Spring RTS Engine

As most of you know, His political leaning was pretty much polar opposite from my own. But I keep seeing things such as "He got what he deserved!", much of what would happen if GW dropped dead in the next 5 minutes.

Political enemies and literal enemies is a completely separate thing. You can be best friends with your political enemies. It's simply a point of view, and while we will yell and scream about this or that it doesn't change the fact that life will move on in one form or another. Just because your political party isn't doing so hot doesn't mean you need to take a flying leap out the nearest window, nor does it mean that you should shit on a dead man's grave with your filthy mouths.

Times like these are a good time to listen because you can easily pick out the hypocrites from the people who actually follow a particular movement.

It is sad to see someone get snuffed out like that. He died in a fashion that I wouldn't wish on my greatest enemy. Assuming there is an afterlife, I hope he fares well.

He was a rich sonofabitch and probably screwed over a lot of people. I will not mourne his passing.

Forboding Angel wrote:your political party

This kind of attitude floors me every time I see it. I don't quite understand how someone can say with a straight face, "I'm a liberal!" or "I'm a conservative!" or "I'm a republican!" or "I'm a democrat!"

How can someone classify their entire way of life by the most recent leanings of a bunch of old corrupt old men that just yell and throw childish tantrums all day? Then they get in arguments with people who don't share the same arbitrarily-defined view, and change all their opinions on a given subject when their politician does. Are people so incapable of forming their own independent thoughts and opinions that they have to rely on what they're being spoonfed by these rich upper-class goons?

No matter who's in power, their supporters blindly support whatever they say, while their opponents call every word out of their mouth "TYPICAL [PARTY AFFILIATION] TRASH! TRYING TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY!!"

It's uncommon for one party to remain in power over an area for more than their one appointed term - then the people are so fed up with their incompetence they vote for the other side and put their lives on hold to dedicate all their time to making sure the other side wins. Because, surely, they will do a better job! Then what happens at the next election? Oh, these people are so incompetent, they can't brush their own teeth properly, things were so much better when the OTHER party was in power. So they put their lives on hold to do the opposite thing this time.

Are people at large so desperate to find meaning in their lives that they'll just blindly follow anyone that promises them ice cream and circuses?

It's like saying, "I'm a Nintendo guy." or "Everything on the PS3 is crap." You latch on to something and assert that everything else is inferior because it doesn't happen to be the largely-random choice you yourself made.

If, overnight, having a mac amounted to something besides using a different operating system with a smaller selection of software, I'd use a mac, but it doesn't, so I don't bother. There's an actual, well-researched reason. It's not just blindly following, acting upon what can only be called faith. It's ironic, people reject the idea that there can be a god or superior power because there's no way to prove it, but at the same time will dance to "their party"'s tune based upon what they very well know to be empty promises and false optimism.

It's like the test with a mouse that gets electrocuted if it touches the cheese. People into politics just keep on going for the cheese - "surely this time will will be different!".

If I say "I think we should reduce military spending and use that money for things that will actively benefit citizens", what am I? A democrat would probably tell me I'm a republican, and a republican would probably tell me I'm a democrat. Or a hippy, or a pacfist, or a green, or some other meaningless grouping that should somehow explain, in a single word, why I don't think 50% of the richest country in the world's spending should going to its military.

If I say "I don't like abortion", I'm probably a conservative, right? Because conservatives are "PRO LIFE!" and against free choice and free will. But if I say "I think we should institute basic public health care" I've probably just transformed into a republican. Or something.

Stop inventing words and mantras to explain people's viewpoints. It's social engineering - you can much more easily say "I'm against abortion" than "I'm against choice!", and similarly you can more easily say "I"m pro-choice!" than "I think babies are magical creatures (similar to leprechauns) that cannot feel or think until they breathe air!"

What a farce.

the senate or whatever it is called in your countries,is mostly a bunch of people who have no idea what they are voting for or against since they are not professionals in 99% of the subjects discussed or laws passed.
There is no professional structure or organization and actions are not analyzed to see how each action effects the whole.
ATM what one gets in a democratic country are corrections of past mistakes...
The country is in a crisis in one or more fields and it trys to act to correct these mistakes.
also there is a push and pull war where each one does all he can to make his own life easy in any way possible and that war is represented by the government and senate.

Most people want their government to do something to improve their lives but not only is that a secondary objective of the elected personal(in some cases they are driven by completely egoistic objectives) but even if the elected representatives wanted to make things truly better they would be incapable of calibrating the system correctly since they are at their post cause they are good at politics,not because they are the leading experts in the field they now need to make decisions about.

It's largely understood that conservatives don't have a 100 percent opinion on abortion, except partial birth abortion (Partial is the only one that I care about... that shit is fucked up). But still, it's politics, not a lifestyle!

We already have Richard Simmons for that don't we?

Already only 4 replies in, this thread is almost on the verge of a bash the US tirade. You guys are truly incredible.

Might as well lock it mods. I was talking about TK's passing, not... well not what is on the verge of being discussed here.

Forboding Angel wrote: Already only 4 replies in, this thread is almost on the verge of a bash the US tirade. You guys are truly incredible.

What?
I didn't know this was a "US rox" thread...
TBH i don't know much about the Kennedy family(aside from the pop knowledge) and I am in general very suspicious about any politician even if he is hailed as the second coming of jesus.
In Israel political affiliation is pretty easy to understand since there is one center thing around which politics centers and that is obviously the conflict/s with our neighbors(in Israle its right wing vs left wing) but I could never truly understand the conservative vs liberal structure...
Conservative about what?foreign affairs?economy?internal social issues?
And what am I conserving?Is it tied to religious believes in the US?What is the status quo conservatives want to maintain and liberals are trying to break?

Gota wrote:even if the elected representatives wanted to make things truly better they would be incapable of calibrating the system correctly since they are at their post cause they are good at politics,not because they are the leading experts in the field they now need to make decisions about.

Correction: they are at their post because they were rich enough to buy popular support for themselves. By nature they do not know how to sympathize with the other 99% of the population since they've never had to:
-actually work a day in their lives (work environment)
-worry about whether or not they could afford decent medical care (healthcare)
-worry about unemployment (job availability)
-drive themselves anywhere (transportation)
-risk not graduating if they didn't try, since daddy can just buy the diploma for them (education)
etc...

Far as they're concerned, if quality of life is too good, and if unemployment is too low, nobody's going to join the army.

Personally, while I rarely found myself in agreement with Teddy's policy proposals, I will miss him.

He was, if nothing else, a very consistent guy, which is saying a lot for a politician of many decades. Kinda the liberal version of Jesse Helms.

I dunno why so many people are happy to see him shuffle off, though. Seems like an overdose of schadenfreude, imo. Won't change anything politically.

I could never truly understand the conservative vs liberal structure...

Good question. It's a little hard to summarize, but basically, our two party system produces two "parties" that are actually vast, shifting coalitions of voters, but with a system of representative government where few seats in the House and Senate change party affiliation per voting cycle. This often makes our system look like nothing changes, but it's largely a sign of how both political parties are flexible enough to have members both from the fringe and the centers of their overall points of view.

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are both fairly loose terms, basically.

Unfortunately, those are the best terms we've come up with, to describe a political system where most voters aren't registered to either of the parties.

The second thing to keep in mind, if you're from most of Europe, is that America is not a very secular place, despite appearing that way on TV. The majority of people in this country attend some church regularly. This does not necessarily tell you much about their political views, although the kind of church they attend is usually a sign. We rarely elect non-Christians to high office. Not that that's impossible, or never happens, but it's mainly the case.

On issues here... well, we have somewhere around 300 million people. It's a really big country, with huge divisions between city and country, North and South, East, Mid-West and West. We have a political system that reflects these differences, and many others, and if it sometimes seems utterly bizarre how we make decisions, it's OK, because it is.

There are many "liberals" who take "conservative" stances on social issues, such as benefits for gay partners, abortion, and our other biggest social issues of the moment.

And there are a lot of "conservatives" who don't like efforts to legislate Christian morality, especially on issues like education and public funding of religious activity.


That said, when it comes down to voting, most people here, depending on what's at stake politically, will vote for the politician that aligns most closely with their core values, not necessarily on the politician with the best policy proposals.

But, due to many factors, incumbents are highly favored to win re-election, especially for House and Senate seats, where they're often there for 20 years or more. This creates an appearance of monolithic solidarity on party lines, but it's mainly an illusion- the parties pick issues that will split certain segments of the electorate, often very carefully, and most incumbent politicians will change their view on an issue, if it's necessary and doesn't compromise their key positions on issues voters in their area really care about.

That's very much consistent with the understanding I already had but thank you for taking the time to explain it. Perhaps others will be more benefited.

One of my main beefs with the american system is the fact that there are only two parties. How can just two parties possibly represent the broad range of varying popular opinions on a given subject? You made the point yourself that there are liberal conservatives and conservative liberals, and there are most certainly more possible viewpoints on a given issue than yes and no.

In Canada there are 5 parties of significance. Conservative, liberal, democrats, green, and bloc. The bloc are a bunch of tards who only the french vote for, and only a small portion of them at that, since their stated goal is to break up the country.

Still, it actually allows for some amount of flexibility on an issue, since it's uncommon for one party to get 50% or more of the vote. The parties have to cooperate with each other (to some degree). At the same time, they have to actually try to appeal to the voters since it's not just "me or that other guy." That said, they still tend to act like a bunch of raging incompetents when it matters most, but I can have a little more confidence in a system that allows more than just a binary choice on a given matter.

To give a sense of scale, these are some of the federal parties that have been active at one time or another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe ... _in_Canada

One of my main beefs with the american system is the fact that there are only two parties. How can just two parties possibly represent the broad range of varying popular opinions on a given subject?

Really, it's not that strange. Politicians here tend to be a lot less single-issue than in parliamentary systems.

And they tend to follow what people say they want, rather than whatever the party hacks said was the official platform... on any issues where it's not either critical to them as people, or won't guarantee that they lose the next election. This is often called "waffling", etc. by the other side, of course, and it often is... but that's how it works, and in the end, it's the policies that result that count. It's a strange way to do business, but it usually works.

That said, we have a system where giant changes are fairly infrequent, largely because of the inherent balance between the two parties, and the fact that incumbents are rarely unseated, once they take office, especially in the Senate. This last two years has seen larger real changes in policy than any time since 1989, frankly, and we're in a very volatile period atm. I can see why that makes anybody trying to follow our news rather confused, frankly.

Here's the agenda of our, very real, Rhinoceros Party:

* Repealing the law of gravity[11][12]
* Providing higher education by building taller schools[9]
* Instituting English, French and illiteracy as Canada's three official languages[9]
* Tearing down the Rocky Mountains so that Albertans could see the Pacific sunset[12]
* Making Montreal the Venice of North America by damming the St. Lawrence River[13]
* Abolishing the environment because it's too hard to keep clean and it takes up so much space[9]
* Annexing the United States, which would take its place as the third territory, after the Yukon and the Northwest Territories (Nunavut did not yet exist) in Canada's backyard, in order to eliminate foreign control of Canada's natural resources[14]
* Ending crime by abolishing all laws[15]
* To provide more parking in the Maritimes and to create the world's largest parking lot respectively, paving the Bay of Fundy and the province of Manitoba [9][12]
* Turning Montreal's Saint Catherine Street into the world's longest bowling alley[9]
* Amending Canada's Freedom of Information Act. "Nothing is free anymore; Canadians should have to pay for their information." [16]
* Making the Canadian climate more temperate by tapping into the natural resource of hot air in Ottawa. [17]
* Storing nuclear waste in the Senate. "After all, we've been storing political waste there for years." [18]
* Adopting the British system of driving on the left; this was to be gradually phased in over five years with large trucks and tractors first, then buses, eventually including small cars and bicycles last
* Selling the Canadian Senate at an antique auction in California[12][14]
* Putting the national debt on Visa[19]
* Declaring war on Belgium because a Belgian cartoon character, Tintin, killed a rhinoceros in one of the cartoons[20]
* Offering to call off the proposed Belgium-Canada war if Belgium delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to Rhinoceros "Hindquarters" in Montreal (the Belgian Embassy in Ottawa did, in fact, do this)[20]
* Painting Canada's coastal sea limits in watercolour so that Canadian fish would know where they were at all times[13]
* Banning guns and butter, since both kill[13]
* Banning lousy Canadian winters[9]
* Renaming the country Nantucket[9]
* Building a bridge spanning the country, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland.[21]
* Making the Trans-Canada Highway one way only.[22]
* Changing Canada's currency to bubble gum, so it could be inflated or deflated at will.[23]
* Donate a free rhinoceros to every aspiring artist in Canada[14]
* Counting the Thousand Islands to see if the Americans have stolen any[24]

the party claimed the $1000 candidate registration fee was a financial hardship. Unregistered candidates included Geoff Berner, who received national wire service coverage for promising "cocaine and whores to potential investors." The party disbanded shortly thereafter.

Salmi later legally changed his name to Satan. In 2007, Salmi filed a lawsuit against the federal government of the election rules that led to the disbanding of the Rhinoceros party, demanding $50 million compensation. As Salmi's name is now legally "Satan", the lawsuit was filed under the name Satan versus Her Majesty The Queen.[30]

In 1980 they won 1% of the federal popular vote.

this thread is almost on the verge of a bash the US tirade

but everyone knows americans are overweight nazis

He will be missed, and i draw my hat before Forboding, who serves the old Tradition, that death overcomes any political dispute.


PS: Don┬┤t be to harsh on the bashfools, most of them are kids, some will remain that for the rest of there lifes.

Hate is bad.

HATE
Fueling civilization since day 1.