Regulation in the interests of personal freedoms is the only thing we need government and law enforcement, for imo.

[quote=iamrockzorz;17700997]He's religious and republican.[/quote]
I am an atheist, however just being religious doesn't make you "crazy". Lets face it, Americans practice a very liberal, loose, vanilla form of Christianity.


Favoring republics doesn't make you a loon either

But they believe in something that other people don't those ****ing maiacs.

Also, a republic is a great form of government, but a republic controlled by two extremely corrupt parties that people seem to think are the only reasonable choices is the most annoying thing to be a part of ever.

Exactly! Read On Liberty if you guys haven't. It's great. And idealistic as well.

Which brings us to the point of this entire discussion:
All forms of government that are good won't happen. I remember distinctly my middle school history/government teacher telling us that "American Democracy is far from being a good system of government, but it succeeds because there aren't any better options." While I disagree with him, as there exist other forms of government on a smaller scale (Sweden) that are better imo, and as much as I hate American Democracy, we were luckily founded on some ideals that are pretty amazing. Property rights and the freedom of speech, for example, have made it so American doesn't lose control and spiral into totalitarianism. Regardless, I'd much rather live in a libertarian state.

Philosopher kings tbh

[quote=iamrockzorz;17701004]Exactly! Read On Liberty if you guys haven't. It's great. And idealistic as well.

Which brings us to the point of this entire discussion:
All forms of government that are good won't happen. I remember distinctly my middle school history/government teacher telling us that "American Democracy is far from being a good system of government, but it succeeds because there aren't any better options." While I disagree with him, as there exist other forms of government on a smaller scale (Sweden) that are better imo, and as much as I hate American Democracy, we were luckily founded on some ideals that are pretty amazing. Property rights and the freedom of speech, for example, have made it so American doesn't lose control and spiral into totalitarianism. Regardless, I'd much rather live in a libertarian state.[/quote]
I'm for small government and SOME regulation, and having organic, culturally united societies mostly govern themselves within the nation, but that still answer to the government. However, I think the limited government needs to be strong.

I wouldn't call American "democracy" democracy at all, which is a good thing, cause there's way too many people in our nation for that to work.

FEDERALIST REPUBLIC

Philosopher kings are cool, but kings chosen by God are better.

[QUOTE=Mr. Ron;17700996]Can people outline, specifically, what makes Ron Paul crazy?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't really use the word "crazy" implying a mental problem, but I will say his views are off. He has held racist views, he is homophobic (not referring to that movie Bruno because I never saw it nor know about the incident), he favors outlawing abortion, he has supported the abolition of public schools, and he wants to take away the income tax.

[QUOTE=Mr. Ron;17700999]I am an atheist, however just being religious doesn't make you "crazy". Lets face it, Americans practice a very liberal, loose, vanilla form of Christianity.


Favoring republics doesn't make you a loon either[/QUOTE]

Sure, in the context of the original defining terms of what a "republican" is, your point is valid. But the republican party today in no way stands for what it used to. The Republican party is not only conservative as an economic system, but my main irk with that system of government is it's restrictive moral philosophies. It inhibits personal liberties like gay rights, and women's right to do what they will with their body.

And if america practices a very liberal, loose, vanilla form of Christianity, that doesn't change the fact that all forms of institutionalized religion are inhibiting to personal freedom and progress. I've gone back and forth with religion, but in the end it simply is an opiate for the masses. It doesn't do anything but lull people into a false sense of security. If people think that they should lead a certain, restrictive lifestyle, in hope for ultimately attaining the gift of everlasting life, they've wasted the only lifetime that they've been granted. (imo, as an atheist) Spirituality, on the other hand, ain't bad.

[QUOTE=flesh;17701009]He has held racist views,[/quote]
???

[quote]he favors outlawing abortion[/quote]
what's so wrong with not wanting people to kill their babies before they're born?

[quote]and he wants to take away the income tax.[/QUOTE]
what right does the government have to that money? just curious.

[QUOTE=witchxrapist;17701017]???


what's so wrong with not wanting people to kill their babies before they're born?


what right does the government have to that money? just curious.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with the latter, because that is in fact libertarian, but the other two are restrictive to people's personal liberties. If these choices don't have an impact on anyone but themselves, what is the point in being restrictive to them.

How does killing an unborn baby affect no-one but the mother?

That's killing another person who has the potential to contribute to society just because their mother is too selfish to raise a child.

It is often not as simple as that, and you're being just as closeminded as the pro-choicers by thinking as such. But circumstance exists where it would be better off to have that choice. If, due to economic restraint, that baby were to be born into a lower class lifestyle where it'll never attain much of anything, what is the point. And it isn't a baby until it's born regardless. Especially early on, it's simply a collection of cells. I'm not trying to propagate late term abortions, but if you can nip it in the bud no harm no foul.

It's not being closed-minded. I just do not stand at all for the murder of an unborn child.

As for the "what is the point" argument, with lower income families.

The point is that tons of great people have been raised impoverished, and even if the child doesn't succeed, they're at least given the right to live which nobody, not even their own mother has the right to take away.

And I agree with early term abortions, tbh.

Well, you can tell me that you don't stand at all for abortion, but murder is the wrong choice of word there. Murder exists as the killing of one human being by another human being. Abortion is the killing of what is to be a human being. That's why our birthdate isn't designated as the time our parents ****ed, but rather when you pop out of that slit between your mother's legs.

[QUOTE=witchxrapist;17701026]That's killing another person who has the potential to contribute to society just because their mother is too selfish to raise a child.[/QUOTE]
you are clearly too simple minded

I don't mean anything by this argument though. It's just a difference of opinion that can't be resolved and I respect yours just as much as I respect mine. But I can't adopt yours as I still believe in mine, so arguing something like this is futile. It's a matter of ethical philosophy that can't really be justified one way or the other in a way that proves the other side wrong. Every argument you or I make will be countered by something that the other believes. And some of your arguments simply won't stand for me as I don't see things in the same light.

[quote=iamrockzorz;17701010]Sure, in the context of the original defining terms of what a "republican" is, your point is valid. But the republican party today in no way stands for what it used to. The Republican party is not only conservative as an economic system, but my main irk with that system of government is it's restrictive moral philosophies. It inhibits personal liberties like gay rights, and women's right to do what they will with their body.

And if america practices a very liberal, loose, vanilla form of Christianity, that doesn't change the fact that all forms of institutionalized religion are inhibiting to personal freedom and progress. I've gone back and forth with religion, but in the end it simply is an opiate for the masses. It doesn't do anything but lull people into a false sense of security. If people think that they should lead a certain, restrictive lifestyle, in hope for ultimately attaining the gift of everlasting life, they've wasted the only lifetime that they've been granted. (imo, as an atheist) Spirituality, on the other hand, ain't bad.[/quote]
Yeah, most republicans are neo-cons now. The two parties aren't that much different, hence our problem.


Eh, I'm not sure how religion would impeded someone's personal freedom in first world countries in any serious way. I do think religion can blind people, but there is also no denying its positive effects that it had in the past. It helped a lot of civilizations stay together. This includes polytheistic religions as well. So, in my view, religion is not desirable (especially monotheism), but I don't think its 100% bad.



About abortion, I only think it should happen when a woman's life is in danger, or if the parents are mentally deficient or too irresponsible (read: deviant) to have one. Otherwise, if you are normal, it should live. There are consequences to actions. People need to learn that.

[QUOTE=flesh;17701054]you are clearly too simple minded[/QUOTE]

Yeah dude, that's a brilliant argument.

Valuing human life is simple minded.

Also, if you don't believe in socialism you're uneducated, remember?

And if you don't think hanging from trees on hooks makes you cool, you're ignorant.

how about that demented shaman

[QUOTE=Gnarmageddon;17701080]how about that demented shaman[/QUOTE]

He's sick. Wildsoul would be good with him but he jungles a lot.

[QUOTE=iamrockzorz;17701046]Well, you can tell me that you don't stand at all for abortion, but murder is the wrong choice of word there. Murder exists as the killing of one human being by another human being. Abortion is the killing of what is to be a human being. That's why our birthdate isn't designated as the time our parents ****ed, but rather when you pop out of that slit between your mother's legs.[/QUOTE]

How is a fetus not a human? Just curious.

[quote=igniteyouravail;17701082]he's sick. Wildsoul would be good with him but he jungles a lot.[/quote]

brb soloing kongor

[QUOTE=Gnarmageddon;17701085]brb soloing kongor[/QUOTE]

lol, wildsoul can. I think if DS got enough +STR items he would be able to solo him.

[QUOTE=IgniteYourAvail;17701086]lol, wildsoul can. I think if DS got enough +STR items he would be able to solo him.[/QUOTE]

i doubt, his heals and arcane hide are on like 10 second cds

[QUOTE=Gnarmageddon;17701089]i doubt, his heals and arcane hide are on like 10 second cds[/QUOTE]

Yeah, true. You're not doing enough damage to him you'd probably run out of mana pretty quick. If you dominated a few creeps with whispering helm first, your HW would do enough damage to him for sure.

can you kite him?

Kind of, he resets if you move him too far away but he doesn't get any health back. By the time you get him to a good amount of health, the other team will probably gank you.

ah, lame. i guess it would make sense to just have more people help you anyway, kiting him would be way too risky and time consuming

Yeah. The only people who can really solo kongor in a timely fashion are War Beast and Ophelia.

lol would be so funny if ophelia could just MC kongor