Tropico
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=186726
Printed Date: 26 August 2026 at 3:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tropico
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Tropico
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 12:31pm
|
Just got it online as another something to do game. Dissapointed there was no Obama characture in the list of despots and socialists. Could try his form of government and economy and see if it won the election or actually cahnged the economy. I do have to spend a lot of money for qualified foriegn doctors for my societies mediacal care, since the country after the revolution can not produce its own fast enough. And only the non subsidized non nationalized parts of my economy seem to thrive....interesting.
Fun little game, planning a government and economy in a hypothetical island nation during the cold war. SO far I make a great dictator, nice planned economy, people are happy and no need for a 'rigged' election. Even had a thriving tourist economy in my little socialist heaven. Having the US and Soviets 'fight' over supporting my little regimes is a fun riot in itself. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 12:35pm
|
Note: Tropico is not the real world. /PSA ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 12:35pm
|
....really...neither is the projected Obamaland -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 5:02pm
|
I spent a lot of time playing Tropico some years back, really fun game. Can't find my CD now, unfortunately.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 5:04pm
| lol @ republicans complaining about a rigged election |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 7:04pm
|
Kinda like Chicago politics ain't it. BTW research the numbers of 2000 and stop believing the conspiricy therory. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 8:00pm
Never! Bush knocked down the towers! The CIA is dropping crack in the ghettos! |
oldsoldier wrote:Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 9:21pm
|
I find the 2000 election a beautiful reminder of the absurdity of the electoral college system. Gore got half a *million* more popular votes from Americans, yet Bush got elected. I recognize that's the constitutionally mandated system, but, like Chewbacca on Endor, it just doesn't make any sense. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 11:03pm
|
Chewie was the Yao Ming of Endor. He dunked on the Storm Troopers and on the Ewoks. Eventually he was beaten by Buba Fett because no one beats the Fett. ------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 11:52pm
And I stand by this position no matter what. I actually got a D in a freshman english class because I made the prof look foolish in front of the entire class while debating the electoral college with her. /She made us watch that documentary on fox news and how they are evil //most liberal person I have ever met, it was awful. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 18 September 2010 at 11:57pm
I agree with your point, but I honestly dislike Gore bad enough that I still don't mind that outcome.
I've never seen where Bush stole the election, the system allowed for it, and he took it, just as Gore would have had he been able.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 12:40am
|
One of the glories of a representitive republic. Pure democracies and the tyranny of the majority would make the current mess even worse.
The founders understood the tyranny of the majority, and why the electoral college was put in place, every state has a equal say, not just the more populated states. The top 5 states NY,CA,MI,OH,FL could alone pick the president on thier popular vote count alone , overriding the remaining states. Both Bush and Gore knew the election Law, both played the 'game' Bush won, simple. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 5:30pm
You have that backwards. If it was purely based on popular votes, states wouldn't matter. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 6:48pm
|
The higher populations of NY,CA,MI,OH,FL would dominate the pure numbers game of elections today, and even back in the late and early 19th 20th century. The idea was that each 'state' (defined at the time as what we would call country today) within the union would have equal say in the selection of President.
A pure popular vote would make the midwest a pure non-political entity in today's politics. We were and to a point still are a Union of Free 'States', contrary to what the current Federal Government believes. Each 'state' needs to be represented equally for the system to work. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 9:41pm
|
It's silly to pretend the states are in any way represented equally in the selection of President, though. It seems the worst of both worlds; the small states are still significantly less represented, and atthr same time a majority of Americans can vote for a man, yet he's not elected.
Fears of 'tyranny ofthe mob' are ridiculous, as is any mention of 'direct democracy'. Direct democracy is legislation through referendum, and 'tyranny of the mob' is bunk in the face of a constitution that offers a strong protection of minority rights. I'm curious whethe the electoral college would be sonatrongly defended by Republicans had McCain gotten a half million more votes than Obama, yet still lost... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 9:52pm
|
Do you understand the concept of the 'tyranny of the majority; in the true political sense? Example is the recent congress lead by the 'majority' over riding the will of the people and passed the health care reform bill in the face of the high level in dissent of the bill in its current form.
Watch the farce of the lame duck congress after the election, as the Dems before they leave force through many agenda items in the face of the current new majority. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 9:54pm
AKA, the definition of the "tyranny of the majority," is: "Elected officials did something I disagree with!"
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 11:02pm
|
Whale you are a tool, did you take any political science? The term is a well known term, and describes many instances throughout our history when one party rule becomes a reality.
-------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 September 2010 at 11:09pm
Holy crap, OS just said tool. 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 September 2010 at 12:35am
PWNT 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 September 2010 at 11:36am
The term is well-known, but not for what you think it means. What exactly is tyrannic about the situation going on currently? Sure, you don't agree with governmental officials' decisions, but they were democratically elected into their positions. Also, I don't recall your cries of woe about a "Tyranny of the majority" when the Republicans controlled the executive and the legislative in the early 2000s. Why is this outrage just coming up now? And I was not aware that there were no Republicans elected to the U.S. Congress currently. Please explain exactly how we have an existing "One-party rule?" |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 20 September 2010 at 8:10pm
|
On the contrary, OS, 'Tyranny of the majority' typically describes a situation where a majority is empowered in such a way as to not only rule politically, but specifically to see, through whatever legitimate political means exist, that their will is imposed not only in the face of opposition by, but usually in detriment to and even at the expense of and in contravention of the rights or liberties of a minority. A majority of individuals voting to outlaw gay marriage on the 'ew, icky' basis is a perfect example. Much of the role of appeals courts under democratic legislative systems with an enshrined body of rights (eg., the Bill of Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) is to defend unpopular minority right against just such a 'tyranny' of a majority. And yes, I'm taking a minor in political science too- in fact one of my classes tomorrow is on the politics of our charter of rights, which greatly focuses on exactly this sort of phenomenon in the intersection of politics and rights discourse. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 20 September 2010 at 8:42pm
|
My favorite part of the gay rights debate is this (and I apologize for derailing what is probably a perfectly good thread): Somehow people thing that their legislation is what makes gay marriage OK or not OK. Now, I've cracked the cover of my Bible on a couple occasions, and it seems pretty clear on this one: God makes the rules. I'm pretty sure this is a case of Americans convincing themselves, erroneously, that they're in charge. Hint, you're not. But keep thinking that your oppression of a minority somehow makes you right. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 20 September 2010 at 8:50pm
Yes. This notion that Hitler could repent and go to heaven, while a gay person who loves their own gender, yet volunteers their time to help the homeless and lives an upstanding, law abiding life treating other people well would go to hell is absurd, and a great example of why I reject any and all religious dogma. Is there some sort of God or other deity figure up there? Sure, maybe, why not, and who knows? But if there's such an entity possessed of omnipotence, omniscience and unlimited grace, it certainly isn't such a creature as is described in the texts of Judaism, or its subsequent offshoots of Christianity or Islam. I prefer to think of such a hypothetical God as something that knocked over that first domino (or lit off the big bang) some six billion years ago, then sat back with a beer and on occasion looks closely at some part of the universe and says, "Oh, neat". I don't think any deity worth its salt would be in any way deterministic... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |