Posts made by Wargaming_nut

Wow, Sherman, if that’s true, could I have a copy of A&A D-Day? ;) :D

It’s the second one, CC; I’m opposed to socialized medicine, etc., and so I’m opposed to Socialism, Communism, Nazism, etc.

And what do you think is wrong with sociallized medicine? Do you actually know anything about it?

I know that it involves taking one person’s money, and giving it to another person, to pay medical bills. This is wrong. If person A wants to give his money to person B, then that is his business. But the government cannot forcibly take person A’s money to give it to person B (and, while they’re at it, persons C, D, and E too). Remember this: the government cannot give anything to one person without taking it away from someone else.

I am a Rightist (Republican) because I am conservative. If I earn money, I want to keep as much as possible.

And if this is truely what being conservative is about then it means this sides actions are not based on what is morally right, but what is economical. However, it is often the conservatives who use the moral bully pulpit to attack their opponents on these grounds. One of the fundamental principles of gov’t especially in the States is that it is designed by the people to serve the common good. If you reduce it to merely dollars and cents then you can’t also ask it to be a moral authority on issues like abortion and what not.

Actually, the thing that most distinguishes a conservative from a “liberal,” is that conservatives believe that the government should have as little power as is necessary to protect the people. This does not mean huge welfare programs, massive social institutions, and ungodly high taxes. Also, as far as I’ve seen, it is the “liberals” that take the moral high ground, as in “you don’t want to pay higher taxes because you’re greedy,” or “well of course we need an enormous welfare state! You don’t want old people to die, do you?” Apparently, these people are incapable of seeing that the common folk are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, and do not need any help from papa government. And another thing: I don’t think the government should be a moral authority on abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. What makes the people we put up there any more capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong, than us? The decision on all those current controversial topics should be left to the state governments: as it was said in the tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” As far as I can tell, this means that government has only the powers which are given it in the constitution, and all other powers are given to the states. It wouldn’t hurt these “liberals” to read the constitution once in a while. Preferably without dark glasses on.

Oh, and as to the voting right; obviously there must be some limitations to it. You wouldn’t want 14 year-olds voting, would you? Of course not; you, like the majority of the people, agree that there must be some restrictions on who can vote. The only disagreement is on what those restrictions should be. Personally, I think that when the voting comes to taxes, only people who actually pay taxes should be able to vote, as they are the only ones who will be affected by the vote. On matters that concern everyone, everyone (above a certain age, I think 18 to be appropriate) should be able to vote.

Congrats, GG. I’m almost certain I’ll be getting A&A D-Day for my birthday (I’ll be 16). That one looks like the best yet! (I’m talking about the game. My birthday, too ;) ).

I’m very conservative, not to mention anti-Communist, anti-Socialist (practically the same thing, really), anti-“Liberal” and anti-nazi/fascist. Communist’s beliefs, such as socialized medicine, and forbidding people to keep their own money, are unacceptable to me, and since those beliefs are shared by “Liberals”, and Nazis too, I am opposed to them also. By the way, I put “Liberal” in quotes because the term Liberal suggests someone in favor of greater freedoms; this is exactly what a self proclaimed “Liberal” is opposed to.

I would recommend Battle Cry. Risk 2210 is ok, but not quite to my tastes (seems like a little too much luck, dice, etc), and Attack! is closer to a cross between Risk and A&A. Battle Cry can get a little old, and is only a two player game, but it’s easy to find more scenarios for it on the web.

Hitler simply suffered from an overdose of hubris. Had he listened to his generals, not attacked Stalingrad, and attacked Russia earlier in the year (rather than help Italy in Greece) I’m convinced he could have won. As for holding the territory, I doubt that would have been much problem; I seriously doubt the Russians would have been anxious to get the Bolshevics back in power. In other words, if the attack had been totally different, it would have been perfect! :P

Umm, I wasn’t the one who posted that info, and I know nothing about it. I was the one who expressed his disgust at the use of the term “Homophobic” to describe objectors to homosexuality.

Since pretty much everyone here has been in the “Atheism is not a religion” forum, I’m sure they can all guess my opinion on this subject, so I won’t bother to state it. I will say this: The increasing tendency of people who object to homosexuality on principle, or simply object to homosexual marriage, to be labeled “Homophobic” is one of the most disgusting trends in an age of disgusting trends. The ability to discuss a subject such as this, without resorting to un-backable, generalizing terms, is an ability I would love to see more of, whatever your opinions on marriage.