to enter homosexual marriages they would have more financial options would they not? Marriage is a financial institution. It's an institution that is capitalistic and it's expansion is an expansion of capitalism. Those who oppose it's expansion are acting against capitalism.

Not to be mean but that's pretty ****ing dumb. By this logic the Republicans are being "socialist" for trying to restrict women from getting abortions or opposing gay marriage. When determining capitalism or socialism you look at the economy not vague notions of "the government controlling people's lives". I have thought of republicans as socialists many times for both of those things. Abortion is especially important as it lies at the very center of property rights. If the government can control your body; can you really own anything? Marriage is an expansion of property rights; by opposing gay marriage, they are opposing the expansion of private property rights. There is a reason virtually everyone who calls themselves a capitalist are for gay marriage. I think you are getting us confused with conservatives. The authoritarian buffoons who call themselves conservatives, but push that Judeo-Christian nonsense aren't capitalists. They are something different entirely. They certainly don't give a crap about private property.

1: The government is incredibly incompetent and would make no profits. 2: It would be a brazen act of theft that would kill the stock market since investors wouldn't know which industries are safe from nationalization. 3: Why should the government keep down the good actors in the economy. Not all banks were the bad guys, and they deserved a chance to advance in the place of banks like AIG & others. Nationalization is like the bailouts, but even worse. 4: The extreme unconstitutionality of such an act would cause a major national crisis. One far worse than the recession. 5: Like all services of the government the new state run banks would be politicized; that can be very destructive.

When I think of Capitalism vs. Socialism; welfare isn't really my focus. When I think of socialism; I tend to think of the government controlling how people run their lives.

That's a good idea.

I've never seen any racist post from him, not saying they don't exist; only that I haven't seen any of them. So that didn't come to mind.

They're as bad as each other. I think Sharp_one's country might have been traumatized by the USSR to a point where he's quite bitter towards the very idea of socialism. That would be my guess; not that I blame him. I likely dislike socialism as much as he does, but for less emotional reasons. I can't read his mind so perhaps I've misunderstood him.

I tend to think that traditional feminism wants equal rights, but so do gender equalists or whatever they call themselves. The difference isn't the goal, but what they think the problem is. As far as I can tell; feminists seem to believe that men have a superior position in society, and women are being suppressed by men. The other camp seems to feel that neither gender is getting better treatment, but rather that both genders are equally shoe-horned into roles they may or may-not want to be in. They are like two doctors trying to heal a sick patient: Both want the patient to be well, but they don't agree on what is causing the problem. Thus they come up with different solutions. Unfortunately, since the doctors disagree they have a bad habit of accusing the other of not wanting to solve the problem.

I don't know; people fear change unless the situation is really bad. You might be right though. As I said, I'm no expert on this issue.