A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
really annoying when your orders don't enter correctly... this game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=16220#gamePanel my orders were processed as if i hadn't updated them. more info in a pm if you need it.
I have less free time in my life now (which is a good thing: more money), so I'm going to stop playing Diplomacy online, at least for a while. But I had a great time here, and I'm grateful to all of you, especially my opponents in games, the fellows in the interesting discussion threads, and of course Kestas for making this all possible.
I've seen board where each member has a 'Exalt/Smite' button that raises and lowers their karma. A simpler, less intrusive way for people to tell the community how they feel about a certain member. May be easier that the full-blown reports.
Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig walk into Casino Royale...
Six Bonds enter. The martinis are being shaken (not stirred) as all six Bonds sit down to a nice game of poker, each checking their Q-approved watch before they start. Each Bond has all the gadgets HE ever used at HIS disposal (so no rocket packs for Dalton and no vanishing cars for Craig.) But there are 22 new Bond girls... what happens, and which 007 gets to heaven tonight? ;)
I'm up late writing stories for my creative writing class, here's one I particularly like, mostly because I'm intentionally doing things to create an effect, not that my teacher ever taught us any of these but still. Anyways I hope no one is offended by "Nigger, Negro, or Jap" I was trying to capture a little bit the time period. its not to fleshed out because its not supposed to be. Let me know what you think, and if you have any questions.
Technically 50 different countries... Or at least that was the original idea. Do you treat your state as a country? What do you think is good or bad about this system ( 50 differeent mini govermentd under one super goverment)?
50 states 1 country. the UK equals 4 countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) but is 1 state. Ireland is an island broken up into two countries, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Britian is an island broken up into three - Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
in most places the idea of a Nation-State and a Country are the thing - in some places it gets more complicated.
to be completely honest....given the size of the US states(especially Alaska, California, and Texas) i think it would suprise people that have not seen/cant comprehend a comparison of the states vs. european nations that the some of the states are not their own countries.
i think the only thing that really holds the states together outside of the government and peer-pressure/legality is the dependence on the other states. given the vast variations in climate and access to the oceans, a landlocked state like Kansas wouldnt be able to survive the massive taxes it would have to pay in order to ship its corn and other agricultural products.
i guarantee you that people in Europe do not think of themselves as anything like a country. In the U.S.A, people think of themselves as American, and if they go from Texas to Alabama, they aren't in what seems like a foreign country. I France, I realise I'm in a country full of foreigners. I must say one of the things I hate the most is Americans reffering to Europe as a country. I have my own country! I'm not part of sum shit, "European" super state. The U.k has a hell of a lot more in common woth the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world, for obvious reasons, than it does "Europe". Referring to Europe as being a nation is like calling the commonwealth a country.
"I completely agree with everything you stated other than the part about states being allowed to have official religions. That would give preference to that particular religion over the others, which is why there is a separation between any specific church and "state". "
The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the US Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state (similar, but not equivalent to province) level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion.
All current U.S. state constitutions include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment, but eight (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office. However, these clauses have been held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
In short, the states themselves have chosen to mirror the US Constitution, but the US Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of an official state religion as it would never have been ratified by a number of states at the time had it done so.
My question wasn't what State you are from, it was what country. (which is what this 50 states = 1 country thread was kinda about i think... i was just trying to highlight how things aren't simple 1 country does not alway mean 1 nation and 1 state...)
:Johnfoxarmy: things aren't that simple; your(US) factories could produce cheaper goods by employing low wage workers (this is what i meant by labour union) thus they would be able to export goods and improve the US import/export ratio - increasing the value of the dollar overseas (which is especially important when competing for production with China)
no tarrifs would mean cheaper US prodced goods available in Mexio which would improve their economies (and reduce your tax take) - but you may have this with NAFTA already. Money sent home by mexican workers would be spent on whatever goods are available on the North American market (which would include US produced goods) thus increasing demand. Meanwhile direct competition of Mexican and Canadian companies would force inefficient US companies out of bussiness.
End result a fitter US economy, trading better on the world scale...
Go Wales! (Sorry, but I had to acknowledge my Welsh heritage)
Anyway, like I said before, the federal government was never meant to have even close to this much power. I'll bet you any amount of money that all of the Founding Fathers are rolling around in their sacred graves.
TMW your evaluation of the role of the federal government by said founding fathers is that of a fifth grader at best. you are wrong. do you know what a federalist is? how about a tertium quid? hamilton had some big ideas about government helping with legislation to boost the economy towards manufacturing and industry when necessary, do some reading please. i bet you think these founding fathers were christians too who would abhor gay marriage... (though they were by and large deists who disliked superstition, as they were men of reason influenced more by the enlightenment than the great awakening). sorry if i sound like i'm trolling, bur when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for me to correct your most grievous errors of historical interpretation, a decent respect to the people of this forum requires that i should go off on a tangent.