Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 927 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
Obama/Department To Halt Deportation of "Dreamer" Illegal Immigrants
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/report-white-house-halt-deportation-young-illegal-immigrants-133800284.html

I applaud this...I think it's a great decision...Obama to give a speech on this shortly around 10:15 Pacific Time. Thoughts on the decision itself and the impact on the 2012 race>
Page 2 of 2
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Stressedlines (1559 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
# OF AMERICANS KILLED A YEAR BY ILLEGALS

oBI, JUST google that, and feel free to click on links everywhere. Numbers range from here to thre.

fact is, not a single American shoudl die so that some Illegal can be here.


HOwver, as Gunfighter said, i will keep it simple, ok?

Immigratino laws are there for a lot of reasons.

1) to protect US citizens from specific diseases, that once had been wiped out, now present again.
2) Why is Obama bypassing congress...again? These laws are in place for a reason
3) We have huge economic issues right now. High unemployment, why are we allowing ILLEGAL immigrants to have jobs, that Americans should have?
4) We all know this was nothing more than a political move, and nothing else.
5) mexicso own southern border is defended by machine guns, and illegals put in prison, and killed.
6) The absolute drain on the economy, and our resources.


legally, I am 100% correct,. You say we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. I see you want to cherry pick which laws we enforce, and which we do not.
Zmaj (215 D(B))
15 Jun 12 UTC
"Immigratino laws are there for a lot of reasons."

"1) to protect US citizens from specific diseases, that once had been wiped out, now present again." - You can get those diseases from tourists, too, as well as Americans working abroad.

"2) Why is Obama bypassing congress...again? These laws are in place for a reason" - If the law allows it, why not? Do you want to cherry pick which laws we enforce, and which we do not?

"3) We have huge economic issues right now. High unemployment, why are we allowing ILLEGAL immigrants to have jobs, that Americans should have?" - Because they're cheaper, dummy. Capitalism, remember?

"4) We all know this was nothing more than a political move, and nothing else." - The motivation for an action has nothing to do with the rightness of the action itself.

"5) mexicso own southern border is defended by machine guns, and illegals put in prison, and killed." - Invitation to barbarism. No comment.

"6) The absolute drain on the economy, and our resources." - Empty phrases.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
"# OF AMERICANS KILLED A YEAR BY ILLEGALS

oBI, JUST google that, and feel free to click on links everywhere. Numbers range from here to thre."

No.

I'm sorry--

YOU ARE THE ONE who said that Illegal Immigrants kill more Americans than Iraq/Afghanistan...

YOU ARE THE ONE who needs to produce the statistics, I'm not doing your digging around for you, especially when I think you're dead wrong and have no reason to think you are correct.



Post your stats and a link, or retract your statement...or I'm calling BS and poor form in throwing out an unsubstantiated statistic.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
"Obi, I understand defending a politician when he does the indefensible. Really. I've done it myself, and only admitted later that the acts were not really defensible. So I know what you're probably going through.

But please. Let's ignore the decision not to enforce immigration laws. OK. Maybe that's arguably OK, even if it's out there. Are you really OK with the executive unilaterally setting up a new program (work permits) that explicitly goes against the system set up by Congress, which explicitly has the power to define the laws about immigration?"

It's within the right of the President to issue an Executive Order.

The trouble is the SCOPE of those EO's are notoriously ill-defined in terms of what the boundaries are for such a thing.

But then, Obama didn't set up EO's, Bush didn't set them up...these go away back.

So, I can't blame Obama for acting within the rules of an EO/act with the DHS when others have done so before him.

It's a part of the Presidential utility belt--you can't blame him for wanting to use it, and can't call it illegal when EO's are within the scope of our legal system.



Am I "OK" with EO's in general?
Yes--but they should be SEVERELY restricted.
Am I OK with EO's as they are used now, on the whole?
In general--no.
That being said, knowing it is what it is for right now, am I OK with THIS EO/DHS-joint act?
Yes.

Congress has stalled on The Dream Act over and over (and one party in particular has stalled it for years) and in the meantime, there are hundreds of thousands of real lives at stake, people who have lived hear years who are trying to go to college and work and go into the military and be good Americans, but have to live in secret and in fear to a degree due to their being--as the President put it--"American citizens in all but one respect--on paper."

So, the way I see this:

1. A long overdue action, and I'm happy for those I know personally who will benefit and won't have to live in fear, and for the Latino community on the whole.

2. That being said, BOTH sides have said this is a short-term fix at best, and I agree that is just what it is, albeit a step in the right direction as well in my view.

3. "Short-term" is precisely along the original intent of EO's, by the way, instances that need short-term executive decision, and I think that this is an instance of the EO being used a way closer to its original intent than other instances of its use by Obama and Bush

4. As such, I feel that either this is a short-term fix before Obama wins in 2012 and we get a long-term fix in the second term, or else perhaps a Romney "solution"--and I use that term loosely, I'm not at all pro-Romney, and this would be one area I feel he fails particularly--when he takes office, and he can put his (large amount of) money where his mouth is and, now that he's sounded off about his sudden desire for a long-term solution, perhaps we'll get something.

5. For NOW, at least, feel that this is a reasonable course applied to a reasonable selection of the illegal immigrant population, deferring the threat of deportation for 2 years...and now HOPEFULLY they can use these 2 years to get their education and work and get closer to citizenship, and hopefully Congressmen now can step up and pass The Dream Act already without the pressure of having to worry about this crucial bloc of immigrants.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
"How are they not just? If you are in the country without authorization from the proper authorities, you go back. Period. No exceptions. How is a law like that unjust?"

There is justice of law, and justice of reason and logic.

In the first instance, you're correct, and those saying they should be deported are correct.

In the second instance, I think not--and I believe that in this instance, the latter trumps the former, hence the EO/joint act with the DHS today.

Now, a LOT of talking heads on the media outlets have used the phrase "Rule of Law" today, and chastised the President from the Right side of the aisle for allegedly not holding to that.

Well, an EO *is* part of the law of the land in the US, the President is allowed to do that.
And acting with the DHS is also part of the law of the land.
They might conflict with *other* (ie, Congressional) laws of the land...but that's then the fault of the system for having conflicting rules, and not the fault of those using the political opportunities they have to their advantage to try and remedy a situation.

Now--there are MILLIONS of illegal immigrants in the US.
It is against logic to think we can uproot them all and boot them out.
It is against logic to think we can do that morally or without backlash at home and abroad.
It is against reason to tear families apart based on illegal immigration.
It is against reason to remove people who have been here for years, who have grown up here, have broken no laws, have sought employment and to go to college and be a contributing member of society.

THAT is what I mean when I say it is unjust--in the abstract rather than the concrete.

The two need one another--
Abstract needs concrete in order to be enacted,
Concrete needs Abstract in order to be "truly just."

After all, Free Speech is legal because of a Concrete Reason (it's protected) and the Abstract idea of justice behind that (it's a right that all should have in order to be free.)

The immigration law today is correct in the Concrete, I'd argue, and NOT in the Abstract...and this is a position both parties share, as both agree the system is broken and needs fixing, so clearly the Abstract backing behind it is flawed at the moment, and so to follow it blindly without reassessing it is dangerous and, for those who would've been deported, tragic.

The've done nothing wrong, they came here younger than 16, those that are covered, so they came as MINORS, and thus, we may punish PARENTS, perhaps, but as the child has now built a life here and gone to college and built a US life and is American in all but the paperwork, I'd argue it's not just to deport such a child.

Hence the reasoning behind this EO/DHS act.

"It *would* be unjustified for the immigrants who went through the process of becoming a legal resident and eventually a citizen and have the same status as a common trespasser, all based on an unconstitutional political power play by the president."

Nevertheless, extreme times call for extreme measures--

If you are facing war, poverty, or both in your homeland, you REALLY don't have time to wait months or years to placate the feelings of those who can or choose to wait in line, do you?

It is a STRUGGLE to immigrate to the US...it's incredibly hard...

For the millions that get in, many millions more try--and yet they keep trying, because of what America has to offer, because they believe in it, and because they don't have the luxury of waiting...

In hundreds of thousands of cases, if not more, it's Illegal Immigration vs. The Risk of Death.

If you were in their shoes, what would you do?

And imagine now that you came here as a child, and have spent your whole life here illegally because your parents came illegally--

Is it fair for you to be kicked out because of what your parents did, when you yourself have been a model US citizen, as the plan Obama has laid out essentially covers (younger than 16 when arriving, younger than 30 presently, graduating HS/in the military, and no felonies, etc.)...

It isn't "Just" in the Abtstract, moralistic sense to deport such a person, hence the decision today, and why I back it, because to back the Concrete when the Concrete is admittedly flawed and unworkable at present is illogical and, in the case of deporting those I describe and those Obama is granting a deferment for, I'd argue morally wrong and cold-hearted to deport people who have been law-abiding and truly want to be here, and the only reason they're not here "legally" is either A. Mom and Dad brought them over illegally as a child and they had no say in the matter and are too entrenched to go back now, or else B. There was a situation like El Salvador and for children it was "Leave the country now or face the prospect of becoming a child soldier or else shot," or crushing poverty, in which case, basic survival instinct HAS to prevail, and you don't have TIME to wait 6-18 months on a broken system when you could be *dead* by then easily, it's *immoral* to tell someone to wait in line and die rather than run to safety.
Invictus (240 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
Whatever the merits of this action are, it has troubling implications. Essentially, this is the DREAM Act, which failed to pass both when Democrats and Republicans controlled Congress. Should it really be OK for a president to impose through executive fiat an issue which our democratically elected legislature refused to enact? If it's alright for the DREAM Act it'll be alright for something actually bad down the road.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
@Invictus:

I agree, that's why I don't generally like EO's as they are currently, they're way too open-ended as to their powers...

By that same token, I can't blame Obama for using the option while he has it, and in this specific case I like the result.

So I agree it has an issue in setting precedent, but then, that's nothing new is all I'm sayong, I suppose, as EO's have been in this troublesome legal status for some time (and indeed, the power of PAST EO's may be seen as "precedent" for this EO, so there we are...)
Stressedlines (1559 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
Yes. Appluad rewarding a felony. Interesting. If i rob a bank will you applaud me?
semck83 (229 D(B))
15 Jun 12 UTC
Obiwan, whatever executive orders may be allowed to do, they are not allowed to act contrary to specific schemes set up by Congress within Congress's sphere of influence. See the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (343 US 579 (1952)), and especially Justice Jackson's much-cited (by SCOTUS) concurrence. Also worth reading is Justice Frankfurter's, which I believe has also been incorporated in later analysis.

The point is, yes, there are executive orders, but no, this kind of executive order is plainly unconstitutional and NOT allowed in our system of government. The President cannot, by fiat, contradict the express will of Congress on a core legislative area, no matter how pressing the emergency (and it was very pressing in Youngstown). Thank God.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jun 12 UTC
"Yes. Appluad rewarding a felony. Interesting. If i rob a bank will you applaud me?"

...You already used that analogy, I already answered it, I think?
Stressedlines (1559 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
Yes. Appluad rewarding a felony. Interesting. If i rob a bank will you applaud me?
ckroberts (3548 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
A bank robbery directly harms someone else. The free migration of goods, services, and people across an imaginary line does not harm anyone.
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
@ ckroberts

"The free migration of goods, services, and people across an imaginary line does not harm anyone."

I disagree, partly because the line is not imaginary. It marks where one country and one set of rules end and another begins. Trade with China is free, but it's killing the American economy. The unchecked third world migration into America is killing the American economy. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. The American people are harmed by illegal immigration, which makes it just as wrong as robbing a bank.

@ obiwan

I do not have any new points to make, and the points you made in your most recent post are mostly reworded and restated from previous posts. Therefore, I will consider our argument concluded if you have nothing else to offer. If there is any specific point you would like me to address, then please do so.
ckroberts (3548 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
Gunfighter, why are the laws or rules different? It's because of lines on a map. There's not some inherent difference between the soil or air in Vancouver and in Seattle to make them different. It's just where the accident of history divided the land claimed by two distant powers.

I believe (though I am always open to correction) that most economists claim that free trade is a good thing, that it strengthens economies. Incidentally, you say, "The American people are harmed by illegal immigration." This is an interesting construction. If tomorrow the government made all immigration legal, would it then not be harmful to the economy? Also, can you clarify what you mean by "killing the American economy"?

Even if the American people are harmed by immigration, which I do not believe is the case, it is still not as wrong as robbing a bank. I am harmed by all the beer I drank and cheese I ate tonight. That does not mean the good people at the Sam Adams brewing company who made the beer or the people at Publix who sold it to me have done anything wrong. People are free to make choices that can be harmful to themselves. You aren't free unless you're free to be wrong.
ckroberts (3548 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
More generally, Gunfighter, can you explain why you or anyone else has the right to decide who I should or should not do business with? Even if my doing business with a Mexican laborer drives down the value of American labor, what business is that of yours? If we are not injuring other people, it is between only myself and business partner. If I want to let people from another country live in my house and eat my food, without violating the rights of anyone else, why do you have the right to stop me?
@stressedlines-

Under the US Code, unlawful presence in the US is analagous to a misdemeanor, as it carries a maximum term of imprisonment of six months, not a felony. Thus, merely being here without the imprimatur of the federal government does not make one a felon.

But don't worry. The radical right-wing policies we are following as a country will quickly make sure this is no longer an issue. All we need to do is keep electing Republicans or Democrats functionally indistinguishable from Republicans for a few more years, and we'll be a third world hellhole in no time.
Onar (131 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
One would think that if a person comes to this country through all that strife and hardship, they'd be more inclined to care about it, and in the end, isn't that what a country should want? More "patriotism"?

Another thing, if we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, we wouldn't build a bigger fence, etc. Why treat the symptom, when we can treat the much larger problem? That is, these people are leaving their home countries for a reason. Why not fix their problems at home, so they have no reason to want to leave? Considering the US has the largest military in the world, there's no reason to not make an attempt at fixing things in our own backyard.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
"One would think that if a person comes to this country through all that strife and hardship, they'd be more inclined to care about it, and in the end, isn't that what a country should want? More "patriotism"?"

I agree, Onar...

"nother thing, if we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, we wouldn't build a bigger fence, etc. Why treat the symptom, when we can treat the much larger problem? That is, these people are leaving their home countries for a reason. Why not fix their problems at home, so they have no reason to want to leave? Considering the US has the largest military in the world, there's no reason to not make an attempt at fixing things in our own backyard."

...but here I disagree, Onar.

Neither Latin America nor the US would want or be made happy by that solution.

After Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans REALLY don't want another deployment.

On top of that, due to racist sentiments in this nation towards Latinos, I can't see a popular move to send military help to these nations; we already have economic woes, so another incursion somewhere only exacerbates that, and so woes, war weariness, and racism would kill any hope of military aid from the US to Latin America, right or wrong.

What's more, many Latin American states have such a disdainful, negative view of the US (gee, I wonder why...to be fair, though, this is a historic clash of cultures, one nation colonized by a Puritanical mindset and one region colonized by a Catholic mindset...add to that military dictatorships vs. democracy here and our embracing capitalism in the face of Latin America's economic woes and subsequent turn to communism in several states...) so any intervention would be tantamount to an invasion...

An invasion NO ONE would possibly back internationally, giving the US a horrible black eye; AT LEAST for Iraq some justification could be summoned up in the still-raw feelings after 9/11 and the fact Saddam was known to be a genocidal dictator that the international community had already fought in Gulf War I, we just didn't enter Iraq through the proper channels...

There are no proper channels for this, no one would even consider backing us on this--it'd be the US invading a Latin American country on the premise that things will be better afterward.



If you think those who exploit our use of the military to call us "imperialists" cry foul NOW...
Onar (131 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
True, I can agree that now is not the time to go into latin america to try and 'fix' things militarily. But at the same time, the US could maybe help out economically. I just find it ridiculous that as a country, the US is trying to do all these things to help out in the middle east, while doing nothing in its own backyard.
Jack_Klein (897 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
It amuses me to watch people go on about immigration, illegal or otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing that makes you an American is you fell out of your mother's pussy on American soil.

That is it.

Immigrants had to work to get here. They didn't just get handed shit on a plate. In some ways, they deserve to be here more than you do.

I mean, swap some words around, and you could be some jackhole bitching about the Irish immigrating a hundred and fifty years ago.

It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now. The strength of America is that there is no racial, ethnic or any such requirement to be American. You just have to show up and be willing to work a bit.

One additional hilarious note: Illegals pay taxes. Texas literally CAN'T expel all the illegals, because their taxes are sales taxes.... if they got rid of all those productive taxpayers, their state government would be insolvent.

I might add, most of those tax dollars never make it back to those immigrants... so they're actually contributing to the system, and then routinely fucked over by it.

tl;dr: People ranting about illegal immigration are jackholes, and possibly racist jackholes.
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
@ ckroberts

"Gunfighter, why are the laws or rules different? It's because of lines on a map. There's not some inherent difference between the soil or air in Vancouver and in Seattle to make them different. It's just where the accident of history divided the land claimed by two distant powers."

In most cases, those historical accidents are good things. Look at what is happening right now in Europe. Greece, a relatively insignificant player, could easily economically destroy the entire Eurozone. That is what happens when you loosen national borders and start using one-size-fits-all rules between different cultures and languages.

"I believe (though I am always open to correction) that most economists claim that free trade is a good thing, that it strengthens economies. Incidentally, you say, "The American people are harmed by illegal immigration." This is an interesting construction. If tomorrow the government made all immigration legal, would it then not be harmful to the economy? Also, can you clarify what you mean by "killing the American economy"? "

Simple. Illegals are holding jobs that could be held by Americans, therefore driving up the unemployment rate and hurting the economy as a whole. Illegals may provide cheap labor and put some money back into the economy, but who does that really help? It lines the pockets of the rich who you liberals seem so opposed to. Franky, I'm surprised that illegal workers haven't begun to organize yet. Also, they probably send a decent amount of their paychecks to help family members in other countries, whereas an American worker would be more likely to spend the money here. In any case, they have no right to be here.

I'll reply further in a few hours.
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
@ ckroberts cont.

"Even if the American people are harmed by immigration, which I do not believe is the case, it is still not as wrong as robbing a bank. I am harmed by all the beer I drank and cheese I ate tonight. That does not mean the good people at the Sam Adams brewing company who made the beer or the people at Publix who sold it to me have done anything wrong. People are free to make choices that can be harmful to themselves. You aren't free unless you're free to be wrong."

That's totally wrong. You're comparing negligent health choices with illegal border crossing, which are two entirely different things. Illegal immigration is NOT a victimless crime. The victims are the American economy and America's security.

"More generally, Gunfighter, can you explain why you or anyone else has the right to decide who I should or should not do business with? Even if my doing business with a Mexican laborer drives down the value of American labor, what business is that of yours? If we are not injuring other people, it is between only myself and business partner. If I want to let people from another country live in my house and eat my food, without violating the rights of anyone else, why do you have the right to stop me?"

Because that argument is contingent upon your actions not hurting anyone or anything, which I have already said is a false statement.
ckroberts (3548 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
@Gunfighter:

"Illegals are holding jobs that could be held by Americans, therefore driving up the unemployment rate and hurting the economy as a whole. Illegals may provide cheap labor and put some money back into the economy, but who does that really help? It lines the pockets of the rich who you liberals seem so opposed to."

This assumes that Americans deserve those, or have a right to, those jobs. Why should that be? Why should I have a responsibility to someone based on an accident of birth? This is particularly the case for someone living in say New Mexico or Michigan's Upper Peninsula, who have a closer cultural and perhaps even familial connection to "foreigners."

Also, this argument, that the jobs could be done by Americans, means that you're entirely against free trade, correct? The USA has almost all of the resources necessary for a modern economy, after all, and any foreign made products (physical or not) take jobs away from Americans. I assume you personally only use an American made computer, drive entirely American made cars (which might be impossible, given that so many "American" car companies produce their vehicles in Mexico, but I understand that there are many good American made bicycles), and refuse to watch films using British actors. Send me a PM after it comes out, and I will tell you what happens in The Dark Knight Rises, since several foreign actors replace Americans in that film.

Additionally, I am not a liberal, although I hold some political beliefs that liberals also hold.

"That's totally wrong. You're comparing negligent health choices with illegal border crossing, which are two entirely different things. Illegal immigration is NOT a victimless crime. The victims are the American economy and America's security."

Arguably, if you're going to make arguments about indirect victimization, things like "negligent health choices" are far worse than immigration. In the USA, we pay far more health cost for people who use alcohol and tobacco than we do for illegal immigrants; given the government's enormous role in health care (which I am against but that is another argument), that means we the taxpayers pay more. Illegal immigrants, are the other hand, are a net tax benefit.
ckroberts (3548 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
Gunfighter more generally: I am opposed to any argument that limits my rights, or the rights of anyone else, for hypothetical or indirect harms. When I buy a Pepsi, it hurts Coca-Cola, sure, but that doesn't mean I should be limited in what drinks I purchase, or be obligated to purchase from both. Similarly, in a free market, there will be winners and losers. It is economically mistaken and morally unjust to take my rights of association away to protect some imaginary "American market."
Just a quick point to refute the statement that "Illegals are holding jobs that could be held by Americans, therefore driving up the unemployment rate and hurting the economy as a whole"

Here's an article describing the ramifications of the recent crackdown on illegal immigration in Alabama: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-workers

There and all over the country where harsh illegal immigration laws have gone into effect, crops are rotting in the fields as those who used to do the work (immigrants) move to other opportunities while Americans refuse to do the work at an acceptable price. The solution? Quite a few of these states have resorted to using prison labor to pick crops, which is quite disconcerting when you consider the racial demographics of prison populations and the history of forced labor in the South. Also, it's been a bureaucratic nightmare, as even legal citizens are forced to endure even more paperwork and hassle just to exist.

In addition, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Latin American history could tell you that much of the oppression and poverty that illegal immigrants are fleeing is in large part due to American meddling spawned from the Monroe Doctrine.

Lastly, the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on the country or economy is simply a falsehood. The talk of visits to the ER or whatever have little to no basis due simply to the fact that illegal immigrants tend to stay away from anything which requires interaction with government agencies who might report them.

Questions?
Oops, wish I could edit. Meant to add to the last paragraph:

"Also, excluding a labor force with a diverse array of talents and backgrounds is, intuitively, bad for economic efficiency as those with a less meritorious claim to jobs get them simply through the fortune of being born in the States. Such a process will inevitably lead to a downturn in product quality or efficiency, providing a net drag on the economy. So while websites in the dark netherworld of the conservative blogosphere might make different claims, an economist would tell you that restricting immigration is the real locus of inefficiency.
mapleleaf (0 DX)
22 Jun 12 UTC
You're spamming the forum, obi-goof. You need to see a psychiatrist.


57 replies
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
They Improve Their Appetite When They Exercise (Just As Long As No Skinny People Snicker)
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/gym-bans-skinny-people-173000110.html
Banning skinny people from a gym...because it "brings down morale"...
Isn't that sort of like getting rid of all the smart kids in class because it makes the schmucks who think "The Day After Tomorrow" is scientifically accurate feel badly when they fail? WHEN did the West develop this "fear of failure" self-esteem issue?
93 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
22 Jun 12 UTC
A message of hope for Diablo fans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18532670
0 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
There Can Be Only One--Which Actors/Films Pull Off The Character Best?
The many Bonds...the many Doctors...the different Darens...different Marx Bros. and Stooges...the many Hamlets and Holmes...the originals and remakes and re-imaginings...

Give a role with multiple actors, or a story with multiple adaptations, and say which one you take over the other(s) and why...which are the DEFINITIVE portrayals and films, and which are...not? ;)
21 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
22 Jun 12 UTC
Is this GunBoat perfection?
7 replies
Open
Leonidas (635 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Attention participants of ***Egos Aside*** GUNBOAT
we have made the roster available to everyone so that there is no advantage of any sort to anyone....
two of you are not identified, check this thread out to add your user name please, or just add it here...... thanks

threadID=887469
1 reply
Open
0ri0n (0 DX)
21 Jun 12 UTC
What is Christianity?
Obviously, I know that its like one of the most popular religion out there but coming from a very anti-christian background, I dont really know what they actually believe. I know the basics like that Jesus is God but like how do you get into heaven and stuff? This is NOT a debating forum.
86 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Crisis and democracy
Brace yourselves
2 replies
Open
Invictus (240 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Could China Annex the Moon?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/red_moon_rising?page=full
18 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
11 Jun 12 UTC
Jazz
Talk about jazz
46 replies
Open
Fortress Door (1837 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
WTA GB-21
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=92419
1 reply
Open
SweetnessFSU (127 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Leave game
how can you leave a game after it starts?
3 replies
Open
Bbrett93 (100 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
The Contention Centers: Belgium, Sweden, and Greece
In my opinion, these three centers cause the most drama in 1901.
Who has the most claim to them, and how do you negotiate your nations units into them?
14 replies
Open
fortknox (2059 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Diplomacy Class 1 discussion
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=82023#gamePanel
A bit embarrassing that it ends in a 2-way if it is called a 'class', but I'm interested in other's thoughts. There are some frustrations I had with the game, but I'm not bitter because I lost. Feel free to share your feelings, especially to the 8 (we had a sub) that played.
2 replies
Open
hammac (100 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Joan Baez
Saw Joan Baez at the Zenith in Caen (France) last night!
Abxolutely superb and she's 71. Still believable in her support for the beliefs and causes that she's been fighting for over so many years.

1 reply
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
20 Jun 12 UTC
EoG: Gunboat-326
gameID=92320 The unglorious rape of France.
18 replies
Open
joshildinho101 (128 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Quick game gameID=92351
0 replies
Open
emfries (0 DX)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Which is Better: Remix or Original?
The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1cxP2nCBdU
The remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnS6KfskbU
I hate rap music, but given that it's made by a few goons from my hometown, I gave it a chance. Debate.
0 replies
Open
Sargmacher (0 DX)
20 Jun 12 UTC
How can you deal with obtuse 'morons' who will never give credit to opposing arguments?
Serious question. When you're debating, discussing, or arguing with people and they simply won't accept other points of view, even after reams of evidence, how can you respond? Is it best just to walk away or should we strive to educate?

How would you deal with someone utterly convinced that the Earth was flat, for example?
54 replies
Open
hellalt (113 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
Webdiplomacy.net FB Fan page
in case you didn't know there is one :P
Join it at http://www.facebook.com/webdiplomacy
0 replies
Open
Sbyvl36 (439 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
How old is the Earth?
How old do you think the world is? Do you believe the scientists (Billlions of years) or do you think its only few thousand years old. Give me your entire argument
96 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
20 Jun 12 UTC
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Read and think of anyone on here who might perhaps have this.
25 replies
Open
King Atom (100 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
will i go to hell for posting cheating accusations in the forum?
Also, who's nietzscheptzhedkfj? is he knew?
18 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
19 Jun 12 UTC
Anyone here get into darts?
I've been watching some late night darts on ESPN2 or some such. And it really looks like an enjoyable combination of throwing skill, math skill, and strategy.
17 replies
Open
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
20 Jun 12 UTC
Winner Takes All vs. Point Distribution
See below.
17 replies
Open
jmbostwick (2308 D)
19 Jun 12 UTC
England Gunboat Strategy
First in a series of threads discussing country-specific tactics for gunboat (no-messaging) games.
32 replies
Open
Invictus (240 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
Guess I was wrong
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/19/indianas-mitch-daniels-exits-vp-race/
1 reply
Open
How do I report a multi?
Found one:
14 replies
Open
Leonidas (635 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
Quality Gunboat, needs 3 more
Looking for three players for a 14 hr phase GBoat, PM me for the password, 50 D to join, WTA, hoping for a game to remember...

gameID=92125
3 replies
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
Utility of History?
What is the use of history in society? Should it be taught in public institutions like schools? How should it be taught. In your opinion, does History have any use at all?

~A Historian
92 replies
Open
Page 927 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top