-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2” Review by Aiptcomics.com
- AFRO SAMURAI’S Takashi Okazaki Brings Manga Flair to STAR TREK: DEFIANT Comics
- Out Today: “Star Trek: Lower Decks (2024) #2”
- Out Today: “Star Trek #27”
- New Star Trek Book: “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock – The Making of the Classic Film”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to J.M. Dillard!
- “Star Trek: Picard: Firewall” Review by Theforgottenfiction.com
- RIP David A. McIntee
- John Jay Alumnus Derek Attico Discusses New Autobiography at Book Talk
- Preview of “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2”
- Movie Related Products
- ‘Subscribers Were Overwhelmed’: How Disney Made Streaming Profitable
- Silo ordered for full four season run
- “The Muppet Christmas Carol” Review
- Alex Garland at the BFI – The VFX in Civil War | Framestore
- STAR WARS FILIBUSTER: Patton Oswalt’s Rant Animated – Geek Week
- The WWE Network Is Officially Shutting Down Ahead Of Netflix Move
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Music Video DB
This website brought to you by The Tiki Web Group Unless specifically mentioned, we have no clue where this content came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments and content are the sole possesion of the commenters and members of the community and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS.
I agree with all of them. Does that mean I… What does that mean?
I don’t agree with putting Anonymous in the chaotic evil spot, they’re much more ‘chaotic good’ to ‘chaotic chaotic’
and who in their right fucking mind would put fucking Patton as chaotic?
Well, considering no two people can agree with what lawful and chaotic mean, it’s pretty much a crapshot.
I would. War defines chaos, and in a peaceful time, Patton was lost. He did what he thought needed to be done to complete the mission he was given, regardless of the law or rules.
I think Patton had his own code really. He shouldn’t be in the Chaotic side, but I didn’t make it. If I had, Hitler would be Chaotic evil.
Chaotic good and neutral evil
Lincoln should not be lawful. He violated more laws up to and including the Constitution which he was sworn to uphold, invoke God as his Judge. There is no doubt that he violated that oath. He could not be considered Lawful under any measure.
As to good, this to he can not be considered. HE is responsible for the deaths of more Americans then any other person in history. HE is responsible for dividing families, making kids fight their fathers, brother verses their brothers….if you consider what he did, and wrote it out as a plan instead of history, it sounds like the plot of an evil mastermind.
Considering all of this, he could be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.
While I agree with everything you said, it’s really difficult to think of major historical figures that really qualify as lawful good. Most of history’s “good guys” were law-breakers
Is it still an oath if you don’t believe in the Christian god?
Anyways, I can’t think of any USAdish branch of government that protects and upholds the entire constitution nowadays.
An oath is just an affirmation of something sacred to the oath taker, it doesn’t require any god, christian or not.
As for what “protects and upholds the entire constitution nowadays”, that is not a branch of government that has the responsible, but people. Actually, it’s all of us as individuals whose responsibility is to protect and uphold the constitution, because as soon as you let someone else have that responsibility than that is the day you have lost it.
It is not just the Christian God, but the God of the Jews and the Moslims. Although I if you were a Hindu you could swear an oath to one of the many gods you have to pick from. And of course you are right Korinthian, but that is a different issue.
Lincoln was responsible for deaths and families split? Wow, now that is revisionist bullshit.
Who seceded? Or is your point that he didn’t let them.
IMO, he should have let them secede. The US was founded on the principle that if the central government isn’t working out then secession is justified. OTOH, instead of violently seceding the Southern states could have worked to amend the Constitution to have an explicit exit clause, then exercised that clause. Neither side was faultless.
I do agree with your statement, but if it took a war to end the shame of the slavery (which was a compromise in the first place to secure a fledgling nation) then I agree with Lincoln’s actions, because in a imperfect real world, the ends always justifies the means.
The Matrix: Rebooted
The Confederacy did not succeed violently until after Federal troops refused to territory inside of an Independent County). If Japan told the U.S. to remove their bases, and the U.S. refused, Japan would be justified in the use of force.
In addition, there was no need to amend the Constitution is a clause in the with addresses this issue explicitly.
“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”
They seceded because their guy didn’t win the presidency! How lame is that? (So lame that the gov of Texas wanted to do the same when Obama won) The South were poor losers then and still are.
The point his he had no Constitutional authority to stop them, he violated the Constitution and acted against the law. He arrested sitting Senators and threaten Judges, disregarding the U.S. Supreme court.
Lincoln was the war that waged an illegal war. Lincoln was/is responsible.
Riiiiight. Why am I not surprised to hear neo confederate bullshit coming from you?
The South Shall Rise Again!
Shit Floats.
Appointed Representatives of The 13 colonies all signed the declaration of Independence, Constitution, and agreed to the Bill of Rights.
The fact of the matter is that the southern states didn’t secede over the central government not working. They left because they wanted to continue to own slaves.
They signed a document that specifically states “All Men Are Created Equal”. If they hadn’t signed, America would most likely still be an English territory. And England had abolished slavery before America did.
In secession documents, they specifically refer to the the abolish of slavery as a key reason for the secession.
That was the act that started the war. Lincoln ended it.
Depends on what states you are talking about. And regardless of if you agree with slavery (It was wrong IMHO), the Constitution does and did not give the Federal Government the power to interfere. The abolitionists could have ended it with a Constitutionally amendment, they did not, what they did was illegal.
The Northern and Western States of the Confederacy (Texas, Virgina – for example) succeeded because Lincoln Illegally raised a huge Federal army, and those States feared invasion and occupation. Maryland was occupied for the duration of the War.
Some state may have because of Federal intervention where is was not Constitutional. All powers not here within are reserved the States…..
I’d say Darwin was one of the good guys (at least we know whoever made this chart isn’t a creationist). I’ve heard some bad things about Che, btw, I’m not so sure he’s neutral either.
True, but being a scientist is about being neutral.
Mojo Jojo begs to differ.
Being neutral until you have evidence, maybe, but Darwin was stridently anti-slavery.
On the other hand, Ghandi was a pedophile.
Chaotic neutral forever.
how does setting niggers free to rampage across america count as lawful good