AkemiAzula

Meanwhile here in the UK I eat my popcorn ala Jackson in the well known gif. O America thou shoudst hath seen at thy creation the light was in thine breast but thy oblivion was wrought through thine own determination

In Rome military service was compulsory. Methinks a return to the ways of the good old Empire might solve the problem of these silly parents.

What America needs is actual authoritarianism. The only thing that can stop greedy capitalists, motorists and bankers is a true dictator with real absolute command. But as I was born in Adelaide I can't be a candidate alas lol. Maybe the Queen should order an invasion from Canada and reclaim the colonies and give them a jolly good spanking. I mean I agree the tax on tea was a bad idea but come on... All they have managed to do since 1776 is become more immoral, less healthy, more polluting, more mentally unstable and in general rotten Slavery might be sensational and emotional for the tabloid boys but I sure reckon a few plantations were better than miles of urban sprawl, factories and mines etc To make a country great when it hath become a mess... Requires cleaning mess, not rearranging it. Sanders is the only half decent option you yanks have. If Hillary or Trump wins you are officially stupid and methinks you need to have your independence taken back from you.

I think girls are pretty. I think boys are ugly. As a boy I do not gain anything by feminist advances, but as a self loathing person and one who sees nothing of beauty or value in men I do not object to it. I think in half a century gender will cease to exist anyway. Feminine and masculine will just be styles of appearance and manner.

I am presently reading the diaries of a slave owning man with much privilege. You may be surpris'd to know that said gentleman is still honor'd in several places to this day. His name be George Washington. I think we can safely agree that it would be more trouble than it is worth to try to erase this gentleman from history. Unless you feel the American capital should be renamed Obama.

So at work I read the copy of the Daily Mail we are given and at Tumblr I often see this issue arise. Now that Sanders is gone my old cynicism hath return'd. Trump and Clinton are both establishment. I tend to like and reblog the 'reblog if you hate Trump' posts but honestly I hate them both. Your nation deserveth better, methinks, than such mutton. What unthinking puppets thou art to allow such stagnation. Or is the political system itself in need of change... We live in strange times, and I don't know what to believe in any more. But surely voting for the status quo is not going to help anything. At any rate I suggest to Americans to vote for a write-in. Might I suggest Firelord Azula, whose beautiful blue flames could turn thy national problems to ashes, and light up thy morale in a spark contain'd not by the bonds of tradition...

I can't help but think it would be nice to get a Tardis and go back in time and make it so that from the dawn of mankind there was a single nation, a single race and a single religion and language. Then found all the other nations, races and religions and languages on other inhabitable worlds. Then when they communicated in a extraterrestrial age of discovery instead of worrying our consciences over our past we would be able to have pure societies but also exist equally. Methinks multiculturalism is a problematic system. Each planet should be harmonious, and if it contains multiple cultures they should exist in a partitioned, balanced way like in Avatar/Legend of Korra. However as we have but one planet naturally for the time being compromise is necessary. I think maybe the best practical way to deal with the past is to treat it like childhood. The Romans were our school years, Nazism was a teenage phase etc. Instead of calling the past 'wrong' we should think of history as a student learning and experimenting. Certainly silly things like this Wilson issue strike me as being like not being able to get oversome stupid embarassing teenage lark.

I think the problem is we are confusing talent, effort and complexity of art with the function of art. Simple easily done things can be beautiful. Complexity can be ugly. Just because art work a is more technically difficult than art work b does not make it less worthy. But the financial aspect of art is like the music industry, and plenty of chaff sells. I do not think art is in a decline, nor do I think metal is any less artistic than Beethoven. But I will agree that the connection between financial success and quality of work is not perfect. A plain black canvas may be austerely beautiful but you would be right to say a child could mass produce such. With the digital age such flat art is so easy to create and print. I would not carve a grave stone for good art, but admit that there are rich people who should get a real job.

When playing SC I acted like a businessman and my cities turned a profit. Is a nation not similar to a city? And many an underused transit station was removed for the greater benefit, just as IRL.

Given the government is elected does distrusting the government not invaludate the concept of democracy? Are we thus distrusting ourselves, the people, and therefore admitting the people do not know best? Methinks only singularity can end this farce...

As an English citizen I shall naturally take part in the upcoming referendum. At work they have copies of the Daily Mail, a stupid populist emotional paper, or if you prefer, the Sun's father. A trifle more thoughtful but still rather stupid. As I work for Asda which is owned by Walmart I technically work for a US company. But naturally things like the minimum wage etc will affect Asda as much as Sainsburys etc. From what I do know or hear should we say my own situation is unlikely to get better or worse from Brexit. As a working class man I have no property, no wives, no cars etc. I have no power or weapons. I am just a slave working for his daily beer. So my vote will likely be one of idealism not practicality. Do I prefer the vision of a united Euroreich? Or a independent English Empire? Really I couldn't care less either way. I will probably vote for Brexit simply because I hate Cameron and he wants In to win. If Azula was PM and was backing In I would be an Inman.

Stella Artois Cidre

Strongbow.

Logically all you need is a period of notice prior to the election, and unless it is a premature one this would be as easy as notifying people when Christmas is. Then on the day you read the candidates statements and tick a box. The candidates should not be publically known until election day, nor are images of them of any worth. You are electing politicians, not actors and dancers. They should in their statement mention whatever interests them/their electorate. Thus you avoid lengthy debates. No candidate is allowed to spend a dollar campaigning and all candidates must keep their candidacy a secret until election day. At least that seems the best system to my mind.

Well imho the problems of dictatorship are purely challenges not obstacles, but certainly democracy works in a rough mongrelly way, never really achieving any particular vision for a nation but keeping the basic things flowing. However the UK is no wonderful angelic incorruptible land. Last night's Daily Mail had a piece on corruption in the civil service. Dictatorships may have yet to demonstrate economic success but what is the price we pay for economic success? Maybe Google and Apple and company are economically healthy but few would say our country is performing brilliantly. In a world economy with international finance nations lose their sovereignty. If a foreign land ceases supplying oil that affects our motorists. If a foreign trade deal collapses that affects our business. So the vitality provided by capitalist democracy is only effective when our trading partners shars these ideals. But once again just because some highly abstract figure like the gross domestic product is doing nicely does not indicate prosperity or happiness for the citizenry. I think a meritocracy or technocracy is better in this modern age. Give every idiot and bricklayer a vote and they'll vote to cheapen beer, shorten working hours and maintain the status quo with all its ugliness.

This is why important and nationally utilised infrastructure and resources should be in government hands. Free market capitalism gives business freedom but consumers get little. At the least there should be some limitations enacted to keep profiteering within more healthy levels.

Putting aside the inconvenience caused to the natives of the conquered lands of Africa, did not Mr Rhodes' colonial adventures contribute to the imperial wealth during the age of industrialisation, and hence help create the Britain of today? Consider the Americas. Say some leftist student got a Tardis and prevented the conquistadors from colonising that land, and prevented the other settlers such as at New Amsterdam et cetera, and thus allowed the native states to evolve for another four hundred years. Without the resources acquired through colonisation, and the industry provided through the triangular trading system, would industrialisation and hence modernisation have occurred? Could we have accessed these necessary resources peacefully through trade with native states that often were no angels themselves and quite warlike among their own? Was not colonial suppression necessary for the extraction of these resources? It is one thing to denounce a thing as unpleasant and unfair. Certainly I do not envy a slave or a displaced native. But tis quite another thing to suggest the 'perpetrators' were themselves guilty of wickedness. To suggest a thing is criminal, surely there must be a lawful alternative. In the case of the advantages gained through colonisation, was there ever such an alternative? Was not slavery and empire necessary to create the modern world? And if an alternative agreeable to the native states did exist, was it obvious at the time? I am cautiously of the opinion that colonising, war and indentured labour were necessary evils, and those in power and command no more wicked than a dentist. Unpleasant to the subject, but surely preferable to years of toothache (pre industrial life)?

I echo Terring's sentiments. However if such a project was done like Citybound with regular updates, good communication with supporters and so on then that would be good. I have always felt the main issue with most sim games is a rather narrow timeline regarding technological advances, social changes etc. It always feels a bit wrong to start a city on completely unused land in the modern day. Reading your kickstarter I do not wish to be negative but pictures are best had from launch. The anglais is a touch off, but if you show some actual development pictures then I am sure many will be interested. As it is I will not donate anything, but I may well chip in a bit if the kickstarter looks promising. At the moment the lack of any development images does somewhat remind me of Brandon Smith. Also maybe pictures of the team would help make it more convincing. Edit: Sorry I have just read your updates and see some dev pictures and you mention weekly updates. I will make my donation, knowing that unless the project succeeds and gains full donation there is no risk. I wish your team the best of luck with your project.

Why don't you just measure the national total of individual votes rather than doing it by state?

I always found culture and a person's communicative and intelligence levels more of a factor as regards strangers. I do not believe I have ever treated someone differently purely based on their color or ethnicity, though I admit to discriminating in the usual ways we all do and prefering some people to others. However language and communication are important. I tend to not trust or treat as a fellow those who are unintelligent or bad at communicating. I am myself not overly social but anyway... So a foreign person or someone from a non English speaking background I will not be able to treat equally, whatever I think of them. Whereas a fellow white male Briton even if I hate them I treat as an equal simply because I can communicate easily with them, there is no awkwardness and misunderstanding. But a chav or a labourer of my race I will treat as an inferior to an educated and eloquent foreigner. For me practical discrimination (as opposed to ideal discrimination, what people I like more) is largely based on whether I can easily communicate with a person and whether I can be myself (or who I pretend to be) without awkward cultural issues. I met a black girl from Toronto once and we discussed housing affordability and urban planning. At the time my neighbours were all fellow poor whites and were smoking weed playing Call of Duty and getting laid. So definitely for me I discriminate more on individual characteristics than race. I believe in meritocracy as being the rational secular modern way. But really I think this Oscar thing is a silly fuss. But maybe I should check my privilege. However I am white and I doubt I will ever be a Hollywood star lol

I think scientifically speaking no race is to any great degree superior or inferior to another, whereas some cultures could be argued to have more virtues than others. However discrimination itself is natural and healthy. I would consider a fit and pretty black girl with a degree superior to an overweight layabout white man. But a strong and respectably attired white man with a degree would be superior to a unhealthy and uneducated black person. Character, or judging based on ones virtues or perceived virtues of behaviour, is a more acceptable and pc form of discrimination. Do we not practice discrimination by placing criminals in jails and letting law abiders live freely? The problem with acting and entertainment is that it is not an industry like mining or retail or farming where what matters is your attitude and knowledge. We want to see pretty actresses and well dressed men, not everyday Joes who we wouldn't be surprised to see working at Walmart. But there are plenty of black people who are good actors. However it seems silly to complain they only make up a percentage of nominations. That is unless there is reason to suspect bias was involved. I have only seen one film this year so do not know how many performances were by other ethnicities than whites but in The Force Awakens the stormtrooper Finn was acted well, so if Rey is nominated I am sure he will be too. Another thing is that all acting is good these days. Too good even, it becomes almost unrealistically precise. Few films on the big screen are not profesional and well made. So I presume the percentage is because there are more whites in the industry, or happened to be in the better films. At any rate I agree it is silly to judge someone on their ethnicity, though I think discrimination itself is healthy and normal.

If I was an American I think I would toss a penny on the day for Trump or Sanders. I joined Labour because of Corbyn but if I was well off and didn't have to be a leftist Trump's egotistical nationalism would appeal to me. However if he is cosier with the establishment than he makes himself out to be... But Hillary is pathetic. If all the candidates were like her I would probably vote for Bart Simpson or Darth Vader...

Coffee Trying to cut down from four cans of beer a day to two. The fact they are getting rid of the vending machines at work won't improve my health. Vegemite and bread and pasties it shall be. I am not averse to vegetables. If Hitler became Prime Minuster and banned meat and ale I would not resist his wisdom, and I know he is right. But in these dark times beer and meat are the drugs us paupers of Walmart do turneth to.

The thing is that violence, domination, ambition etc are one thing. But what is to stop a lady in heels and with lipstick who likes drinking tea and painting from taking up a sword and conquering swathes of land? Masculinity and femininity are as useful at defining a person as whether you live in the northern or southern hemisphere. I think most of gender identity or rather polarised identity comes from social influence rather than genes and hormones. If you grow up in a traditional family you will associate soldiers with your father and cooks with your mother. The problem is that individuality can be seen as a societal problem. But I do not think such rigidity will carry on in a world ever more inclined to the individual rather than the set.

I liked the story of Ragnarok but I think I should write my own bible. I am too creative to follow any existing mythology. Yet my gods have names like Odin and Isis. I could cherry pick ideas from all mythologies and construct a pretty bible saga. The problem is I would enjoy it for its own sake and possibly make my heroes and gods rather too human. If we take religion at its word then that is one thing but if we consider mythology just a way to teach morality and cultural values then it might be wise not to put too much faith in stories written long ago by men with motivations. For, if no bible existed, if no gods were spoken of, would not murder and rape and torture still be thought of as 'bad'? Morality requireth no magical dimension to justify it.