May will win 100%. The polls in the UK are always skewed against the conservatives. The question is will she keep a majority?

Get the expanded 10th anniversary edition, very good read.

Sinai?

He's Odin.

Book did it better

Most of the US gun deaths are due to suicide. In 2014, 2.5 per 100,000 were due to homicide, 6.7 per 100,000 were due to suicide. US suicide rates are only slightly higher than UK suicide rates unless you believe the WHO rates which are way different than both the official UK government stats and the stats from a non-partisan not for profit in the UK. I doubt taking away guns would significantly lower US suicides and the homicide by gun rate isn't overly high when you consider how many gangs there are in the US that get guns mainly through struggling. The state with the strictest gun laws, California, has by far the most gun deaths.

Really, two arguments should come up before gun violence arguments: mental health issues leading to suicide, especially amongst young men, and deporting criminals especially those linked to violent gangs.

By nuclear scientist you mean McDonald's cashier?

Most of those gun deaths were suicides, some were self defense, hunting accidents etc and there are other statistical arguments ie. Lower BNE when a person is home in countries with more guns. Cherry picking statistics is a never a good argument.

Well this thread is embarrassing.

bonus

no

If he leaves GDI so you can hit him, you should all drop nw so I can hit you!!

Whores of babylon made me lol

Is it possible to do in the right circumstance?

You're fighting against like 85% restarts lol

Can you even produce enough oil to dictate the world oil markets with Venezuela out of the picture?

I ain't even upset. All the gods are dead except the gods of war!

http://www.earthgraphs.com/...ndwich&warreport=Show

Did I miss anyone?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/...8cf678e77d9870a4f75f9.jpg

I'm not going to argue last set semantics, or really anything LoC, as I left already. I'm my own person, at best a mercenary, and don't know where they'll go from here. I don't think stats really matter - you won on the FS everything after that is just whipped topping.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/...aristas-gra100629_low.jpg

Noted but I don't know why people care about stats when only one side is hitting/tagging :P

He's an actor? Who's the train robber...

Haha, weird thing to make a bet on. Just a play on Gang Reduction Intervention Team. I have no idea how John Wayne relates to grit, I only know he was like a train robber or something. And I don't know why I'd preserve restarts by not tagging with them. :P

I don't know, how would you feel if it was you and maybe one other that deciding to continue fighting two sets in a row? Especially when I'm really busy irl and only played countries this set to help out.


Also, sinistral means left-handed. I just think the word looks better with another i.

You mean...
http://www.earthgraphs.com/...b=grit&warreport=Show

You can only have half your land unbuilt.

Cooties.

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

snowflakes

Sounds reasonable. Get the addicts re-addicted.

d

Most were done for the reset awhile ago. It's just my parking lots fighting the bottom feeders now :P

Moving up in the kill list (also the death list)

Good luck mob, hope she'll be alright

True, this is our warchat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg

problems bout that bud?

The guy was detagged a day before he was killed? Not like people on either side are killing their own members to try to skew stats.... Oh wait

grit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4eT_0tnj1w

Says the guy without HS level education?

Since we're being childish :P

This is strange, I thought, "fire-brigade transport" was a comical Bavarian drinking game in which the participants light their fires with their liquor. The English translation is "Fire where you are furz." I think you can also find a page here.

I think there is the problem. I equate ICD to the E2025 ICD. I liked the kick your teeth in ICD :P And yeah, who would have thought haha.

Wouldn't you like to know :P :P

What road, exactly? I honestly have zero idea what you're getting at or how it makes what I've said less relevant. I'll sum up what I'm saying point by point.

-ICD used to be awesome back when Ice was around.
-I was hoping ICD was still awesome and didn't need help to prove it.
-They got help whether solicited or not.

Quite frankly, I have a lot of respect for the history of ICD from my days playing this game before, and I have respect for someone like Crippler especially as I remember him as a really cool dude. I'm not trying to rag on ICD. I get that you're upset about being hit, but, objectively, it is just a game. :P

I wasn't playing a few sets ago, I played years ago when ICD was a great clan. I assumed that they could still fight their own battles. I'm not upset, times change after all.

Don't know about JAM, that's jcatron's tag AFAIK.

UncleFiat, yes, it's just a game, nothing personal at all. I honestly hope you don't take it personal that we hit you because it wasn't.

ICD used to be a tag that could offer their own tag protection. to be fair. I guess things changed over the years.

And objectively, CC isn't hippies, so why act like it? Obviously, giving 24 hours would have just been giving CC 24 hours to hit LoC as well. I get it, they're your friends, but can't you help them without virtue signalling and providing alternative facts like LoC being double the NW, etc?

Congratulations for not addressing my points, accusing me of using strawman arguments and ad hominem, then spending your entire post doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing. The difference? The only ad hominem I used was calling you a moron because, quite frankly, you are. Hell, I had to dumb down my language on your behest.

I did not set up a strawman, and I question if you even know what a strawman consists of. Your first reply to me in this thread was a strawman, for example. I'm just calling you out on not using the term socialist correct and I do the same when people misuse the word fascist. Why? Because it is intellectually dishonest to accuse someone of taking a certain stance, which you deem to be "deplorable", simply for having a different opinion then you. It is a tactic used far too often in society these days thanks to the followers of Alinsky that think labeling someone is the proper reaction to a different opinion. It squelches debate and creates a rift between the reasonable people and the unreasonable people. You, sir, are an unreasonable person, and I assume you use that tactic because you are incapable of constructing a clear, well-thought out, and logical argument since you have failed to present one here. Oh, and saying so is not ad hominem, unlike your post; rather, it is an observation made from what little coherence you have presented in this thread.

tldr; get on my level

Lol

"No it's not. Cite a source that states "socialist systems" are "by definition totalitarian". For a self proclaimed well studied academic on the topic of socialism, you seem to BS quite a bit."

George Reisman, for one. Although, you don't really need to cite a source to know it is totalitarian.


"Your general tone demonstrates how hell bent you are on arguing semantics and take a stance against practical and non-traditional non-academic usage of terminologies. It's your beef right now. Yet. socialism at it's core says nothing about totalitarianism. At it's core, it is an economic system. Now, you can find different philosophers who incorporate socioeconomic ideas to socialism, but socialism, at least in simple dictionary definition, at it's core is equitable sharing of resources for all. So tell me where "totalitarian" of socialism comes in, "by definition" too no less, professor."

My tone? Well, if I have a tone, ok, I'll be more colloquial... don't use words you don't understand as insults. "equitable sharing of resources for all"... extremely simplistic definition but if that is your view how can you not see it as totalitarian? Find me a way for this to be done without a gun or the threat of a gun behind it. None of that Marxist BS about how people will want a system like that "just because".

"Who said discussing a rule is socialist? I always referred back to Gerdler (cough clintonista). Gerdler's intentions were very much socialist in the principles he espouses and in the practical nature of his authoritarian tone. And that is excluding his past rant on "GDI for all" and all the other GDI based rants. I know a socialist when I see one."

Again, rules in an online game, not socialistic.


"At the heart of socialist philosophy is the concept of creating equal opportunity to succeed. Gerdler in his infinite wisdom, misguided by his recent butthurt, felt the playing field was somehow left unfair for players of his ilk. The game needed to be 'more fair'. To 'even the playing fields' some more in this highly unfair system that is currently in place. Rather than playing the game with the rules that were already established, and adapting to it, he wants changes made to enact "equitable treatment". When in reality, he just wants the game to fit a certain mold."

In fact, the game already offers equity, unless you play by a different set of rules than we do? Do you get 2 countries instead of one? Is this entire game an elaborate socialist ruse?? Come on now, not everything in life is socialist.

"In fact, authoritarianism predates written history.


Give examples where authoritarian regimes have existed before 'written history'."

Are you seriously trying to argue that point? Aristotle, Herodotus, and others all pointed to monarchs that existed in what would be known as pre-history. Egpyt is a prime example unless you consider hieroglyphs "written history".

"The idea that you make claim to knowledge and facts of something that is outside of recorded human history, in and of itself should smell funny even to the untrained eye. To argue on and on about semantics and ride on a high horse the entire time while you continue to make illogical and factually incorrect statements left and right is troubling."

The untrained eye, like yours, sure. But anyone who knows a knick about history knows that there was a long verbal succession of ideas and stories. Or did you think people couldn't talk before they could write? Do you think Homer just thought of his great epics out of nowhere?


"I mean, at this point it seems like you're pulling shyt out of your A to sound cool. But I very much would still like to 'learn' from you, what the oldest examples of authoritarianism is, pre-3XXX BC, a statement of facts backed by none other than no actual recorded history."

That period is considered "proto-history" but you're a moron, so I forgive you.

Edit: Also, what you're talking about is egalitarianism not socialism. Can't weaponize that word though can you?

Nobody posted that Stones is relevant, so that seems like an odd and off topic post to make.

Not directed at me but I agreed with him, so I think you are just using socialist in the wrong sense by just using it as an insult.

I do not think socialism is just an economic system, and I doubt that guy does. You are absolutely correct that in practice every socialist regime has been authoritarian, which stems from the fact that socialist systems are by definition totalitarian. However, discussing the rules of an online game is not socialism. Wanting an extra rule is not socialistic (again, I thought the rule should be taken out not added) either.

You are conflating your view on the outcomes of socialism to what socialistic systems are. That is the same as equating fascism to anti-Semitism because German fascism was anti-Semitic (despite the fact that nearly every other fascist regime with the exception of Islamofascism has been on a spectrum that included those who defended Jewish people, incorporated them, or, at least, were not violently racist against them). To actually call something socialistic, you would have to go to the roots of what socialism is which you are not doing. Authoritarianism existed long before socialism. You could argue a lot of Hobbesian principles, for example, influenced socialism, but you could not argue that Hobbes was a socialist. In fact, authoritarianism predates written history.

Now, for context, I am an ardent Libertarian who has been deeply influenced by Locke and believe in free market Capitalism, so you calling me a socialist based on one post that you misrepresented confounds me. As part of my studies, I've looked into socialism deeply and find it hard to even see your point of view. If you think that the rules of an online game are socialistic, then you must be absolutely unable to function in anything you do in life. Do you think Chess is a socialistic game? Poker? Are all games with rules (which is, by definition, EVERY game) socialistic? Are the very foundations of the physical universe socialistic because they follow an objective set of rules?

I was thinking that too. Haha.