Titus Ultor
-
Posts
893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Titus Ultor
-
-
The majority can be always right. The majority just has to know what the good (right) in each situation is. The majority has to understand that the minorities are equal to them in everything but numbers.
-
The system we have (Califonia) does give a bit more power into the hands of the people. It also allows us to introduce spendings when we have no idea of the workability (We just passed a proposition for state-sponsored stem-cell research) with regard to the budget. But, we are a liberal state. Which doesn't even matter. There is no party that stands against a deficit (except maybe the libetarians...but as a libertarain friend on mine once told me, "The Libertarian party is 90% nutjobs, and 10% conservatives).
Aristotle said that democracy was a corrupted form of government, and that rule should be done in a "polity". A polity is a rule by the middle class, looking out for the interests of the lower classes, because the higher classes are always more comfortable.
A direct democracy is something I've always thought would be a wise choice. Given that the citizens voting were wise, something that is not the case in modern-day America. Until the educational system can spit out graduates who understand politics, society and the basic tenets of ethics, not everyone should be allowed direct participation.
-
Probably. He also has connections to the Russian Mafia.
Isn't democracy grand?
-
Putin also takes bribes, and there is a strong suspicion by many that he is rigging the election.
But what sort of a nuclear missile would he make? One that does a loop before it explodes and kills everyone?
-
Aristotle's cool, because when you read his works, you realize how much of this thoughts still exist today.
I'm not sure about those other guys. I think we're just jumping from Aristotle to Epicurius.
-
Carter didn't really do anything wrong, except help get Reagan elected. He shouldn't really be in the running for the worst President.
-
It's based on an actually very liberal (especially for the times) interpretation, as sort of a rebound from the Salem witch trials (history moved slower then, they still hadn't gotten over those). Thomas Jefferson (i.e., check Mythos' sig) was certainly against the molotov tail that is the mixture of church and state.
-
Yeah. I'm taking a "Classical Mind" course (history of philosophy), as well as an European History course. I, too, am Plato'd out. Though we're spending two whole months on Aristotle.
-
Also, the Bible says that rulers rule as an extension of God's will, and that a Christian should submit to their government, whether or not they agree with it. I'd look up the chapter and verse, but I'm pretty sure it's in I Timothy. Have fun with that. Which, by literal standards, makes the American Founding Fathers not only anti-slavery slave-owners, but sinning rebels.
-
I'd have to go with Calvin Coolidge. He was the last President to have an aggregate loss of jobs over a term. Well, at least until this President. But Coolidge allowed the country, and most of the world, to continue on it's path to repression. Then again, his failures led to the socialization (FDR. Hoo-rah) of America. And certainly helped cause WWII (great for the economy). So...maybe.
-
He didn't have much luck, really. He was elected simply because he wasn't a Republican. And he screwed that up. He sucked so bad, people forgot that Republicans were generally lying cheaters (Slightly facetious. Slightly.). Not all of it was his fault. A lot of bad crap was happening to him internationally which former Presidents had already begun.
-
Because it's ironic?
-
Speaking of the Punic Wars...I was going to apply for the Historian position thing. But then I realized that I'd have to be a historian. Which I'm perfectly capable of (and have, actually) done. However, I then realized that I was already taking two college history courses. And, furthermore, realized that five hundred words is a lot more than it sounds like.
Anyway, I'm glad that idea is already being implemented. It makes the idea of tributing units sound more useful. I'm not sure whether people would go through the trouble of doing it, though.
-
Lol. Here's something I'm just realizing would be poignant for this topic.
The entire 0 A.D. project. Is there money in it? No.
Also, I don't claim that communism is a viable choice today. It's somewhere between socialism and capitalism that the perfect modern society can be found.
-
L'America, by the Doors.
-
But it'd really have to be time-effective to make an elite group of army. Warcraft III is a good example of experienced units (Heroes, in this case) who can turn the tide of battle in one's favour.
-
Fox News gave Bush Ohio instantly. As did CNBC. CNBC actually had a worse deck of cards for Kerry than Fox. Fox has 242 - 264, while CNBC had 214 - 264.
-
You're correct. A great deal of the world's though on communism has been shaped by the propaganda machine that is the public school system (don't argue with that: why else do we say the Pledge of Allegiance and fly a flag in every room?). A hundred and twenty-five years ago, however, before the industrialized world became the socialized world, communism was a beloved idea, and only things such as "armies" kept a revolution from occuring.
-
Won't the ability to have highly experienced units (three levels of citizen-soldiers, for instance) balance that out? So that both types of players (elite force v. raging horde) will be able to play their style?
-
1
-
-
In nearly every RTS game, the price of units is fixed at one give price (even after extensive upgrading). I think that a perhaps worthwhile feature would be to make certain units considerably cheaper for some (i.e. heavy infantry for Romans), while other ones used less by the actual historical civilization would cost a lot more (i.e. heavy calvary for Romans). This would help to elminate the "the only good civs are the ones with Paladins and Siege Onager" syndrome. Besides, how many Roman Republic legions had a large, armoured calvary force with which constituted a sizeable section of the army?
-
Look at the French and British nobility in the late Enlightment. They refered to democracy as "mob-ocracy" (at least the English ones). They believed in Divine Right and all that.
-
At least the man's living the good life? Either way, I believe the role of women in 0 A.D. will be/is minimized by today's standards, because historical accuracy is important to the members of this project (Apparently. If I actually had some useful skills, I'd try to join. Otherwise, I can only go by the statements of those within.) Besides. Making female warriors would require a lot more work, I'm hypothesizing, and that would only slow progress down. There's no need to slow down the project for something that isn't at all historically accurate.
-
Well, Fox says the same thing, and they're supposedly unbiased.
I can't believe no one touched on the fact that Fox News is a right-leaning station. CNN is the classic standard for unbiased newscasting. Left-leaning is Air America. But I suppose that is relative, but Fox News is only unbiased to those on the right, if that tells you anything.
Anyway, I think we John Ashcroft was refered to as a "Neo-Nazi", an incorrect term was used. Ashcroft is what is commonly called a "Neo-conservative". New American Century
This group holds that American should lead with force, and that American should not listen to multinational groups such as NATO and the U.N.. But what may also be noted is Ashcroft's 0 for 5,000 terrorist conviction level. 5,000 were detained for months without access to a lawyer, or even a real charge. The right to habeas corpsus was present in the American colonies even before the American Revolution. Whether or not civil liberties must be cut back in times of war is questionable, though countries who haven't (Great Britain and France, for instance) have caught and convicted more terrorist cells locally than the United States has, even though they are much smaller in size and population.
-
The thing about capitalism is that the American belief system holds that a labourer under capitalism sees the total result of his work. Which is untrue. An owner, CEO, or someone otherwise uninvolved (stock holder) makes money from a proletarian's work, and the "profit margin" of a corporation is what is with-held from the consumer and the actual producer, the labourer. Soviet Authoritarianism (they were tyrannical, mind you) was a topic I meant to avoid here. The position of the Soviets is almost less defensible than the position of Nazi Germany.
My original intent was to dialecticize about the feasibility of Marxism. I'm hoping that we can hedge back inward towards that.
Rome at War
in General Discussion
Posted
The Greeks were kind of a "well, we have to do two civilzations for this tileset" thing, right?