Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 350 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Durga (781 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
HDV as default
I'm wondering if the mods would consider making HDV the default setting because no HDV is trash.
54 replies
Open
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Ideas for resistance
what should we be doing as WebDippers and internet citizens to combat creeping mod fascism?
14 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (75 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+6)
Trump to publish weekly list of crimes by immigrants
This will include crimes involving *legal* migrants, not just illegals. Does it feel like mid 1930s Germany yet, or what?
487 replies
Open
Matticus13 (1159 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
Odds on Trump Serving/Not Serving Full Term
Current odds on Trump being impeached/resigning: 11/10
Serving full term: 8/11

Hypothetical: You have to bet one. What's your money on?
53 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
30 Jan 17 UTC
Petition to make Hidden Draw Votes the Default Setting
See title.
13 replies
Open
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
Petition to ban petitions
1. Chaqa
2 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (75 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
Petition to ban petitions to ban petitions, but permit all others that are not spammy
1. Jamiet99uk
1 reply
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
25 Jan 17 UTC
(+8)
Unprecedented silencing of EPA, USDA, what is next
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
Our national parks are being blocked from posting climate change data? The USDA, EPA are being bullied? What is this gestapo fucking horse shot?
Page 19 of 19
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
swordsman3003 (9499 D Mod (G))
25 Jan 17 UTC
(+10)
The United States government is not bound by the assumptions of libertarian blowhards. If the constitution authorizes federal action, congress doesn't have to publish an essay in reason magazine explaining why natural law or whatever horse shit justifies the exercise of government power.

The federal government has run a postal service for centuries without turning the country communist.
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
25 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
"Private companies don't do research that wouldn't lead to profit. It comes down to money incentives, and I don't expect private entities to do this research without some guarantee of money from somewhere. SpaceX, for example, only exists because the government is willing to contract."

Private companies never have a guarantee that research will lead to profit, they usually conduct it because they believe odds are greater than not it will lead to profit, but there is always a chance it won't.Non-Profit organizations and charities exist to do the stuff that is more likely than not to not lead to a profit.

"The United States government is not bound by the assumptions of libertarian blowhards. If the constitution authorizes federal action, congress doesn't have to publish an essay in reason magazine explaining why natural law or whatever horse shit justifies the exercise of government power.

The federal government has run a postal service for centuries without turning the country communist."

It's most certainly not currently, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be and that those who run it can't self impose restrictions upon themselves rooted in natural law or whatever.
Praetorian72 (100 D)
25 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
I hope that I can build a bulwark of profits to safeguard my gated community once rising temperatures leave the rabble displaced and starving.
orathaic (1009 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
@Manwe Sullino, you said "So, it all boils down to whether our health and safety is in danger because of CO2 emissions or not, that's really all there is to it."

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It is very interesting, and i respect that.

However we clearly come from a very different perspective. You seem to believe that the US *should* act in ways which comform to some ideology (protecting her citizens).

Whereas, i believe that we should expect the US to act in the *national interest*.

Now it is entirely possible that my understanding of national interest is flawed, and that your globalised trade and comparative advantage is valid. But i don't think the power structures in the US want China advancing to become technologically superior. It may be a matter of pride, or security, or some combination of these. And i may be naive in saying this, but i don't believe the US will allow this to happen. Nor that they *should*. (Though my should is very different from yours - i am claimed the US as a power structure *should* act to preserve it's own power, because that is how power structures behave...)

And your arguement about comparative advantage ignores the grander strategic aspects of our global economy. The OPEC countries don't care about your theory/description of "how production of goods and services works". In their self-interest they act as monopolies. China will not care either, they have longer-term thinking (though a poor culture for strategy, apparently... ). China will act in its own interest, that may mean restricting the flow of raw resources to Japan/SK when China decides it is time to bring manufacturing internal and only ship more expensive processed parts to Japan/SK.

They will manipulate their currency, so they have an comparative advantage where none would exist with a freely floating currency. They will do whatever it takes. And i believe the US will do the same - just with a different culture of planning and strategy affecting the decision making...
orathaic (1009 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
@euturnage, you said "Look at the Internet. Think we would be where we are now if the government was directing the research?"

The research done on ARPANET, and the resulting common infrastructure, which is a commons. Is only now being fought over by corporations who wosh to commodify even more of it.

So yeah, we would certainly not be where we are today with only corporate research. No where near it. The internet as a system is big enough, and profitiable enough now to he taken over by private corporate interests (though the FCC has ruled against them due to huge public pressure in recent years... We'll see) So if it is only now, after decades of internet, and ~24 years of CERN's World Wide Web (which was freely available because it was not patented... Instead was given away for free - and spread because it was free... ) That corporations are seeing a profit in taking over that infrastructue.. Then no, i don't think we'd be here.
brainbomb (345 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
I love how these lunatics take radicalized absolutist interpretations of the constitution and claim American liberty is at stake. -nope-; sure aint
Randomizer (19 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
There used to be large corporation research labs that did pure research and didn't worry if it would become useful and profitable like AT&T's Bell Labs, IBM, PARC, …. But even those companies required their labs to concentrate on applied research to make their companies some real money over the last 20 or so years. It's pretty much come down government research and government grants to fund basic research that might never become profitable but might lead to interesting knowledge.
Randomizer (19 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
Trump claims he's going to go after vote fraud that prevents the news organizations from saying he won the popular vote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/kfile-mnuchin-voter-registration/index.html

Any chance Trump's going to withdraw nominations of Republicans that by his definition committed vote fraud? Nah because it doesn't count if a Republican did it.
orathaic (1009 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15A0DI
#resist
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
"@Manwe Sullino, you said "So, it all boils down to whether our health and safety is in danger because of CO2 emissions or not, that's really all there is to it."

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It is very interesting, and i respect that.

However we clearly come from a very different perspective. You seem to believe that the US *should* act in ways which comform to some ideology (protecting her citizens).

Whereas, i believe that we should expect the US to act in the *national interest*.

Now it is entirely possible that my understanding of national interest is flawed, and that your globalised trade and comparative advantage is valid. But i don't think the power structures in the US want China advancing to become technologically superior. It may be a matter of pride, or security, or some combination of these. And i may be naive in saying this, but i don't believe the US will allow this to happen. Nor that they *should*. (Though my should is very different from yours - i am claimed the US as a power structure *should* act to preserve it's own power, because that is how power structures behave...)

And your arguement about comparative advantage ignores the grander strategic aspects of our global economy. The OPEC countries don't care about your theory/description of "how production of goods and services works". In their self-interest they act as monopolies. China will not care either, they have longer-term thinking (though a poor culture for strategy, apparently... ). China will act in its own interest, that may mean restricting the flow of raw resources to Japan/SK when China decides it is time to bring manufacturing internal and only ship more expensive processed parts to Japan/SK.

They will manipulate their currency, so they have an comparative advantage where none would exist with a freely floating currency. They will do whatever it takes. And i believe the US will do the same - just with a different culture of planning and strategy affecting the decision making..."

Yeah, no problem. I actually work in Finance, and I specialize in the energy sector, so these are topics I am very familiar with. I'll try to address the new concerns you have brought up in order.

We probably do have differing opinions on how the U.S. federal government should operate. I identify as a libertarian. Contrary to popular belief though, that does not mean I don't want the government to do anything and just sit there, what I want is for the government to create all of its laws, policies, regulations, etc. in compliance with the Non-Agression Principle. If something violates the NAP, we can't pass it. If it is in compliance with the NAP, then we do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it should be implemented. Why is this? Because if something violates the NAP it violates human rights in my opinion. You seem to have the opinion the government should operate in what is in the best interest of the most people, a utilitarian approach, if I understand correctly. That is what is the popular belief among the public in general, the two sides (Republicans and Democrats) just disagree with what is in the best interest of the people.

In terms of China becoming technologically superior in renewable energy, you mention pride and security as areas of concern if this should happen. I can completely understand the pride side of it. Persoanlly, I don't care about being number 1 i everything, but I know that some people do and if they are one upped by China their pride could be hurt and this could then be a reason for attempting to beat China in renewable technology superiority that I didn't think of previously. Falling behind would in no way endanger our security, however. We need energy for three main things, electricity, heating, and fuel. We are completely independant in terms of electricity and heating, our coal and natural gas reserves are unmatched by anyone and could last us more than long enough for us to develop renewable technology in the event we needed to for some reason. For fuel we use oil to manufacture gasoline. We are almost self sufficient in oil production, the only country we might need to trade with to get enough oil for our consumption is Canada. So, security is not a concern for the foreseeable future.

Other countries actually care about comparative advantage as a reason for trade just as much as we do because producing what you are specialized in causes you to be as wealthy as you can be in terms of consumption. This is why OPEC makes oil, historically they have been the best at it. This is why Russia makes nuclear equipment, they are the best at it. This is why countries near the equator decide to focus on growing bananas, they are the best at it. It is in a country's own self-interest to specialize in what it has the comparative advantage in doing otherwise harms themselves. Currency manipulation, export/imports quotas and subsidies, tariffs, all of those things are designed to aid a small group of moving at the expense of a larger group of people while at the same time violating the NAP, so I think we both would agree that all of those things are bad. But they are not a reason to stop trading alltogether and to try to become compeletely independant in every good/service imaginable. It would be like finding a mansion on sale for $50,000 and passing it up because the door to one of the 3 kitchens had an ugly looking crack in it. Just fix the door. That's what the World Trade Organization is supposed to do, it limits the amount of corrupting influence governments can exert on the trade of their citizens, though it isn't perfect and hasn't solved every issue yet.,
orathaic (1009 D (B))
27 Jan 17 UTC
@"Falling behind would in no way endanger our security, however."

Thanks again Manwe.

When i say security, i'm not sure i was thinkin of energy security. (Bear in mind, i may be a little drink right now) imagine pride and security as one thing. When American is the best and most poweful, it feels safer. You are more secure if no-one would dare attack you. If you have the most powerful navy/army/navy/nuclear arsenal... Etc. And there is pride in being the best.

So take that pride, and imagine how attacking it feels like a threat to your national security.

At least i think that is what i meant. I know the 9/11 did have a big impact on American's feeling of invincibility. And the responce was immense. If a million Iraqis died because a Saudi orchastrated an attack from Afghanistan... When no Iraqis were involved in terrorism (apart from against their own people...)

Anyway, drunken me seems to be tangenting.

I guess i want to clarify, yes the OPEC countries are able to produce oil, but do you think that by trying control the production and effectively form a monopoly; do you think OPEC are violating the NAP (which you described). ie, is it ok for nationalised oil production to act as a global monopoly?

Seperately, i don't know that i'm particularily utilitarian. I mean, i believe that countries are bound to act in their self-interest... In order to be effective at being countries... What the *should* do on a moral level is irrelevant because countries are not moral agents. So i don't really personally identify as a utilitarian, even if what i have said countries *should* do might be interpreted as such.

But, as a libertarian, i might ask you. How should we protect human rights? Should countries abandon their own self-interest to promote human rights (on a global level)

Similarily with trade rules, how can we enforce global trade rules with (for example) China or OPEC, if they just act in short-term self-interest?
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
"@"Falling behind would in no way endanger our security, however."

Thanks again Manwe.

When i say security, i'm not sure i was thinkin of energy security. (Bear in mind, i may be a little drink right now) imagine pride and security as one thing. When American is the best and most poweful, it feels safer. You are more secure if no-one would dare attack you. If you have the most powerful navy/army/navy/nuclear arsenal... Etc. And there is pride in being the best.

So take that pride, and imagine how attacking it feels like a threat to your national security.

At least i think that is what i meant. I know the 9/11 did have a big impact on American's feeling of invincibility. And the responce was immense. If a million Iraqis died because a Saudi orchastrated an attack from Afghanistan... When no Iraqis were involved in terrorism (apart from against their own people...)

Anyway, drunken me seems to be tangenting."

Ok, that makes sense to me.


"I guess i want to clarify, yes the OPEC countries are able to produce oil, but do you think that by trying control the production and effectively form a monopoly; do you think OPEC are violating the NAP (which you described). ie, is it ok for nationalised oil production to act as a global monopoly?"

I think the only thing the government should be able to control in terms of the production of goods and services is food production (but not a monopoly on it), housing, and possibly education and healthcare. This is because government should only be involved in processes that ensure its citizens lives and property are protected. Having food provided at no cost ensures that you are able to survive even if all of the other citizens horde what food they have, and having a free place to live ensures your survival as well even if others are unwilling to share their space with you. Your life you are entitled to because you were born on the planet and no single person owns it so no one can tell you what to do with your life or prevent you from living o this planet. Your property you are entitled to because since the beginning of human kind we have distributed the finite resources of the planet on a first come first served basis with the ability to exchange what you have for something of someone else's, and this seems perfectly natural since no one claimed ownership of something before you first found/created it. Education and Healthcare are touchy subjects because they are purely human-made services that being born here doesn't necessarily entitle you to and having the government provide them to you would forcibly come at the expense of someone else.

As far as private monopolies go, they are fair game as per what I just stated about property rights. There's also the fact that consumers never would be forced to buy something from a monopoly, so the monopolist would lower their price if no one was buying their product. And other firms can sprout up and enter the market. Monopolies wouldn't be a problem as long as they were kept out of the food and housing markets. They may be a nuisance at times, but they wouldn't kill you (literally). So, that would mean oil could fall under the control of a monopolist, but it also could not. It isn't currently though, and the government isn't subsidizing American oil companies so they can provide oil in competition with OPEC, they've just done it themselves.


"But, as a libertarian, i might ask you. How should we protect human rights? Should countries abandon their own self-interest to promote human rights (on a global level)"

I think that human rights should be enforced by the U.N., even upon non-U.N. countries, although I'm sure that's probably a minority opinion, even among libertarians. So don't hold them to that haha.


"Similarily with trade rules, how can we enforce global trade rules with (for example) China or OPEC, if they just act in short-term self-interest?"

I believe there should be 100% free trade, so long as all countries are playing by the same rules. That means China is enforcing health and safety standards upon their manufacturers for instance. The WTO currently attempts to promote fair free trade among member nations, and I think they have been doing a pretty good job at it. If they could extend membership to every country of the world and work with the U.N. to enforce their rules, I think we'd be in a pretty good situation.

orathaic (1009 D (B))
27 Jan 17 UTC
Thanks again. I must say for a self-identified libertarian, you do sound a lot like a socialist in lots of ways.

Takes healthcare (in Ireland, whih has a messy set of compromises) the government provides a public system, and allows a private system to profit, anthe government subsidises the poorest people.

So you can get a medical card if your incone falls below a certain threshold, which entitles you to some free things, like doctors visits.

For most major things you can go to a public hospital and pay a nominal fee, but possibly wait for 6-12 months for some services (because demand outstrips supply)

Or if you can afford it (and/or have health insurance) you can go private and skip most waiting lists but pay the unsubsidised cost.

This is a mixed system, which i think you might approve of (in principle, in practice there may be some issues) and which i (as a self-identified socialist) don't think goes far enough.

So care to comment?

Smokey Gem (210 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/watch-waleed-aly-recounting-trumps-first-week-as-p/3daf581f-f886-4200-9803-ff412c009a83.htm

The rest of the world is watching and judging ..Impeach him if you can..or reap what you sow..
Smokey Gem (210 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
PS fair level trading hasnever and will never exist you cite OHS iisue re china wrokers ..How about raising Americam Minimum wage so peolpl arnt warking poor, health care has worked in many countries ..I am amazed at some of the ideals that are bligthly accepted as the most best current practice in and by Americans.. If the election was influenced by Russian/ Chinese governments then they got the result thye wanted.

America has never been at more risk of aleinating allies that have endured since the second world war..It looks like again the war was won but the peace may be lost..



orathaic (1009 D (B))
27 Jan 17 UTC
I was going to say something about trade being used as a tool of oppression... But really the best example is the Opium wars... And i can't imagine Manwe supporting such a thing
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
28 Jan 17 UTC
@orathaic
My beliefs in universal food and housing are unique to myself, they are by no means part of the libertarian's core ideology, though I wish they would be. They are the only ideas that I share with socialist ideology though, almost all of my other beliefs fall in line with the libertarians, though I would take a tougher stance on environmental protection than they do. My beliefs when you boil them down are to allow all individuals to have as much freedom and liberty as possible, so long as they don't oppress others. Hording the world's food and space would be doing so, so perhaps a little socialism (if you want to call it that) needs to be sprinkled in with the libertarian system to allow it to function properly.

@Smokey Gem
Wages should be completely up to the employer and the employee i my opinion, there shouldn't be a minimum wage. Well, how would people survive with no minimum wage, you may ask? They would be ensured free food and housing regardless of whether they had a job or not. Gaining a job would allow them to partake in obtaining some of the luxuries we have in life, like a nicer house, nicer food, a car, etc. If wages went too low for people to think they were worth it, employers would have to raise them to an acceptable level before they would be able to start getting people to take their job offers.
orathaic (1009 D (B))
29 Jan 17 UTC
@Manwe, you seem to support the redistribution of wealth to everyone to guarentee some minimum quality of life - lets say food, shelter, with a maybe on educaion and health care.

This is admirable, and in my opinion very socialist.

I presume you also support providing for public security (police/army), though you haven't said as much. (And if only for public safety, then it should be a peace-keeping army, not an offensive one... But i digress)

I believe in the necessity of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Which should cover a person's basic needs (but they can be provided by a market mechanism if is the most effective...) be they food, shelter, and/or health care, education.

I don't worship the market completely, but i think it can be a useful tool for providing some services. So i would consider myself a socialist with some pro-market sentiments.

But the UBI really does feel like a Libertarian dream. It frees every person to soend their basic income on mevessities, and then they can work, or volunteer or do whatever they want with the rest of their time. No wage slavery, no forced drudgery, etc. Maximum freedom... Of course it doesn't address some of the issues you raise, but it seems like an ideal to me (and with automation reducing the need for human labour, UBI becomes useul for preventing a revolution of the under-employed)
orathaic (1009 D (B))
29 Jan 17 UTC
@"Well, how would people survive with no minimum wage, you may ask? They would be ensured free food and housing regardless of whether they had a job or not. "

In some places without a government mandated minimum wage, there is a strong tradition of Unionization of workers, where each industry has a minimum wage agreement (in effect) on a per-industry basis.

Is that what you would consider a 'employer-employee' decided wage package?
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
"@Manwe, you seem to support the redistribution of wealth to everyone to guarentee some minimum quality of life - lets say food, shelter, with a maybe on educaion and health care.

This is admirable, and in my opinion very socialist.

I presume you also support providing for public security (police/army), though you haven't said as much. (And if only for public safety, then it should be a peace-keeping army, not an offensive one... But i digress)"

You're correct on all accounts.

"
I believe in the necessity of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Which should cover a person's basic needs (but they can be provided by a market mechanism if is the most effective...) be they food, shelter, and/or health care, education.

I don't worship the market completely, but i think it can be a useful tool for providing some services. So i would consider myself a socialist with some pro-market sentiments.

But the UBI really does feel like a Libertarian dream. It frees every person to soend their basic income on mevessities, and then they can work, or volunteer or do whatever they want with the rest of their time. No wage slavery, no forced drudgery, etc. Maximum freedom... Of course it doesn't address some of the issues you raise, but it seems like an ideal to me (and with automation reducing the need for human labour, UBI becomes useul for preventing a revolution of the under-employed)"

I have no problem with using UBI for the purpose of providing people with the basic necessities they need to survive. That could be as a good a mechanism for accomplishing it as any other.

"@"Well, how would people survive with no minimum wage, you may ask? They would be ensured free food and housing regardless of whether they had a job or not. "

In some places without a government mandated minimum wage, there is a strong tradition of Unionization of workers, where each industry has a minimum wage agreement (in effect) on a per-industry basis.

Is that what you would consider a 'employer-employee' decided wage package?"

Yeah, as long as all aspects of the negotiation process and everything is strictly between the employer and union, this is a perfectly fine way of getting wages set for a large number of people. An individual employee could negotiate with their employer for their own wage, but having a union do it for a large group of people is just fine as long as the government isn't involved in the process.


560 replies
fiedler (1293 D)
21 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
MAGA - what a great speech! Future looks bright.
Must be exciting to be an american today. Prosperity and optimism and winning are so much more fun than divisive bullying and globalist theft and war with russia. Plus Barron is hilarious. Glorious stuff! Good on you democracy.
69 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2369 D (B))
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Chat on mobile bug?
When I open the in-game messaging window on mobile (Chrome, iOS) my country messages have been "resetting" to a past (earlier) message spontaneously, forcing me to scroll down in the tiny chat window to read the latest message. Anyone else seeing this?
7 replies
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
10 Jan 17 UTC
(+15)
9 days sober
I feel different. Alot different. My anxiety is not as bad. I dont feel super angry
169 replies
Open
leon1122 (211 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Trump effort to defund sanctuary cities is a success!
Miami mayor has revoked the city's sanctuary status!

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article128984759.html
119 replies
Open
yavuzovic (247 D)
29 Jan 17 UTC
Why I cannot create a Known World 901 game at the moment?
There is not choice. Could online players look at the game creator?
3 replies
Open
Frothly (159 D)
29 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
US judge temporarily halts deportations due to Trump's executive order
The ruling prevented the removal from the US of people with approved refugee applications, valid visas, and "other individuals... legally authorized to enter the United States".
14 replies
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
Site feature request
I was wondering if one of the programmery type mods could go into the source code for my account, and create an auto mute for me for any thread that contains a letter string of "Tr".
21 replies
Open
Condescension (10 D X)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Hey, conservatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Literally everything you need to know about why your economic theory is bunk.
62 replies
Open
ghug (4034 D Mod (B))
03 Feb 15 UTC
(+15)
ADVERTISE YOUR LIVE GAMES HERE
Advertise your live games here and only here.
4300 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+7)
1v1 Showdown Stats
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DhYZtnNINPxREZGAVYY2vnFZtPPNmto180cUMNCJXfc/edit?usp=sharing

It's still very early on, but these will be updated as the 1v1 Showdown progresses.
28 replies
Open
Chumbles (959 D (S))
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Feeling Crumpled and Trumpled?
Then send out your gunboats abd rule the world: No in-game messaging, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring!

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=189779
3 replies
Open
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Trump using police to steal candy from babies
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! We can't let this stand.

#NoCandyForBabyTrump
67 replies
Open
dannystores (0 D X)
28 Jan 17 UTC
Apple iPhone 6S Plus – 64GB Unlocked == $500
Apple iPhone 6s Plus 128GB Unlocked == $520
Apple iPhone 6S Plus – 64GB Unlocked == $500
Apple iPhone 6S Plus – 16GB Unlocked == $470
Contact: jjconrow1(@)gmail.com
6 replies
Open
Hauta (1598 D (S))
27 Jan 17 UTC
Is Trump manipulating foreign currency markets?
Trump makes announcements that affect the Mexican Peso (usually negatively) and yet his financials are a mystery. Is it possible that he is personally trading on the markets that he can influence so much or am I being paranoid?
48 replies
Open
JamesYanik (548 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
DOOMSDAY IS HERE
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/doomsday-clock-countdown-2017.html?_r=0
7 replies
Open
goldfinger0303 (1954 D Mod)
26 Sep 16 UTC
(+13)
Announcing the 2016 WebDiplomacy World Cup!
Come one, come all! This storied tournament is a clash of nations, so gather your pride and some comrades in arms to show this site why YOUR Country/Region is better than the rest!
1290 replies
Open
WyattS14 (80 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
Gun boat classic game 16 hour phases
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=190232
0 replies
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
THa Govarnment is full of Jipsees, Tramps and Theieves
Prasident Tramp plans to is ban abba, jipsees and all origami from entering America. #Freedom yo
15 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
CIA and ongoing covil disturbance in the US...
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/seymour-hersh-blasts-media-for-uncritically-promoting-russian-hacking-story/

Tl;dr the CIA posted an opinion piece, the media incritically reported it as true.
23 replies
Open
Yoyoyozo (228 D Mod)
26 Jan 17 UTC
Yoyo live gunboat series.
Gunboat. 5min/phase. Every Sunday at 4pm CST. I'll post in this thread when a new game goes up, with in dept End of Game Analysis at the end, for open discussion. Post here or PM me to express interest.
29 replies
Open
djnogueira (197 D)
25 Jan 17 UTC
Last turn of a certain dead player can capture province?
Consider Autumn turn. A player has a single original supply center. His last unit is somewhere else.
His last supply center is captured. He will be dead when Fall begins. However, he is in a position where he can capture one of my many supply centers. Will I lose that supply center in the Fall if he moves to that providence?
6 replies
Open
principians (933 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
why is switzerland so rich?
First video in english of this channel, you might find it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLs5G4SPP4
2 replies
Open
Page 350 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top