Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 930 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Yonni (136 D(S))
29 Jun 12 UTC
Chatting during a pause.
There seems to be mixed sentiment about chatting during a pause. Personally, I appreciate the courtesy of not plotting my demise while I'm away. I've seen people hold to that principal on and off on the site. Wondering how the majority of ppl feel about it.
18 replies
Open
RSf (0 DX)
29 Jun 12 UTC
Password protected games
How do you get to play in password protected games .. or should one wait to be asked?
14 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
29 Jun 12 UTC
So, I downloaded Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"
So far I've gotten to page 284. I'd say every diplomat on this site should read it!
3 replies
Open
Fortress Door (1837 D)
29 Jun 12 UTC
Classic Game -6
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=93183
5 replies
Open
RiverOtter (100 D)
29 Jun 12 UTC
Export Game in Judge or jDip Format
I am shocked this is not part of the interface. Please tell me I'm wrong, or I'll write a standalone tool to do it.
3 replies
Open
Sandgoose (0 DX)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Help - Dipn' Dots
hi...i haven't played a lot of games here but understand the fundamentals and basics. i noticed on the board that all the various colors remind me of a form of dipn'dots...is it possible to lick the screen and "taste the rainbow" so to speak...
4 replies
Open
RSf (0 DX)
29 Jun 12 UTC
Ratings
I'm relatively new to WebDip .. and am interested to know roughly how the ratings work and what influences your status. Is it primarily about proportion of wins? (But I have noticed people with no wins who have moved on from 'political puppet'.) Or is it more about the overall proportion of wins/draws/survived/defeats? Do the total number of points you have influence things? Does the quantity of games played matter?
10 replies
Open
Favio (385 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Aliens in the White House
Apparently 65% of americans say that Obama would handle an alien incursion better than Romney.....sure...he offers them Obamacare and they blow the planet up because they realize that it is ridiculous.
8 replies
Open
Tyran (914 D)
29 Jun 12 UTC
EOG Mutually assured destruction
Roflmao! The game was canceled in like 1908 or later! Don't leave up your cancel votes and leave it to the only guy losing to vote cancel lol
15 replies
Open
Sajtoskefley (111 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Help - Black dot
Hi all! I am new here, I didn't play too much games yet, but I understand the basics. There is one thing yet I do not understand: At some provinces there are a black dot with a circle around it. What does it mean?
22 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
25 Jun 12 UTC
Looking for a sitter...
...on vdip.
We're playing an interest bankroll variant (see: http://vdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=29140&page-thread=1#threadPager) by signing up you'd be agreeing to follow the rules in the thread. I need someone to sit for ~10 days as i'm away with my scouts.
14 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2606 D(B))
28 Jun 12 UTC
Moving to Canada
See below.
28 replies
Open
Sun_Tzu (2116 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Problem in a world game.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=89935#gamePanel.
I went to move fleet Quebec NC to New Foundland & fleet New Foundland to Quebec SC and It bounce! It should have went because two different coasts.
Thanks.
2 replies
Open
JRMA (0 DX)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Need World Diplomacy Players
Ten more players needed in "Against The World".
5 replies
Open
Putin33 (111 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Azzuri win!
Mario!!!
6 replies
Open
rokakoma (19138 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
2012 end of the world - EoG
15 replies
Open
Catan_banned (0 DX)
17 Jun 12 UTC
Debate?
Atheist here. Want to debate god's existence?
191 replies
Open
JRMA (0 DX)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Against The World
Come join Against The World; World diplomacy.
1 reply
Open
jmbostwick (2308 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Full-messaging PPSC game, need players!
24-hour phases, full messaging. We need a few players to join, since a couple friends dropped. Please be sure you're willing to commit to the whole game.
4 replies
Open
JRMA (0 DX)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Against The World
World Diplomacy, "Against The World". Come play!
0 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Help - Grey dot
Hi all! I am new here, I didn't post to many threads here, but I understand the basics. There is one thing yet I do not understand: At some players there are a grey dot with a circle around it. What does it mean?
1 reply
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Help - Green dot
Hi all! I am new here, I didn't post to many threads here, but I understand the basics. There is one thing yet I do not understand: At some players there are a green dot with a circle around it. What does it mean?
9 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
28 Jun 12 UTC
Damn cool:
http://gizmodo.com/5921868/scientists-invent-particles-that-will-let-you-live-without-breathing
1 reply
Open
taos (281 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
political puppet tournament
i want to organise a small tournament for political puppets only.
pasworded games,have to be a political puppet at the moment of registering,ppsc games sc's count.
who is in?
1 reply
Open
semck83 (229 D(B))
25 Jun 12 UTC
Supreme Court mostly overturns Arizona immigration law
The Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) upheld the part of the law requiring police to check the immigration documents of people they arrest/stop. It overturned the rest of the law -- 6-2 for the part of the law dealing with employment, and 5-3 for the rest.
101 replies
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
26 Jun 12 UTC
A State government pays for this IN AMERICA.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/loch-ness-monster-used-debunk-evolution-state-funded-190816504.html
56 replies
Open
Sargmacher (0 DX)
26 Jun 12 UTC
Baby Boxes
"Boxes where parents can leave an unwanted baby, common in medieval Europe, have been making a comeback over the last 10 years. Supporters say a heated box, monitored by nurses, is better for babies than abandonment on the street." Discuss.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18585020
25 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2606 D(B))
26 Jun 12 UTC
Gunboat Isn't Real Diplomacy
21 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
22 Jun 12 UTC
So which of you fucktards wants to get your ass kicked first...
...in a World game with yours truly, the Draug! :-)

Seriously, I'm in the mood for a full press, non-anon, WTA world game of 24-48 hours. Anyone else who wants in, sign up by replying below!
148 replies
Open
joeschoen (0 DX)
19 Jun 12 UTC
Liberals vs Conservatives
i don't no which ideologies make more sense so start debating
Page 3 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Putin33 (111 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
"Margin buying, not Republicans, caused the market crash, but you probably aren't interested in facts. And Democrats didn't fix the Great Depression. Unemployment didn't get below 15% until the start of the war. If anything, the Japanese fixed the Great Depression."

Really, so the fact that Republicans dominated Congress for the entire decade leading up to the depression and controlled the Presidency had nothing to do with it (and anyway, the Depression didn't really begin until several years later). They get all the credit for the 'roaring twenties' (which was all fake prosperity that the depression exposed) but the fact not only the stock market but industrial production completely collapsed while they sat on their hands and did nothing has nothing to do with them. I imagine what you'd say if Democrats were in power in the 20s.

" And Democrats didn't fix the Great Depression."

The New Deal cut unemployment from over 25% when Roosevelt took office to 14% in 1937. It only went back up slightly because Roosevelt decided to cut spending. That's fixing the problem. Hoover had years to do something about the rise of unemployment and he did nothing.

"Unemployment didn't get below 15% until the start of the war."

False. Unemployment was 14.3% in 1937.

"So, you're saying that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of aggression, and that the Korean and Vietnam Wars (started and lost by Democrats) were not expensive wars of aggression?"

I am not saying they were not wars of aggression. However, unlike those wars, Bush decided to massively *cut* taxes in the middle of a war which led to massive deficits. Also, Bush waged not one but two expensive wars of aggression.

"Nixon also cleaned up after the Democrat-started Vietnam shitstorm, which is infinitely bigger and more of a clusterfuck than Watergate."

How do you figure he "cleaned it up"? By escalating the thing to Cambodia & Laos, bombing those countries to shit so communism can spread to Laos and Cambodia can come under the control of the Khmer Rouge? Nixon's policy in Vietnam was an utter failure. Keep in mind Nixon throughout the whole of the 50s and 60s was the foremost *proponent* of intervention in Vietnam. He was lobbying for intervention as far back as the French war with the Viet Minh. Peace talks in Vietnam began as early as *1968*. It took Nixon 5 years to get a deal. Some speculate, with good reason, that Nixon secretly told the South Vietnamese government to back off from peace talks with the North, after Johnson had finally stopped the bombing.

Nixon was a disaster. Stop defending him.

"Completely untrue statement. Next."

Inflation began skyrocketing under Nixon and continued under Ford. Carter inherited a horrible economy. The person credited with stopping inflation was Paul Volcker, a *Carter* appointee. Carter created more jobs on an annual basis than Reagan did.

"Reagan and Bush left the country with a booming economy"

I'm sorry how old are you? Do you have any memory of the Bush I years? A booming economy it was not. The early 1990s was a recession. Unemployment doubled under his reign.

"He did so by nearly wrecking the military. He is also one of only two presidents to be impeached and should have been removed from office for perjury."

Are you suggesting that the military is a net drag on the economy? On this we agree.

The Republicans waged a jihad against Clinton from day one. They were determined to destroy him and abused the impeachment process to try and do it. The American people kicked their asses out of power in '98, as a reward for their shutting down the government and acting like hypocritical thugs who sleep around while trying to impeach Clinton for it.

"Who was in control of Congress when the economy collapsed?"

Uh, Republicans. The economy began falling apart in 2006. But I guess who controls Congress or *the entire government, as was the case when the Great Depression began* only matters when you can try and pin it on Democrats.

Your President implemented the tax cuts. Your President completely gutted any regulation of the markets and made the SEC toothless. Your President balked at any Democrat proposals for reform.

"Oh, really? Tell me how? "

By creating 2.4 million jobs a year, whereas when Bush left office we were losing 800,000 a *month*.








jpgredsox (104 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Blaming the Republicans of the 1920s for the Great Depression is a bit ridiculous. There are numerous conflicting views of the causes of the Depression, but hardly any of them I'm aware of directly implicate Coolidge/Harding/pre-Depression administration. Hoover, on the other hand, actually intervened actively in the economy and instituted many precursors to the New Deal, as (at least one, to my knowledge) FDR administrators openly admitted. The idea that Hoover was a "do-nothing" president is a total myth.

The New Deal didn't fix the Great Depression. Many of the "jobs" which lowered the unemployment rate had hours and actual productivity much lower than pre-Depression jobs. The unemployment rate in 1939 was still 17.3%, still a disastrous number compared with the pre-Depression average. The NIRA of the New Deal brought fascist measures into the United States, with widespread cartelization and subsequent reduced output. The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was a program which destroyed crops to increase farm prices, while millions across the country were starving. Go figure. Increased spending and associated taxation, as well as increased regulation, hurt as well.

I agree with Putin here. Nixon was as much of a warmonger as Johnson. The expansion of the war into Cambodia and Laos, particularly the former, and the United States conduct in those areas respectively easily qualify Nixon and his buddy Kissinger as mass murderers. Nevermind the fact that we did remain in South Vietnam (and environs) until 1973. Nixon didn't "fix" anything.

There was skyrocketing inflation during Nixon's administration due to earlier deficit spending for both Vietnam and the Great Society. Carter was left with stagflation. Volcker did raise interest rates at the Fed to curb inflation. Carter, not Reagan, actually was the one who instituted numerous measures of deregulation throughout the economy, it just took until the beginning of Reagan's administration for these measures to begin to have a noticeable and positive effect.

Clinton? Wrecking the military? I've never heard of that, and judging from the foreign interventions of Clinton (Somalia, Angola, Haiti, the Balkans, et. al.) he was very willing to use the military.

The recession was years in the making. It's difficult to pin the blame on Democrats on the crisis for arriving in power in 2006.

Gunfighter06 (224 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
@ Putin33

"They get all the credit for the 'roaring twenties' (which was all fake prosperity that the depression exposed)"

Really? Please, tell me how you fake prosperity.

"The New Deal cut unemployment from over 25% when Roosevelt took office to 14% in 1937. It only went back up slightly because Roosevelt decided to cut spending. That's fixing the problem."

He also tried to stack the court to get completely unconstitutional legislation passed. He broke the two-term precedent that had been in place since *Washington*. He set the precedent for big government that we are still trying to reverse. Besides, he dropped the unemployment rate because the government jobs were much cheaper and paid much less than pre-Depression jobs. Real prosperity didn't return to America until the war, which seems to indicate that military spending is a good way to stimulate the economy.

"How do you figure he "cleaned it up"?"

When Johnson left office, the North Vietnamese were poised to overrun the whole country. The military situation was a complete clusterfuck. By 1973, with the help of Strategic Air Command and the Boeing Military Airplane Company, the North was screaming uncle. That's how I figure he cleaned it up. He bombed their asses to the conference table.

"Carter inherited a horrible economy. The person credited with stopping inflation was Paul Volcker, a *Carter* appointee. Carter created more jobs on an annual basis than Reagan did."

The key words there are "on an annual basis". How many more jobs did Reagan create? You seem to know. Oh, and how many fewer communist missiles were pointed at us because of Reagan? Or was that another Carter appointee?

"I'm sorry how old are you? Do you have any memory of the Bush I years? A booming economy it was not. The early 1990s was a recession. Unemployment doubled under his reign."

Sources?

"Are you suggesting that the military is a net drag on the economy? On this we agree."

No. Reagan and Bush left Clinton with the most kickass name-taking military in world history and he squandered it. Clinton simply sat back, porked his intern, and enjoyed all of the credit and none of the work of Reagan and Bush.

"The Republicans waged a jihad against Clinton from day one. They were determined to destroy him and abused the impeachment process to try and do it."

How did they abuse the impeachment process? HE LIED TO CONGRESS. That's perjury. That's a felony. That is totally grounds for impeachment.

"Uh, Republicans."

Really? As I recall, the economy started to slide in 2007-8. When the Democrats had Congress.

"Your President implemented the tax cuts. Your President completely gutted any regulation of the markets and made the SEC toothless. Your President balked at any Democrat proposals for reform."

Maybe because he was busy fighting a goddamned war on terror.

@ jpgredsox

"Clinton? Wrecking the military? I've never heard of that, and judging from the foreign interventions of Clinton (Somalia, Angola, Haiti, the Balkans, et. al.) he was very willing to use the military."

Most of those interventions were complete clusterfucks that resulted in a lot of dead Americans. Doesn't change the fact that he cut military spending when he should not have. Maybe if he had been more vigilant and done his job of protecting the country instead of banging his intern, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
I feel like the entire thread above is arguing the people, not the ideology if you know what I mean.

It seems simple to me. Either have a society that learns as it grows and applies the knowledge appropriately for healthy growth, or one that is stable, yet open to stagnation, destruction, and constantly being dogged by the generation behind it about how they shouldn't change this or that, slowing up the processes of govt.

There's a difference between the ideology of an idea and the actual practice though as we've been shown.
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
21 Jun 12 UTC
The stock market crash of October 1929 did not start the Great Depression any more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns caused the financial meltdown. In both cases overleveraging caused a run on banks.

A normal recession was turned into the Great Depression by federal reserve policy that refused to depreciate the gold standard when the market begged for liquidity.

The Great Depression from 1934-1939 was squarely caused by the utter failure of the Keyensian New Deal.

The Federal Reserve system was just sixteen years old when faced with the credit crisis of 1929, and the governors had no experience when they made the wrong policy decisions that made a recession into a depression.

Keynesian economics was in its infancy when FDR tried to end the Depression, but only succeeded in prolonging it.

WWII didn't even end the Depression unless you call removing 10 million men from the labor force and rationing every conceivable consumer good "prosperity."

The Great Depression didn't end until 1948 when Keynesian economic intervention ended.

Gunfighter06 (224 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
@ TC

I mostly agree with you, except about removing 10 million men from the labor force. They weren't removed from the labor force. They just got new, more dangerous, and more violent jobs. The war was a net gain for the economy.
largeham (149 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
"The war was a net gain for the economy. "

WW2 is special in this regard. Military Keynesianism doesn't work.
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
I disagree. I believe that military Keynesianism is one of the best ways to recover an economy. But that's a topic for another thread and another day.

Oh, and +1 to you for correctly identifying the economic model.
@Gunfighter: How many more wars do we need to fight in order to get the economy back on track?
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
22 Jun 12 UTC
We don't need to fight a war. We just need to continue to fund and maintain the biggest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful military in world history.
So building weapons we don't intend to use and training soldiers to do a job they'll never do is good for the economy how? What ever happened to digging holes and then filling them in again?
jpgredsox (104 D)
22 Jun 12 UTC
this is some of the most retarded shit I've ever heard. are you trying to be a caricature?

"We don't need to fight a war. We just need to continue to fund and maintain the biggest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful military in world history."

This is supposed to help the economy? Our defense budget is massively bloated right now and I don't see the economy getting any better. All military Keynesianism does is provide a somewhat-intellectual basis for the military-industrial complex. Under military Keynesianism/military-industrial complex, the only people who benefit are the manufacturers of war-related materials, and they benefit massively. Corruption spreads because of the associated contracts these companies seek to get from Washington/Congress. And these companies sure as hell don't give a shit about a war (Iraq, Libya, Syria?); on the contrary, they just get to keep in cashing the checks. They encourage wars and military interventions overseas. How is this supposed to help the economy as a whole and Americans as citizens?

Social effects aside, all military Keynesianism does is redistribute (through taxation) money from businesses, Americans, etc. to the defense budget. Moving that money to the defense budget reduces the spending of those businesses and Americans, which may have in fact been more productive towards the overall economy.

World War Two didn't end the Great Depression. All "prosperity" people believed they had during the war was completely fake. The government rationed nearly entire consumer aspect of the economy, so the only "wealth" people were able to build up were ration cards and the like. There wasn't much actual purchase power, but because people couldn't spend money on many products anyway, it appeared to them that the "wealth" they were accumulating was real.

And regarding the claim that Clinton cut the military, who cares? The Cold War had just ended when Clinton took office. Naturally the military could be cut down to size. Clinton wasn't a dove, he was as much of an interventionist as you classic neoconservative. And trying to pin the blame for 9/11 on Clinton cutting the military is absurd. Many of the reasons 9/11 occurred were because of Clinton's policies in the Middle East such as maintaining a base on Saudi Arabian soil, continuing devastating sanctions on Iraq and continuing long-standing U.S. support of dictators and autocrats.



Gunfighter06 (224 D)
22 Jun 12 UTC
@ jpgredsox

"World War Two didn't end the Great Depression"

Really? So, in 1946, the economy wasn't booming? Do you know anyone who was alive in 1946?

"And regarding the claim that Clinton cut the military, who cares? The Cold War had just ended when Clinton took office. Naturally the military could be cut down to size."

Why did the military have to be cut down to size? Because we have no one to fight? We always have someone to fight.

"And trying to pin the blame for 9/11 on Clinton cutting the military is absurd. Many of the reasons 9/11 occurred were because of Clinton's policies in the Middle East such as maintaining a base on Saudi Arabian soil, continuing devastating sanctions on Iraq and continuing long-standing U.S. support of dictators and autocrats."

I didn't say that Clinton's defense cuts were why 9/11 happened. In fact, the reasons you listed above were all contributing factors. Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for 9/11. All I'm saying is that there is a correlation between defense cuts and wars. Every war in recent American history has followed some sort of defense cut. We're damned lucky we didn't get into a real shooting war in the 1990s, because we would have been in deep trouble.
Emac (0 DX)
22 Jun 12 UTC
The United States Navy- A Global Force for Good!
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
22 Jun 12 UTC
Military Keynesianism helps the economy by providing money and jobs to the defense and R&D sectors. I've always believed that building warplanes and warships is usually better than building schools and hospitals. Schools and hospitals can't shoot back.

Infrastructure can also be thrown in. I would advocate a massive, coordinated, nationwide infrastructure improvement project with national defense in mind. Our power grid is a dangerously vulnerable jury-rigged patchwork. Our roads and bridges that would be necessary for efficiently moving men and materiel are crumbling.
Also, we require more Vespene Gas.
jpgredsox (104 D)
22 Jun 12 UTC
"Really? So, in 1946, the economy wasn't booming? Do you know anyone who was alive in 1946?"

First off, 1946 was a year after World War Two ended, which is important.
#1: Many of the New Deal programs were cut following the war. Keynesian stimulus was abandoned. This was in part a reason for the recovery.
#2: Following World War Two, almost the entire "developed world" (which pretty much was just Europe at that time, Japan as well) lay in shambles. The U.S. had hardly any global competitors. So of course the United States was going to have enormous economic growth: they were the only large-scale industrial powerhouse in the world at the time.

"We always have someone to fight"
It's this mindset that has caused America to be hated worldwide by the vast majority of the global population. Needless to say, this really isn't true, and I don't understand how anyone could firmly believe in this.

"Every war in recent American history has followed some sort of defense cut."
Correlation does not equal causation. And I still don't really see the correlation. I am not sure what you define as recent, but it was long the norm (ex: World War One) that following warfare the military would be cut down drastically to peacetime levels. And Iraq sure as hell didn't follow defense cuts. Neither did the Gulf War.
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
23 Jun 12 UTC
Gunfighter. I definitely should have said the civilian work force. I don't know about the death of 40-60 million human beings as a net good. The destruction of Nazi Germany and the militarists in Japan did make it a better world.

The economy was not booming in 1946. The economy went into a steep recession from 46 to 47. The economy did not take off until 48. I would argue because Truman ended almost all New Deal and Wartime interference in the economy under mounting pressure from Republicans.

I definitely disagree with military or civilian Keynesian policies. The government never makes better decisions than the private sector.
Or that an economy tends to have a difficult time switching their entire nation's production from war time to peace time products and reintegrating millions of returning vets as all trade partners are lying in ruins. But hey, that TC says.
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
23 Jun 12 UTC
@ jpg

"It's this mindset that has caused America to be hated worldwide by the vast majority of the global population. Needless to say, this really isn't true, and I don't understand how anyone could firmly believe in this."

For some reason, there's always someone out there that thinks fucking with freedom and democracy is a good idea, or that communism is a good idea.

"Correlation does not equal causation."

No. But it still has to be recognized. WWII followed Depression-era cuts. The Korean War followed postwar defense cuts. Vietnam is the exception. Afghanistan followed the Clinton cuts.

@ TC

Alright, maybe '46 was the wrong year to use. I was wrong. But '48, '49, you can't say the economy wasn't amazing.

I disagree with military Keynesianism under most circumstances. But hey, if the government is going to be spending so much money, we should be buying tanks and rifles, not solar power plants and schools.
MajorMitchell (1874 D)
23 Jun 12 UTC
It's no surprise to see Tettleton Chew contributing here.
I accept his right to have his own opinions / political views, but disagree with most of his stuff.

Conservatives by definition defend the existing Patriarchal Heirarchies of Power and Capitalism etc
Unfortunately the only thing that is constant is change.
Liberalism is a more enlightened philosophy, more comfortable with scientific & technological change, it encourages artistic, philosophical free thinking and debate.

A good example is the reaction to political enfranchisement of the masses

Conservatives will defend a restricted political enfranchisement, Historicallly linked to ownership of Property & Wealth.

Liberalism supported the reforms to political enfranchisement that embody the "all citizens have a right to vote & all citizen's votes should be of equal value " principles.

Conservatives defended Slavery as "good free enterprise capitalism"
Liberals supported the reforms that first made slavery illegal in England
and Laws that gave the Royal Navy the authority to interdict slave shipping
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
24 Jun 12 UTC
@ MajorMitchell

We already established that the words "liberal" and "conservative" as used today are vague misnomers.
ascended_extra (100 D)
27 Jun 12 UTC
To save you the trouble of debating this there is no one philosophy you should follow. I would say the best course is to generally attain the middle. Taking the best parts of either sides in certain situations. Basically there is no easy answer.
MajorMitchell (1874 D)
27 Jun 12 UTC
@ gunfighter
well i was just setting out a few of the differences--
in general broad strokes if you like,
there are of course a wide spectrum of political "conservatives" and a wide spread of "liberal" political views, and other "reformist" groups and then the extremists at either end radical "right", radical "left" & radical "idiots" eg Charles Manson types
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
27 Jun 12 UTC
The liberal ideology behind the Welfare State destroys the work ethic.
A court decision in France this month said that if workers get sick while on vacation then their vacation gets extended.
The mindset of people who think they are owed anything in this life is just pitiful to watch.
You wonder how long it is before they just eat a gun and end it.
Britain, Germany, and Scandanavia are all that will survive the devastation that liberal lunacy has visited on Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, and the lot.


85 replies
Page 930 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top