[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

People do use terms like "North America", "South America", "Central America", "Latin America" frequently; but I agree, the issue isn't about the likelihood of people confusing USoA for the Americas. It's the implication that the USoA is the only important country in the Americas; it's how it reflects and reinforces the history of USoAn de facto imperialism and domination in the Americas (which Teddy Roosevelt made explicit in his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).

Many people in the USoA are extremely ignorant about the rest of the world; this change reminds us that there are other important countries in the Americas, and that the USoA is not the only United States in the world.

Many people around the world are extremely ignorant about the different areas of America. I think that you are overlooking one important thing. USA is officially the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are the only country that has America in it's official name. Brazil is not Brazil of America. Mexico is not Mexico of America. So to refer to the USA using a portion of our official name such as either the states or America is not an implication that the USA is the only important county in the America's it is more of a justified reference to our actual name. Furthermore regardless of any other thoughts the USA of the most important country. We have the largest economy and with out doubt the largest military force. You can say that it is imperialism or what not but really it isn't. It is a justifiable reference to being the strongest power. It also brings to mind that we are the longest lasting democracy in the Americas. Now you personally may have a problem with that. Which my response is too fucking bad. We are USA, the States, and motherfucking America. It only references us and nobody else.

Today I am identifying as an motherfucking American!.

Suppose Germany had named itself "The United States of Europe". Suppose also that Germany, in addition to being the largest economy and having the most powerful military, had a history of being extremely ignorant of other countries in Europe, considering themselves the only important country, and of believing themselves the rightful de facto rulers of any other countries in Europe. If Germans insisted on using "European" as synonomous with "German"---as if it excluded all other countries in Europe, the way "American" is used to exclude Mexicans and Brazilians---wouldn't that be ridiculous and outrageous? And wouldn't changing that usage help draw attention to the problematic aspects of the popular ignorance, bigotry, and (active or passive) political support for an ongoing history of domination and exploitation?

Depending on which measures you look at, China has already surpassed the USoA as the world's largest economy by single nation. And the EU has the largest economy in the world, as a unified trading bloc.

Nuclear weapons long ago progressed to the point of mutually assured destruction, making the size of the military essentially irrelevant, unless you want to see who'd rule over the ensuing nuclear wastelands (there's a fun Malazan-esque novel there... the USoA as Kallor the Beautiful!).

People around the world watch USoAn TV and movies, read USoAn novels, listen to USoAn music; they have a much better grasp of the culture of different regions of USoA than most USoAns have of the world outside it. Most USoAns have never even been outside the country, can't speak any languages other than English, and by first world standards are exceptionally ignorant, even about their own (our) country's history.

And why do USoAns use "motherfucking" but never "fatherfucking"? Yes, you are a fatherfucking USoAn.

You live in a dream world if you think that TV and movies are an accurate representation of the varying cultures that make up a country of immigrants. You seem to have a very hostile attitude toward AMERICA. As much as I would continue to enjoy to argue with you. I see that you have very little if any understanding of America other then what you learned at which ever school you went to. Feel free to spout off about how much America is an imperialistic asshole who is completely uneducated and ignorant. Mean while we will continue to be the country that other countries strive to be and want to compete against. All things being equal I would rather be an American.

Sure we have issues but honestly we are bigger then almost every other country in the world with a more diverse population then any other country. You watch us on TV and see some excesses and see on the news that there are shootings in Chicago and riots in New Orleans and think that you know us. You don't know shit. If you want to fuck your father feel free. Personally I would rather fuck your mother. That is why it is mother fucker. But hey if the asshole is where you like it then go for your father.

I've lived in USoA for most of my life and traveled through it extensively and often, making a point of going to diverse areas and listening to people without judgment. Before deciding to live here as an adult, I traveled all across the country by train for a summer in order to reconcile myself to USoAn culture. But if it weren't for the best of the cities and universities, I could never live here (if I could expatriate again without any cost---and without traumatizing my cat---I probably would).

[worry]

While you guys were sitting here arguing I decided to actually crunch the numbers, do the dirty work, get down to business, roll up my sleeves, interpret the data, bull through the facts and figures, assess the details, and really dig in. And as it turns out, America rules.

[Nevyn]

worry, on 30 August 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

While you guys were sitting here arguing I decided to actually crunch the numbers, do the dirty work, get down to business, roll up my sleeves, interpret the data, bull through the facts and figures, assess the details, and really dig in. And as it turns out, America rules.

Think you forgot to carry the eight.

[worry]

Busy carrying the 195...other countries on the planet, on our shoulders.

[HoosierDaddy]

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 30 August 2016 - 09:51 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in USoA leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 30 August 2016 - 10:29 PM

[Vengeance]

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in USoA leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

We get it you dislike Americans. We are stupid brutish and not that bright. You have said your piece. Start an America sucks thread if you wish to say more.

- admin Venge

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in USoA leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

We get it you dislike Americans. We are stupid brutish and not that bright. You have said your piece. Start an America sucks thread if you wish to say more.

- admin Venge

I don't dislike USoAns; I like the universities and the cities. Many of the most intelligent and best educated people in the world are USoAns (or move to USoA because of the universities, the tech sector, the cultural output of the cities, etc. etc.).

[LinearPhilosopher]

amphibian, on 30 August 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Animals pee all over the limits of "their territory" to delineate it and reduce conflict. Insects buzz around specific regions bc that's where they'll find their food. Bacterium too.

Territory claiming is a basic part of life and carefully negotiating the claiming and crossings of territories has been built into the fabric of life on this planet since life it self began. The only artificiality is the degree of permanent claiming and transformation of the territories due to groups enduring far longer than an individual.

An interesting point you bring. While animals do have territories, they don't quite take it the lenght we do. Id argue the human concept of ownership, propriety, goes further, such as the fact one can "own" property without using it as well as treating it as a commodity that be bought sold and traded. Or that a piece of paper indicates that one "owns" the land.

A bear may mark its territory or a wolf pack but i don't think the human concept of owning applies to them. The land is something that is inhabited and used. Though this point does warrant further morrent.

amphibian, on 30 August 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

Most people from the countries on South America refer to themselves by their specific country's name. Brazilian, Ecuadorian etc. They don't say American. It's very, very rare someone will actually say "American" and not mean USA. It's the only country on either continent with America in it's name.

I think everyone beyond children that I've ever encountered says "North America" and "South America" when referring to the continents and "America" or "USA" when referring to the country.

I flat out don't understand why people would extend "America" without the modifiers of "North" or "South" to include anything other than the USA. It's downright dumb and I've never heard anyone do that until LinearPhilosopher and Azath Vitr above.

Huh? I don't think ive mentioned america at all in ANY of my posts, what is this? A bad attempt at misquoting me to get me lynched? Rather scummy behavior if i don't say so myself.

Vote Amphibian

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

Gee , you make one little joke about the ironic in modern context wording of historical documents, and people get all testy.

[HoosierDaddy]

It's not ironic. It's a pot shot.

You want to dismiss Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Equinas, Cicero, etc. etc. because they were bigots? Because you should. And they are the foundation of political theory, just as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Paine, and Machiavelli were more modern founders and they were all bigoted as shit as well.

Ok. Have fun with that.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 31 August 2016 - 12:54 AM

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 31 August 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:

It's not ironic. It's a pot shot.

You want to dismiss Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Equinas, Cicero, etc. etc. because they were bigots? Because you should. And they are the foundation of political theory, just as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Payne, and Machiavelli were more modern founders and they were all bigoted as shit as well.

Ok. Have fun with that.

I don't recall dismissing the founding fathers. You can point out their bigotry without dismissing them. In fact, I think you just did, with all of your other examples.

And I didn't say the comment was ironic. I said that viewing these documents in modern context makes it seem ironic in that you'd want to make a grand proclamation of freedom and equality, but only mention men. And then in your constitution specifically condone non freedom, and set out the ratio of inequality. I fully acknowledge that these documents were actually quite progressive for their age.


The comment was just a comment. A pot shot? sure. Making fun of the name, and the status of the US in the world were pot shots too.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 31 August 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:

It's not ironic. It's a pot shot.

You want to dismiss Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Equinas, Cicero, etc. etc. because they were bigots? Because you should. And they are the foundation of political theory, just as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Paine, and Machiavelli were more modern founders and they were all bigoted as shit as well.

Ok. Have fun with that.

With the exception of Ho Platon ("The Broad"), they're all only of historical and literary interest. Their bigotry was based partly in misinformation and misunderstanding that has since been corrected (probably a little overcorrected) for.


Historians and current day philosophers generally agree that Alexander was right to ignore his tutor Aristotle's council to treat the Asiatics that he conquered with bigotry, as if they were no more human than grass---instead, he intermarried, mixed the cultures, and wasn't the worst tyrant ever.

[Andorion]

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Lets break this down. Nation - states. Nation = imaginary. Its a product of thought and imagination. State = population, territory, government, sovereignty. Very much concrete.

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Andorion, on 28 August 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Not sure about the legal part, I think you can legislate a nation into existence, but as for the rest, sticking firmly with Anderson, eh?

write a fancy piece of paper, call it constitution. Get a bunch of other pieces of paper to recognise you as a state and voila you have a country. Nation states came about to help administer and organise large groups of people, so we expanded the previous meta narrative that involve principalities, religion, and cities and made an ever larger meta-narrative and to facilitate that administration you have tons of legalities and bureaucracies established.

cant say im familiar with anderson

Want to break down documentary legality? Sure. But don't stop at nation states. By that logic all state and authority systems are invalid, throughout history.

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Agreed. Current concepts of property stem from Lockean ideas of land ownership, usage and wasteland.

amphibian, on 30 August 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Animals pee all over the limits of "their territory" to delineate it and reduce conflict. Insects buzz around specific regions bc that's where they'll find their food. Bacterium too.

Territory claiming is a basic part of life and carefully negotiating the claiming and crossings of territories has been built into the fabric of life on this planet since life it self began. The only artificiality is the degree of permanent claiming and transformation of the territories due to groups enduring far longer than an individual.

Now this is not so simple. There is ownership, and then there is rights. Absolute property rights are a rather Western concept.

Take land ownership in Mughal India. The peasant did not own the land, but he had usage rights. That is he could grow crops in it, and he was entitled to his own share. The landlord had controlling rights, that is he administered it, took his share of the revenue and passed it on to the Emperor. The Emperor had revenue rights - that is, he got the share of the revenue dictated by Imperial law. But none of them truly owned the land. The concept of land as transferable and saleable property did not really exist.

[Andorion]

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

People do use terms like "North America", "South America", "Central America", "Latin America" frequently; but I agree, the issue isn't about the likelihood of people confusing USoA for the Americas. It's the implication that the USoA is the only important country in the Americas; it's how it reflects and reinforces the history of USoAn de facto imperialism and domination in the Americas (which Teddy Roosevelt made explicit in his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).

Many people in the USoA are extremely ignorant about the rest of the world; this change reminds us that there are other important countries in the Americas, and that the USoA is not the only United States in the world.

Many people around the world are extremely ignorant about the different areas of America. I think that you are overlooking one important thing. USA is officially the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are the only country that has America in it's official name. Brazil is not Brazil of America. Mexico is not Mexico of America. So to refer to the USA using a portion of our official name such as either the states or America is not an implication that the USA is the only important county in the America's it is more of a justified reference to our actual name. Furthermore regardless of any other thoughts the USA of the most important country. We have the largest economy and with out doubt the largest military force. You can say that it is imperialism or what not but really it isn't. It is a justifiable reference to being the strongest power. It also brings to mind that we are the longest lasting democracy in the Americas. Now you personally may have a problem with that. Which my response is too fucking bad. We are USA, the States, and motherfucking America. It only references us and nobody else.

Today I am identifying as an motherfucking American!.

Suppose Germany had named itself "The United States of Europe". Suppose also that Germany, in addition to being the largest economy and having the most powerful military, had a history of being extremely ignorant of other countries in Europe, considering themselves the only important country, and of believing themselves the rightful de facto rulers of any other countries in Europe. If Germans insisted on using "European" as synonomous with "German"---as if it excluded all other countries in Europe, the way "American" is used to exclude Mexicans and Brazilians---wouldn't that be ridiculous and outrageous? And wouldn't changing that usage help draw attention to the problematic aspects of the popular ignorance, bigotry, and (active or passive) political support for an ongoing history of domination and exploitation?

Depending on which measures you look at, China has already surpassed the USoA as the world's largest economy by single nation. And the EU has the largest economy in the world, as a unified trading bloc.

Nuclear weapons long ago progressed to the point of mutually assured destruction, making the size of the military essentially irrelevant, unless you want to see who'd rule over the ensuing nuclear wastelands (there's a fun Malazan-esque novel there... the USoA as Kallor the Beautiful!).

People around the world watch USoAn TV and movies, read USoAn novels, listen to USoAn music; they have a much better grasp of the culture of different regions of USoA than most USoAns have of the world outside it. Most USoAns have never even been outside the country, can't speak any languages other than English, and by first world standards are exceptionally ignorant, even about their own (our) country's history.

And why do USoAns use "motherfucking" but never "fatherfucking"? Yes, you are a fatherfucking USoAn.


(Incidentally, my USoAn ancestors fought in the USoAn Revolutionary War and the Civil War (on the Union side), and engineered weaponry for WWII (and marched in the Civil Rights movement)---against oppression, against tyranny, against empire. I am proud of those (and many other) aspects of my USoAn heritage.)

Thing is, Germany did in fact consider itself to be the supreme country of Europe. Their war aims in the first world war was to build a huge central european empire and add on the rest into a customs union. See Fritz Fischer, Bethman Hollwegg, the Kaiser and German war aims.

[Andorion]

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in USoA leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

eeh This is debatable. The British were solid political thinkers, but pure republican thought... not so much. At the end of the 18th C, constitutional monarchy was more or less a settled fact. And before you talk about the supremacy of parliamentary system I suggest you look at pocket boroughs, rotten boroughs and the problems of franchise. The British system only started becoming decently operational in the 20th Century.

As for the French, any critic can easily contruct a theory vs practice paradigm. If you look at the Revolution, the failure of every shade of political opinion was in building a stable French state. From the Jacobins to the Directory, there were lots of political ideas, but in execution? Nah not really.

The French work great as an inspiration but not as a working model.

Note this does not mean I am absolving USA of any blame. I am taking issue with your valourisation of other systems

[amphibian]

LinearPhilosopher, on 31 August 2016 - 12:23 AM, said:

Huh? I don't think ive mentioned america at all in ANY of my posts, what is this? A bad attempt at misquoting me to get me lynched? Rather scummy behavior if i don't say so myself.

Vote Amphibian

Yes, you are right. It was just Azath Vitr.

[Gothos]

Itwæs Nom, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

Gothos, on 30 August 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

Hey where's Central Europe?

I went for which army after 2nd WW freed the country as divider between west/east

If "freed" is the word you use for what the Soviets did I think you have gaping holes in your education.

[Malaclypse]

Rules-lawyering is so tedious.