The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Register as a democrat and vote absentee...you will be fine.
Okay...just kidding.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Kansas vote so far is 430k - 273k, the amendment to withdraw constitutional protection is failing... next step is voting out the judges but given the numbers that could backfire as abortion becomes the focus. I cant see Gov Kelly losing in November (she plays golf at my home course, her and Sebellius).
I think that most people are happy with something between the Democrats old platform of 'safe, legal and rare' and 'illegal after some early time with exceptions' but what we have are the platforms of 'illegal in all circumstances, no exceptions' and 'safe and legal'.
JM
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
I think that most people are happy with something between the Democrats old platform of 'safe, legal and rare' and 'illegal after some early time with exceptions' but what we have are the platforms of 'illegal in all circumstances, no exceptions' and 'safe and legal'.
JM
I agree. However, democracy is a process. Have faith that people will get it right in the end. This is a process that should have started 50 years ago and been long settled but the very poor decision in Roe just delayed the inevitable. Now, people have to suffer while the will of the people makes its slow slog to a point all can live with. It is a true shame that it is having to happen in hyper partisan times where "winning" is more important than providing for the general welfare of the people.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
should all our rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights be up for a vote?
why was Roe a bad decision?
I think you are thinking that anything that limits government power is a good decision. Plato may or may not disagree on that basis.
iMHO, Roe was not however consistent with rule of law as a result of an identifiable democratic process. If we throw out rule of law with that character and allow the kind of constitutional theory that Roe rested on the we allow for the possibility of the supreme court creating other novel rights that not only may limit government but could be contrived to limited the freedoms of private citizens for which there would be no redress possible short of very specific constitutional amendments. those amendments could in turn could be summarily trumped by new Roe like pronouncements and expansions in future cases.
then we allow for the possibility of the supreme court creating other novel rights that not only may limit government but could be contrived to limited the freedoms of private citizens for which there would be no redress possible short of very specific constitutional amendments. those amendments could in turn could be summarily trumped by new Roe like pronouncements and expansions in future cases.
I am not sure I am parsing what you are saying correctly. You seem to be saying an unenumerated right should not be given status by SCOTUS because it may infringe on the rights of others?
The US Supreme Court also disallowed basic rights, and contrived to limit the freedoms of private citizens. Dred Scot. If the court had gone the other way, would that have been considered a 'novel' right that denied a slave owner his right to own a particular slave?
THe abuse can go both ways, and different people will have different opinions on whether it is a right decision depending on their own politics. So I don't understand your point as a justification of why the process is wrong to give an unenumeriated (or inexplicit) right a particular status (or expanded scope).
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
seems to me bodily autonomy would be at the top of the list of un-enumerated rights
If a right is un-enumerated then it is none of scotus' business. How can it be incumbent upon the federal government to constrain the various states against infringing un-enumerated rights?
If bodily autonomy is top of a list of un-enumerated rights then Roe v Wade doesn't happen. It's literally not a federal case. How can rights be both guaranteed by federal constitution but not enumerated by it?
I am not sure I am parsing what you are saying correctly. You seem to be saying an unenumerated right should not be given status by SCOTUS because it may infringe on the rights of others?
I think SCOTUS was never intended to unilaterally dictate these core values via the mechanics of precedent. I think there are any number of ways an unenumerated right can be described and setup through the mechanics of precedent as highest law of the land...many if not all of which will make a society less free.
Per dred Scott I do not think respecting Roe as precedent helped protect in any way from that sort of abomination.
The difference between me with Geronimo and PLATO is that I don't respect the Constitution at all. Just because it was the first "democratic" Constitution doesn't mean it has any worth. From the very beginning of its existence every single word that isn't 100% explicit has been up for arbitrary interpretation. So I look at reality. We know that the legislative branch is broken. We know that the amending the constitution is impossible. And we know that in reality the Supreme Court has lots of power. We know that the Supreme Court is 100% a political institution. We know that at least 5 out of 6 of the current "conservatives" on the Court are religious nuts(probably all 6). We know that religious nuts are against abortion. And so it's not hard to infer that they ruled the way they did with Dobbs has nothing to do with originalism(which was always just a legal ruse to rule in a conservative (and racist!) way) and was for purely political reasons. And the liberal judges do the same, though I think with a bit less mumbo-jumbo covering their tracks. And I'm okay with it because it gets **** done. It would be nice if the two posters trying to justify this decision from a Constitutional perspective would pull their heads out of their asses and see what's really going on.
If EPW is some kind of anarchist, then for EPW, respect for basic law is unnecessary. Otherwise some level of basic respect for basic law is necessary to even allow for meaningful democratic or representational forms of government.
The difference between me with Geronimo and PLATO is that I don't respect the Constitution at all. Just because it was the first "democratic" Constitution doesn't mean it has any worth. From the very beginning of its existence every single word that isn't 100% explicit has been up for arbitrary interpretation. So I look at reality. We know that the legislative branch is broken. We know that the amending the constitution is impossible. And we know that in reality the Supreme Court has lots of power. We know that the Supreme Court is 100% a political institution. We know that at least 5 out of 6 of the current "conservatives" on the Court are religious nuts(probably all 6). We know that religious nuts are against abortion. And so it's not hard to infer that they ruled the way they did with Dobbs has nothing to do with originalism(which was always just a legal ruse to rule in a conservative (and racist!) way) and was for purely political reasons. And the liberal judges do the same, though I think with a bit less mumbo-jumbo covering their tracks. And I'm okay with it because it gets **** done. It would be nice if the two posters trying to justify this decision from a Constitutional perspective would pull their heads out of their asses and see what's really going on.
The problem I have with SCOTUS is that SCOTUS gets **** done. I want it to be weak and ineffectual. I don't want it to get **** done. I don't trust the justices. I don't trust them to be apolitical timeless gurus of the rights of man handing down inviolable precedent as new foundational law of the land. I think they are fallible political creatures with various axes to grind who have been appointed by similar political officials.
I see this powerful court of political unelected monsters with enormous unfettered power making a decision that should weaken the court relative to the other branches and weaken the power of precedent in general and I express some satisfaction with the weakening. Are you sure your own cranial-rectal positioning isn't the one in need of adjustment EPW?
Tweet
Comment