Jump to content
DerelictStudios Forums


Volcano Soldier
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hawk10314

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/17/1988

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    NJ USA

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • Interests
    Strategy games and Military

Recent Profile Visitors

10,054 profile views
  1. hawk10314

    Anyone Still Around?

    I now work at a rather large company doing cloud computing architecture. Chances are our logo is in your wallet. Oh, and who is still paying the bills around here?!
  2. hawk10314


    Yes, one nation but 50 states. Each with the capabilities to govern the people more accurately on a local level than at a national level. Framework opens the door to more than is needed. Once you put your foot in the door your more likely to pry yourself into where you want to go and where government wants to go is always bigger, more clumsy and less productive. I rather see the federal government be a master of a few precisely defined duties and for those duties to be carried out well rather than a jack of all trades with mediocre results. Why do you need the federal government to do all this? That's whats so unique of America, From Many One. Each state has the ability to do everything that health care proponents want. It's so much easier at a state level. Also what right do you have over the other states to dictate how they should govern their denizens. I'd say my philosophy is strictly constitutionalists. A Jeffersonian would argue that 50 states would be better than one, in fact Jefferson never agreed with the constitution thinking it was TOO controlling over the states. And when we were founded we were 13 separate nations. However the Article of Confederation were too far to national anarchy, thus they just notched us over to the left ever so slightly with defined duties for the federal government to carry out. Your not going to get the whole nation to agree with a national health care plan and nor should they. Think about it, what is the one thing that your going to get the vast majority of Americans agreeing on most of the time? Security, Trade and Diplomacy. Exactly what the Federal government is supposed to do. Where people disagree they tend to collect in the states that best fits their ideals. Bible belt etc. And by them governing themselves the way they see fit will be better for the nation as a whole. Once you try to cover everyone with one blanket in a one size fits all kind of way your asking for trouble. Also what if it fails? What if it doesn't work what do you do. Once it is in you can't just fix it. It's just as complicated to undo as is to put in place perhaps even more. However if given to the states to provide, IF the people of the states wanted it to begin with, if it fails you simply move and it doesn't drag down and entire nation with it. The bigger you are the harder you fall the smaller it is the easier it is to pick up when it does fall.
  3. hawk10314


    I am all for health care reform but this isn't the way to do it. The system of government in the US isn't designed to run health care, education, energy etc, it was designed for three things. Protection of rights, i.e. national defense, diplomacy, and regulation of trade between states and between nations. That's basically it, there are too many checks and balances in place for things to run smooth, there is too much bureaucracy for things to work at all. Things are under-estimated and over budget all the time. Just look at past government programs and there is your track record. I have no problem with Health care reform, however let me just go over some classical liberalism aka conservatism in a nutshell. I see a lot of talk in this topic about democracy in action, democracy this etc. The US is NOT a democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic. I have never voted on a piece of legislation in my entire life other than a few referendums at the state level. The US is 50 republican States, republican in this sense is the form of government not the party. Back in the old times when the word state was used it meant a country not a territory etc. That's exactly what the USA needs to be and it was intended to be. I have no problem with universal health care, I really don't. I just believe that this should be something taken up at the state and local level of government if it comes down to government health care or the option of government health care. Many hands make light work and the same holds true for this situation. Massachusetts, Hawaii, Oregon (I think) had either have a health care plan or had one at one time. It is just common sense to me that you have 50 states all with capabilities to more accurately cover the people in their regions. You deal with less people when it comes to change, It is easier to rally a state then an entire nation, create a plan, adjust the plan over time and remove the plan if it requires it. On a national level it's hard to get anyone to agree on anything, you basically have people in Massachusetts dictating what people in Texas should have and whats good for them and vice versa, same applies to any other state in relation to any other state. It just doesn't make sense to bloat down an already inflated government and bureaucracy with even more when they can hardly manage what they have. I think people need to start local and move to a state level at most when it comes to domestic programs like this. The federal government should provide defense, diplomacy and regulate trade among the states as stated in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. In the 10th amendment it states that anything NOT listed in this document is reserved to the states and to the people respectably. If crap hits the fan it's very hard for someone to leave a country but if your unhappy with the way things are going in your state it might be a bump in your life but its not impossible. People place a huge amount of faith in the federal government, if people put half as much as their energy of imposing reform on an entire nation as they did to get to know the state they live in and how it's run and put that energy into reforms at the state level you would see a lot more progress in my opinion. Not to mention that besides a national guard a state is privileged not to have to deal with diplomacy, and foreign policy. And for Brad, the reason why democrats get so fractured and unable to work when your dealing with far left policies like this is because they are not all democrats. Many are progressives which are far left and the other democrats are TRUE democrats who legislate from the center. I recommend reading a few books like American Progressivism, Liberal Fascism and the Federalist Papers James Madison and the creation of the American Republic etc. I learned tons from reading a few books than I did from any history course that I have taken. The first two go into detail of the progressive movement and their true ideology then and now. The later ones are a few of how America was intended to operate, function, and the reasoning behind multiple republics forming a large republic aka federalism etc. Korona, I think doing some research on the structure of American government, how its organized, the checks and balances incorporated and most importantly WHY they were incorporated into the government would do good to put your mind at ease in understanding this stuff. For instance, if they were to re-organize the bill as a budget bill (I believe not 100% sure) all they would need is 51 votes not 60. Some things need a simple majority such as budget bills, filibusters need 3/5, veto over-rides need 2/3, amendments need 3/4.
  4. hawk10314


    What your seeing now is the arrogance that is displayed by majority parties. The same thing happens with Republicans just like it happens with the Democrats now. At the start of this health care debate the Democrats had their 60 super majority. So in essence, they declared the republicans irrelevant to the process, knowing that they could pass what they wanted when they wanted and how they wanted without a single member of the other party even showing up to congress. What happened in the Senate was this: A senator from Massachusetts, which is practically the throne of the Democratic party, who was the brother of JFK, Ted Kennedy. He held this seat for 40+ years and was a democrat. I mean, the seat was democrat even during Reagen, so for the democrats to think it would turn republican would be impossible. However, thinking that the special election would be a cake walk for them, they still thought they would hold the 60 votes needed to declare the republicans irrelevant. But when it all came down to it, a Republican did get elected and threw a gear into the machine. In a nutshell, their arrogance came to bite them in the ass. If you were to break down the bill into smaller ones it is more likely that Republicans agree with some things in the bill, combining it into one super bill that is overwhelmingly democrat proposed, ran, and finalized as a Republican you have no idea what is in it, how it's going to unfold and if you only agree with 4/10 things in the bill your one vote is going to be a one no when it could have been 4 yes and 6 no. If it was smaller they could pass the things the agree on and you would see more bipartisanship. However because Democrats thought they would have the 60 they tried to combine all their ideas and proposals into one giant bill for the sake of ease for them. Also Congress is always rated low as a whole, but ask any American how their reps and senators are doing and you will get "They are great." Then ask them what their names are and you won't get an answer. lol
  5. hawk10314


    The whole idea of the US government is that there are many checks and balances. The filibuster is just another one of those check-points. The founders understood that government shouldn't change lightly or flow with what was popular at a time, and that the minority would be protected against the majority. They understood that you can't just have have a simple majority because that means that 51% would always trump the other 49% but yet they knew that you can't just have a unanimous consent on everything otherwise NOTHING would get done. The fillibuster is, in a nutshell, a tool used by the minority of a debate to protect itself from the majority. However, in times of actual crisis, such as 9-11 it is usualy unanimous consent for dealing with security and things of that nature. The reason why there is no coopoeration between the parties is simple. Being that they do have complete opostie philosophies, Republicans might agree with 4/10 things of the health care bill but because those things aren't seperated into seperate bills and the Democrats thought that they would hold the 60 seats to over-ride a fillibuster it bit them in the ass when the republicans got 41 votes. If they make seperate bills there are things that both parties would most likely agree on not the whole of the Republican party but some center memebers willing to vote on the issue to get it passed. In the end the arrogance of the democrats lead to their undoing. EDIT: One more thing, they can debate forever, it is not performed by one person. The party as a whole or whoever the 41 members are who want to fillibuster rotate. And senators don't have to be present for this. For instance, you can just have one guy talking to the clerk for an hour, another member comes and and all he has to do is say "I yeild the floor to the senator of NJ" at which point he picks up. As long as you don't yield to the opposing side it goes on. And unlike the house wich is much larger and speaking rules and times are agreed upon before debates the Senate doesn't need to abide by any set of debating rules, they have the abilitiy to debate and diliberate a bill until they get it right or it dies. Also, at any time you can request to over-ride it but it can only happen once per debate and you need the 60 to do it.
  6. hawk10314

    Soon Is Now!

    I made some of the maps, ;) Small Town Fatherland, Calm before the Storm, I think the shell map also, and some others, I don't even know if my maps are still in the game, it was fun creating them and playing them.
  7. hawk10314

    I Am The Stig!

    I love Top Gear. Unfortunately living in the USA I get my fix from iTunes. I thought if the Stig is reveled in anyway they must kill him off like the black Stig and a new Stig needs to take his place.
  8. hawk10314

    To Our British And Russian Friends

    Its like he didn't even know he was coming to visit and at the last minute he said "quick, here take this basket and go into the living room and pick out 25 DVDs" "Oh, and for the boys, go down the the gift shop and get those toy things" :lol:
  9. hawk10314

    To Our British And Russian Friends

    If you are reading the news lately, Gordon Brown visited Washington and exchanged gifts, Britain gave us a pen carved from the anti-slave ship, HMS Gannet. And a first edition bio of Winston Churchill. In exchange, Obama matched it with 25 DVDs. (He can't even play them because they are in the wrong format) Oh and for the kids, they ran to the white house gift shop and gave them two Marine One Helicopter model toys. And to top it off, We gave you back the bust of Winston Churchill that was given to us shortly after 9-11 as a symbol of unity. For the Russians, we gave you a Staples Easy button with the words "Over Charged" written in Russian. Seriously, I am sorry. Britain, you should have been given a much more symbolic gift then DVDs and toy helicopters. It is embarrassing to say the least. As for you Russia, we should have at least spelled "Reset" correctly on your Staples easy button.
  10. hawk10314

    Red Alert 3

    I do agree that the music in game is crap I rather listen to RA2 music. I feel like I am falling asleep in game. Just let us pick what songs we want to listen to
  11. hawk10314

    Red Alert 3

    You were ok with armored bears being fired from a cannon but the whole pearl harbor thing just crossed the line didn't it :lol:
  12. hawk10314

    Early Polls

    I will be voting for McCain, not because I am a Republican (which I am not) but because I Can't sit idle while another S is added to USA.
  13. hawk10314

    American Presidential Elections

    That is the most insane idea I ever heard, do you know what happens when a government has no balance? When they can pass what ever laws they want with no opposition, I am not saying I love the republicans but Ill gladly take George Bush 3 over Karl Marx 2. Its not about the damn democrats or the republicans its about the people that they serve, WE the people don't deserve to be oppressed by a government with no limits. Don't you have any ability to better yourself and not have the government do it for you? Why do you guys think that the government should care for you other then your protection and build your roads. Its the local government and state governments that are the ones people need to pay attention to, not the federal government.
  14. hawk10314

    American Presidential Elections

    I believe that was the case in 2001-2006? No, the magic 60 means that if a party has a 60 senate majority it is immune from a filibuster from the minority party. during 2001 - 2007 the parties we basically balanced pretty evenly + or - 5 on each party. A similar time that I see coming is the arise of a new Jimmy carter era times ten. During that time the democrats had a 61 majority in the 95th congress.
  15. hawk10314

    American Presidential Elections

    Cant get more clearer then this.. For those Americans who are here, and I do not care what the views are from our European friends, please listen to this clip and understand if Obama gets elected he will destroy the very essence of of what America is. He describes the constitution as a Charter of NEGATIVE Liberties, talks about how it blabs about how it doesn't bind us to the state and WANTS THE SUPREME COURT (NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE!), to redistribute the wealth. My God, is this really the man we are going to elect? Someone who has no respect for the founding fathers and what their sacrifices were? The sacrifices of generations past, and by getting elected his first official lie to the American people will be when he takes the oath of office to uphold the constitution to the best of his ability, so help him god. He wants to reverse it! I swear if he had his way the first line would be "We The Government" Now you don't have to hear me talk about him being a communist and a socialist he says it clear as day right there for you. This is scary shit.. If the democrats get their magic 60 in the senate and they have a majority in the house you can throw out the checks and balances, we will be at the will of the government. God help us...