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.
In the current budget debate you see two viewpoints-the House of Representatives realizes the Welfare State is bankrupt with $200 Trillion in deficits and unfunded liabilities. The Obama administration and the Senate think everything will be fine if they raise taxes and keep pumping devalued dollars into the economy.
The verdict from federal court. Monks can sell caskets in Louisiana without also providing embalming and other funeral home services that the autocratic state government required in order to grant a monopoly over casket sales.
the point of diplomacy is exactly what it says. DIPLOMACY. When we get rid of ingame messaging it does away with the crucial factor of diplomacy and results in no improvement of luck. It actually makes the game far more random and chancy than it should be. I believe that we need to get rid of this option to allow DIPLOMACY to take its course. Please add your comments about this.
I'm not sure if others in this game are experiencing the same oddity, but in http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=63232, which is a gunboat, it's telling me I have an unread global message and I can't figure out how to "read" it or otherwise fix the problem. Thanks.
Well I think there's a silent majority on this site that is liberal. A majority of the Internet community and younger generation is liberal. I don't know if that applies here since there's a lot of people older than 35 on the site.
I'm conservative when it comes to economic matters, but I'm extremely liberal socially. Also a pragmatist when it comes to environmental matters and feel that carbon taxation and government subsidized "green energy" do nothing to impact the consequences of climate change, anthropogenic or not. I also support GM crops and cloned meat, which I feel all liberals should especially given hunger problems and the high environmental toll "normal" crops and farms have.
thelevite: so what do you think can mitigate climate change? Geoengineering? In my opinion, it's too expensive and risky for governments or the private sector to even think about using. Or do you think there's no way to stop 2 to 3 degrees of warming? I agree about the GM food though. It's definitely the best way to increase crop yields, and crop breeders have been doing something similar for thousands of years. There is no reason to be scared of them.
So are we ready for a new party, with a platform of stricter rules about conflicts of interest, the revolving door between government and industry, coherent fiscal and spending policies, yet one that fully supports infrastructure, medicare, social security, college funding?
Genetically modified crops / seeds = high potential for ecological apocalypse. The seed corps are designing their seeds to grow plants that can NOT produce fertile seed. Why? Because they want the farmers to have to continue to buy the genetically modified seeds instead of setting aside a portion of their crop for seed. Why is this a potential ecological apocalypse? When all crops grown are incapable of natural reproduction... think about it.
As for world hunger, there is plenty of food production, the problem is distribution and the desire for someone to make a buck on it. "For-profit Charity" will not feed the world.
"Genetically modified crops / seeds = high potential for ecological apocalypse. The seed corps are designing their seeds to grow plants that can NOT produce fertile seed. Why? Because they want the farmers to have to continue to buy the genetically modified seeds instead of setting aside a portion of their crop for seed. Why is this a potential ecological apocalypse? When all crops grown are incapable of natural reproduction... think about it."
I LOLed. Good one. I laughed almost as much as I did when I read "conservative ideas will be deleted".
It depends on your definition of human, whether or not we develop medical nanotechnology that can defeat aging, whether or not we discover a way to download consciousness, oh an *whether or not there were other people intentionally breeding us*.
Actually, speaking as a former farmer, I know that some seed companies sell seed that reproduces all too well. You buy a contract with them for x years, and in those x years, you have license to keep growing their corn. And they come and make sure you're plowing it over at the end, et cetera.
The hook comes in that corn seed travels by birds and by wind. So they then check out your neighbors and start hitting them with patent infringement suits.
@mafia - yes -- mute people that you don't agree with. Very open-minded of you. that way you can sit in a circle-jerk with all your intellectual clones and pretend to be smart, instead of actually exposing yourself to different ideas. Bravo.
Besides....uh....when were these forums NOT dominated by liberalism? Because **two** whole people have different ideas, you think you need to "take them back"? thank for the clear demonstration of just how afraid you are of different ideas.
@krellin you conservative scum have no place to argue with us. You dont even think for yourselves! you simply repeat what the rich and powerful tell you too! you should start thinking and realise that all that money they have, should be rightfully yours!!! you work for it and they take it!!! they dont work any harder than you! yet you insist on helping them and screwing this country!!!
@1brucben -- thank you for once again demonstrating you narrow minded ignorance. I'm sure many dictators over the course of history would have loved to have had a good sheep like you in the flock. Keep NOT thinking for yourself. Keep your mind closed to other thoughts and philosophies. Bahhhhh!!!! Good sheep..... <pet, pet...>
<sigh....> Bahhhhh.....Bahhhhhhh. What a good little sheep you are. You claim I listen to whoever bribes me....and you claim that YOUR DESIRE is to never be confronted with a contradictory thought that might challenge you.
If any of your liberal friends have *any* integrity....they will quietly correct you on just how foolish you sound. If you actually the courage of your intellectual convictions, you would *welcome* dissenting arguments, not fear them as you do.
@1brucben: <sigh...> sad little sheep. Try this: SUPPORT your argument....just once. I claim you fear alternate points of view *specifically* because you want alternate viewpoints eliminated. I used the evidence of your own words against you. So...you want to make some shrill, asinine claim against me: SUPPORT IT with proof. Otherwise, you prove yourself to be just another shrill, leftist troglodyte... At least Putin and friends can support what they say. You? bahhhhh.....you just follow along and run away whenever your intellect is challenged.
I think of myself as center-right. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but like to back up my arguments. I just have to say though, that krellin sometimes makes logical arguments, Tettle almost never does, and 1brucben almost never does.
Now, 1brucben, can you post something that is level-headed and is not merely an emotional over-reactive response to some slight that you think someone made on your person? I would like to hear a logical argument (no caps please...very annoying) on why conservatism has taken over this forum while, as far as I've seen, we have one annoying person who even conservatives reject, and krellin
Can anyone defend Austria when being attacked by Italy, Russia and Turkey?
Can anyone defend the idea that a "power" can produce a better situation for Austria by diminishing the attackers' SC control in exchange for increased unexpected imposition of diplomatic pressure on the attackers?
Something that has always confused me is why people say taxing the wealthy is fair. How can one justify governments taking quadruple the money on those who earn twice as much as the middle class? How is it fair?